A dispute going back at least as far as the 13th century regarding exactly which of the words in the Consecration of the Wine printed in the Roman Missal are absolutely required for the validity of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and, perforce, for the validity of the Mass itself, has never been settled definitively by the Church. This unresolved issue we call "the short form versus the entire form" controversy.

The defenders of the "short form" position hold that these words alone by themselves, "This is the chalice of My blood," or else "This is My blood" (which are the first few words of the sacramental form in many of the Oriental liturgies) suffice for the valid consecration of the Precious Blood. They claim that the remaining words of the sacramental form, namely, "of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins," although being a part of the form handed down in the Latin Rite, are nevertheless not necessary for validity. The defenders of the "entire form" position deny the foregoing supposition, asserting that (with the exception of the word "enim"), all the words of the sacramental form for the wine-consecration, exactly as laid down in bold print in Missale Romanum, are absolutely necessary for bringing about the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and therefore essential for the celebration of a valid Mass.

A most weighty authority supporting the "entire form" adherents is a preceptive passage contained in Part V of De Defectibus in Celebratione Missarum Occurrentibus, which is incorporated in the official rubrics accompanying the Roman Missal. In his Bull Quo Primum (1570) Pope St. Pius V ordered that this Missal be used in the Latin Rite "in perpetuity," and the aforementioned "De Defectibus" always appears in the introductory pages of legitimate altar missals. This salient passage from Part V of De Defectibus reads thus:

The words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: Hoc est enim corpus meum. And: Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Now if one were to omit, or to change anything in the form of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of the words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the Sacrament. If in fact he were to add something that did not change the meaning, it is true he would consecrate, but he would sin gravely.'

This precept begins by setting forth the consecration form in its entirety. It then warns that if anything (aliquid) in this form just defined should be altered in any way whatsoever involving a change in meaning of the originally specified words, then the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist containing the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ would not be produced, and hence the priest-celebrant would celebrate no Mass at all. De Defectibus does not single out the introductory words of the form, "This is the chalice of my blood," and state that if only those words are changed in meaning the consecration is invalid. It therefore is evident that this official injunction in Missale Romanum supports the "entire form" position and implicitly denies the claim of the "short form" apologists.

As it would appear that De Defectibus is part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, its authority is on a level well above that of the speculative opinions advanced by various theologians. Although one cannot claim the passage cited from De Defectibus is a definition by the Church on this matter, nevertheless it is certain from it that the "Mind of the Church" is that the entire form must be treated as though it is all essential, inasmuch as the penalty of mortal sin attaches to anyone who would dare to add something to the form, even though the addition would not nullify or interfere with the meaning of anything contained in the given proper form.

A thorough and unbiased discussion of the "short form versus entire form" controversy is presented by Emmanuel Doronzo, O.M.I., Professor of Dogmatic Theology at Catholic University, Washington, D.C., in his work Tractatus Dogmaticus DE EUCHARISTIA, Tom. I De Sacramento, Bruce, Milwaukee, 1947. His airing of the controversy is on pp. 150-161, being Article 10 entitled "Whether Among the Words of Our Lord in the Latin Form of Consecration Only These Pertain to the Essence of the Sacramental Form: 'This Is My Body, This Is My Blood'." The author begins with a section entitled Status Quaestionis, which includes this sound admonition: "By no means must this controversy be deemed to be an idle one, but rather it must be diligently attended to by the theologian 'lest most shameful sins be committed by consecrating priests through ignorance of the form,' as the Catechism of the Council of Trent warns (Part II, Chap. 4, Q. 19)."

Doronzo next discusses Pars Negativa (the negative position which denies the short form is sufficient for validity) and the Pars Affirmativa, (which affirms that the short form, "This is My Blood," suffices for validity). Many theologians are cited on both sides, and the various arguments of each are presented along with the counter-arguments by the opposing side. On page 161 Doronzo summarizes his exposition as follows:

"Having considered all these foregoing arguments, WE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION: The authority of the Catechism of the Council of Trent and of St. Thomas strongly moves us to judge that the Negative Opinion [which denies that the short form suffices] is the more probable. However, since in the opinion of so many theologians, especially 'Thomists,' the mind of St. Thomas, which the authors of the Catechism [of the Council of Trent] evidently intend to follow, is not clearly evident, we do not venture to deem one of the opinions more probable than the other, but we judge both to be equally probable."

When a theological opinion is said to be probable, it must not be thought that this means "probable" in the ordinary sense of the word; that is, more than likely to be true. A theologically probable opinion is simply one that has sound reasons behind it and is espoused by theologians of high repute, but which lacks theological certainty and cannot be claimed to be certain. This explains why commentators (e.g., St. Alphonsus, Doronzo, etc.) are able to state that two diametrically opposed opinions are "equally probable," meaning not that both are equally likely to be true, but only that both have sound theological foundations and numerous reputable theologians as adherents.

Until the late 1960's the controversy we have been discussing, although extremely important and demanding diligent attention (as Doronzo wisely observed in the passage cited earlier), was nevertheless of academic or theoretical interest only, because in practice all Latin Rite priests knew -- and should still know -- that the entire wine-consecration form exactly as laid down in the Roman Missal of Pope St. Pius V must be used without any alteration. To fail to do so would be mortally sinful. Moreover such a failure to use the prescribed form in its entirety would probably result (if we realistically acknowledge the considered probability of a very sound theological opinion) in failing to consecrate the Holy Eucharist and consequently invalidating the "Mass" supposedly being celebrated.

But around 1967-68 this controversy became overnight a most serious one and no longer a matter of academic interest only, due to the introduction of the vernacularized liturgies in almost every country in the world. Practically all of these new "Masses" in those various and multitudinous vernacular tongues suffered a change of wording in the sacramental form for the wine-consecration -- a change involving a mutilation of meaning. In most of the vernacularized versions the concluding words of the form, "pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum," were not translated correctly from the canonized Latin text. The correct and literal translation into English is: "shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins." Instead it was rendered as "shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven."

This innovation is more than just a mistranslation. It is a forgery, a falsification of the words spoken by Our Lord, as recorded in Holy Scripture, when He instituted the Sacrament of the Altar at the Last Supper. Much higher stakes now came into play surrounding the controversy about whether or not these words, correctly translated, are part of the form essential for validity. The matter ceased to be of "academic interest" only. Because there and then we became confronted with a deliberate and premeditated change in meaning of the established and proper form of the Sacrament -- a change occurring in those words which many esteemed and reputable theologians over the centuries capably argued are necessary for the validity of the Mass. Yes, infinitely greater stakes! The continued widespread existence of the Holy Mass in the western Latin Rite became jeopardized.

However, after the question was publicly raised concerning the possible invalidity of "Masses" using the all-English Canon (which was introduced in the United States on October 22, 1967) -- the case being based on its aforesaid vitiated wine-consecration form containing the falsified "for you and for all men, etc." and the implications thereof--, many writers, chiefly "conservatives" and "traditionalists," chose straightaway to defend vehemently the validity of the English "Masses" using this despoiled "consecration form." Most of these Adversarii resorted to the argument that it is the common opinion among present-day theologians that the mere words, "This is the chalice of My blood," are the only words of the form that are absolutely essential for the validity of the Sacrament.

In other words the "short form" position, a mere theological opinion, which Doronzo had termed the "Pars Affirmativa" on the centuries-old controversy, was assumed to be automatically correct, veritably an infallible dogma. Since the falsified words, "for all men so that sins may be forgiven," occur in the concluding part of the form, which (so they allege) is a nonessential part anyway, such a change from the proper and certainly valid "for many unto the remission of sins" could not possibly affect the validity. So goes the argument of the Adversarii.

An important point I would stress now is that the controversy concerning exactly which words of the wine-consecration are absolutely essential for validity clearly cannot be settled definitively simply by appealing to the authority of this or that theologian. If it is ever to be settled at all, nothing short of a definition by the infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church (not The Robber Church) will suffice.

There are many other introductory "background" points that need to be covered. We must furnish some concrete examples that reveal the calibre of scholarship of the Adversarii. However, this present section comprises a brief digression from our main theme, in order to examine yet one more desperate effort by The Robber Church (whose miscreants are not to be confused with our sincere but lamentably ignorant and, therefore, reckless Adversarii). That it would happen was almost predictable with certainty and, yes, eventually The Robber Church did make its belated attempt to torpedo one of the most authoritative and devastating bulwarks of our invalidity thesis, namely, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, also known as the Roman Catechism.

A new English "translation" of the Roman Catechism appeared in 1984, which date is quite appropriate inasmuch as parts of this opus are written in Orwellian "Newspeak". In the first place, there was no genuine need at all for a new translation, because those many earlier editions translated by Dr. Jeremy Donovan and the later version by the Dominican scholars John McHugh and Charles Callan (not to mention the first English translation printed at London in 1687) all are first-rate, very clearly expressed in elegant English prose and, with a very few notable exceptions in several places, entirely faithful to the Latin text.

Nevertheless The Robber Church, for unmistakable reasons my present readers will easily discern, did find it necessary to retranslate -- rather rewrite -- certain parts. The new work is entitled simply (and erroneously) The Roman Catechism; and it is subtitled, "Translated and Annotated in Accord with Vatican II and Post-Conciliar Documents and the New Code of Canon Law". Published by St. Paul Editions, Boston, the "translators" are Robert I. Bradley, S.J., and Msgr. Eugene Kevane. A laudatory "Presentation" written by Cardinal Oddi graces its introductory pages.

Let us examine a few excerpts from this 1984 "Orwellian" edition of the Roman Catechism.

The earlier translators McHugh & Callan render quite correctly and fluently the following passage from Part II, Chap. I, Q. XVII: "In this the Sacraments of the New Law excel those of the Old that, as far as we know, there was no definite form of administering the latter, and hence they were very uncertain and obscure. In our Sacraments, on the contrary, the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it, renders the Sacrament null, ..." (Emphasis added).

Here is the Robbers' Newspeak version of this text: "In this regard the sacraments of the New Law far excell [sic] those of the Old. There was, as far as we know, no definite form for administering the sacraments of the Old Testament; and because of this they remained very uncertain and obscure. Under the New Law, however, the verbal form is so important ["praescriptam" means prescribed, or "definite" as McHugh & Callan render it; not "important"] that its omission -- even if accidental -- renders the sacrament null." (Emphasis added).

The Roman Catechism was not written for kindergartners. Imagine its erudite 16th-century authors supposedly informing parish priests (for whom the Catechism was primarily written) that in effectuating a sacrament the sacramental form is not to be omitted! (The Latin 'ab ea discedatur' means 'departed from' or 'deviated from,' as McHugh & Callan correctly so translate). The phrase, "even if accidental," makes it sound even more ridiculous, as though any sane priest would accidentally omit the entire form. What comes through here is that all those Robber Church priests -- correction: "Presidents of the Assembly of the People of God" -- had better not forget to say something!

Now there is a certain passage in the Roman Catechism that most convincingly damns the purported authenticity of the phony "for all men" mutilation and annihilates all claims for its validity. It is that well known passage that explicitly condemns the wording, "for all men," as being destructive of the correct theological meaning in this place in the sacramental form, and therefore categorically unacceptable. The slightly different renderings of this passage by Donovan and by McHugh & Callan are both quite competently penned and, of course, representative of the correct meaning of the original Latin text. However, what is reproduced below is the equally excellent version that appears on page 207 of the very first English translation of the Catechism, published at London in 1687, under the Catholic King James II.

'When therefore He said, "For you," He signifi'd either them that were then present, or those whom He had chosen out of the Jewish people, such as were His Disciples, except Judas, with whom He spake. But when He added, "For many," He would have the rest that were elected, either Jews or Gentiles to be understood. Rightly therefore was it done, that it was not said "for all," seeing that in this place the design of the discourse extends only to the fruits of the Passion, which brought the Fruit of Salvation only to the Elect.'

The Robber Catechism's version of the above-cited passage reads thus: "When, therefore, he said, 'for you,' he meant those only who were present at the Supper except Judas; or he may also have meant all the disciples whom he had chosen along with the Twelve. And when he added, 'for many,' he was including all the other elect from among the Jews and the Gentiles until the end of time. The alternative expression, 'for all,' was properly omitted, because here it is only the fruit of the Passion which is spoken of; and for the elect only does the Passion bear the fruit of salvation."

Observe how they euphemistically term the wording for all an "alternative expression," one that was simply "properly omitted," rather than one expressly rejected by Our Lord. Rightly therefore did Jesus not say 'for all'! is what the Catechism states. Do Catholics speak about possible alternatives for Divinely spoken words? Furthermore "for all" was not, in point of fact, "omitted" at all, because it was never there in the first place.

And lo! We even find a footnote subjoined to this carnage wreaked upon the Roman Catechism. Verily the pièce de résistance:

"This disjunction in meaning between 'many' and 'all,' although valid on the terms of the theological distinction made in the text, is unnecessary on purely philological and historical terms."

[Unnecessary? It is absolutely necessary to make the clear distinction between 'many' and 'all.' 'Disjunction' is their slippery word that avoids saying that these two words 'many' and 'all' are directly related correspondingly to the two different ideas in the "theological distinction' to which they refer. 'All' is wrong not only on 'philological and historical terms,' but also, more importantly, theologically; and finally, most importantly, because it is not what Our Lord said].

Continuing, then, with the footnote:

"The 'polloi' of the original New Testament text means both 'many' and 'all' interchangeably. Taken as an exact equivalent of that Greek word, the Latin 'multi' can -- and should -- convey both senses. And therefore both equivalents in English, 'many' and 'all,' are justified."

Apparently these new Robbers have now abandoned the original ploy, which was to try to justify the bogus 'for all' on the basis of an ambiguity or peculiarity allegedly inherent in the Aramaic language. With good reason do they abandon it, for when that deceitful manoeuvre by the International Committee on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) came to light, it was exposed as the colossal fraud that it most plainly and assuredly is. This new generation of Robbers now tries to justify the bogus words "for all" by alleging a supposed peculiarity in the Greek language, which is a complete turnabout, as we shall now see.

In the course of their prevaricating "explanation" of the phony Aramaic language business, the ICEL Robbers did manage to admit (and in this they were correct) that in the Greek as well as in the Latin the word in question does in fact mean "many" rather than "all". Moreover, to substantiate this they even quoted their guru, the late Dr. Joachim Jeremias, who stated quite clearly and correctly: "While 'many' in Greek (as in English) stands in opposition to 'all', and therefore has the exclusive sense ('many, but not all') ... etc."

But now we find these erudite translators of the 1984 "Roman Catechism" (so-called) forswearing the true doctrine of their ICEL forebears (on one of the few occasions those chronic crooks were actually truthful), by now turning around 180 degrees and claiming that the Greek word 'polloi' means "both [their emphasis] 'many' and 'all' interchangeably" and therefore "the Latin 'multi' can -- and should -- convey both senses." "And," in conclusion, "therefore both equivalents in English, 'many' and 'all,' [which are not equivalents at all, but contrary concepts] are justified"! Those pesky Robbers -- foiled earlier and proved to be liars on the "Aramaic hoax," and now again foiled on the "Greek hoax," this time in advance by the 1968 testimony of the ICEL itself. We eagerly await the next installment.

Said Doronzo: "The Negative Position [i.e., the 'entire form' position] is taught by the majority of theologians and Thomists up to the Council of Trent, and afterwards by very many ('a pluribus'), Thomists as well as non-Thomists." Moreover the Salmanticenses remarked, "All the earlier Thomists up to Cajetan, who rejected it, taught the same [i.e., the 'entire form' position] unanimously."

Apparently therefore it was Cajetan, Tommaso De Vio Gaetani, baptized Giacomo (1469-1534), a Dominican cardinal, who was the first "Thomist" to oppose the mind of St. Thomas on this matter. Cajetan had been called a "lamp of the Church" by Pope Clement VII, and it was said that he could quote almost the entire Summa of St. Thomas from memory. Now, in his commentaries on the Summa, Cajetan contradicted the teaching of the Angelic Doctor by emphatically declaring that for the consecration of the Precious Blood nothing more is required than these four words: "This is my blood." ("Inveniemus non esse necessaria ad consecrationem sanguinis nisi quatuor verba haec, 'Hic est sanguis meus'.") Continuing with excessive self-assurance, he asserted: "Although Scotus and many others doubt this is true, it seems to me that there is no basis for doubting it to be probable; but it must be considered as beyond question, as I have said." (Emphasis added).

This opinion of Cajetan's appeared in the edition of his "Commentaries" published at Venice in 1533. But subsequently the Sovereign Pontiff St. Pius V, also a Dominican, proved to be one of those who certainly did not consider Cajetan's opinion to be "beyond question," for when he authorized Cajetan's commentaries to be published in a Roman edition in 1570 he also explicitly commanded this particular opinion to be expurgated! As Cardinal Capisuccus notes, "They are in error who try to maintain that this was expurgated only because Cajetan downgraded St. Thomas's opinion too much. For Cajetan here does not merely downgrade the opinion of St. Thomas; he departs from it. Just as he departs from him on other matters, but those other divergences were not ordered to be dropped from the Roman edition. It is evident that Pope Pius V did not agree with this opinion of Cajetan [the one which he expunged]."

John De Lugo (1583-1660), the noted Spanish Jesuit and Cardinal, and an adamant "short form" promoter, once claimed to have come across some previously used Maronite Catholic liturgies that employed only the words "This is My Blood" as the complete form for the wine-consecration. He argued that the very existence of such liturgies proves beyond doubt that the "short form" opinion is not just probable, but certain. In a word, he claimed in effect that by his discovery of those "short form" liturgies the controversy now had been settled once and for all.

Even today some persons still cite the De Lugo "findings" as "proof" that the short form, 'This is My blood,' is sufficient for validity. Such persons are apparently unaware that De Lugo's evidence is now of historical interest only as a noble but futile effort, for even in his own day it was weighed and analyzed and thoroughly rejected by many of his contemporaries. Perhaps the best and most thoroughly devastating rebuttal was made by the renowned 17th-century Thomists of Salamanca, Spain, that group of learned Discalced Carmelites known as the Salmanticenses, who showed that the De Lugo findings consisted of either spurious liturgies or liturgies used by schismatics and/or heretics, which fact automatically disqualifies them as credible evidence.

Every person who thinks he knows something about the "pro multis" invalidity issue and the "short form versus entire form" controversy should at least realize that De Lugo surely did not settle and could not possibly have settled the matter once and for all; for if he had, then recent experts, such as Doronzo in 1947, would not have still been writing on this issue as an open question.

Now a quite remarkable aspect of the Salmanticenses' writings is that although they poured forth from the pens of many different Carmelite Thomists over a period of nearly a century, they do not contain a single self-contradiction.

Back in 1976, Father Lawrence S. Brey translated the Salmanticenses' entire disputation against De Lugo, which comprises sections 30-32 of Disp. IX, dub. 3 of Cursus Theologicus, Vol. XVIII, 'De Eucharistiae Sacramento,' from the edition published at Paris, 1882. This translation, the first (and only) ever made into English, was published in The Remnant, issue of July 31, 1976, pages 8-12, under the title, "The Salmanticenses' Response To De Lugo On The Form Of Consecration Of The Wine". No scholar or even casual student of the "pro multis" invalidity issue should fail to read and thoroughly digest this most comprehensive and brilliant polemical treatise, so capably and faithfully translated by our intrepid and illustrious Father Lawrence S. Brey.

Very many great theologians, including Saints, Popes and Doctors of the Church, have claimed that the words "This is (the chalice of) My blood," alone by themselves, are not sufficient for the validity of the wine-consecration, but that the entire form including "for you and for many unto the remission of sins" is absolutely essential.

Among these "Pars Negativa" exponents we may include St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Antoninus, Pope St. Pius V, Pope Innocent III, the authors of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Cardinal Raymond Capisuccus, O.P., those brilliant Thomists, the renowned Discalced Carmelites of Salamanca known as the Salmanticenses, Herveus, Capreolus, Sylvester, Tabiena, Armilla, Peter de Soto, Viguerius, Bartholomeus Spina, Arauxo, Marcus Huertos, John Nicolai, Gonet, John Vincent Asturicensis, John Gonzalez, N. Franciscus, Thomas Argentina, Richardus, N. Philippus, N. Cornejo, John Gerson, Aegidius Columna, Andrew Victorellus, Lorca, Thomas Hurtado, Pasqualigo, Petrus de Palude, Henry Henriquez, S.J., Francis Amicus, S.J., John of Freiburg, Jacobus de Graffiis, O.S.B., F. Macedo, O.M., and Père Maurice de la Taille, S.J.

THEREFORE, the entire form is absolutely necessary for validity, and the words "This is My blood" alone do not suffice. This is proved conclusively by the authority of the theologians just named.

The claim in the last sentence of the above paragraph is absurd! It does not in the least represent my view, nor that of anyone I know. Although the comprehensive list of authorities I presented is quite accurate, everyone must realize by now that even if I had cited 10,000 theologians, that would still not settle the issue definitively. Because the one and only ultimate verdict, namely, "Roma locuta est; Causa finita est," remains lacking. This matter can be conclusively resolved only by our Holy Mother the Church. The Adversarii (many of whom have "settled" the matter for their readers so self-confidently and so facilely) would do well to keep this fact in mind.

One of the early Adversarii, Father Daniel Lyons, S.J., was able to settle the matter conclusively for the readers of Twin Circle (Jan. 4, 1970). He wrote: "The translation of the consecration of the Precious Blood as 'all men' is perfectly valid. The matter has been checked out theologically. ... One good source is an old but very scholarly manual of Dogmatic Theology, more rigorous than many modern treatises. ... Fr. Tanquerey says that for validity...these words are sufficient: 'Hoc est corpus meum. Hic est calix sanguinis mei'." So! We can all rest easily now; there is no problem; Tanquerey has spoken. And Father Lyons has ratified!

To attempt thus to settle that centuries-old controversy by appealing to a single theologian bespeaks a deplorable and culpable ignorance and an incredible temerity. Moreover Fr. Lyons's alleged "facts" are even in error. Here is what Tanquerey actually says in his Brevior Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae: "It is certain (Certum est) that for the valid consecration of the bread the words of Christ are required: 'This is my body'; and for the consecration of the wine the words: 'This is the chalice of my blood'; or 'This is my blood'."

What Tanquerey is saying here is that it is certain that at least those words are essential, not that they alone suffice. Which is evident from what he says next: "There is a dispute as to whether the words: 'of the new and eternal testament...etc.' are required for a valid consecration. Many of the Thomists say that they are required because...etc. Other theologians say that they are not required because...etc."

And again Tanquerey: "For the valid consecration of the blood of Christ; the words 'this is the chalice of my blood' or 'this is my blood' are required; rather, with much probability they are sufficient. In practice, however, the form, as it is in the Missal, must always be pronounced; for when validity is at stake, the safer opinion must be followed."

Writing in The Remnant (15 Feb. 1971), the late Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand gave his readers this simplistic soporific: "since a great many theologians (among them the Franciscan Duns Scotus) had stated that the strictly essential words for the validity of the Consecration are, 'This is My Body' and 'This is My Blood,' we need not worry about the validity." So! Now we have Scotus and von Hildebrand finally deciding the matter. All our worries are over. For the Adversarii it is all such a simple matter!

Scotus? John Duns Scotus, the Franciscans' eminent "Subtle Doctor"?? Quite to the contrary, Scotus did not advance the "short form" theory. In fact, one of the noted "short form" exponents, the redoubtable Suarez (disp. 60, sect. 1, n. 3), in referring to the contrary doctrine of St. Thomas that the entire form is necessary, admitted: "This teaching [i.e., that the short form does not suffice] is very probable and of great authority [i.e., St. Thomas and the Roman Catechism, et al.] and Scotus himself did not venture to contradict it, but left it as a doubtful matter." The reason Suarez remarks that "Scotus himself" did not dare to contradict St. Thomas on this matter is that Scotus was notorious for so very frequently impugning the Angelic Doctor, choosing exactly the opposite opinion.

Most of the reputable theologians of the past who advanced the "short form" opinion were honest enough and careful enough to point out that their opinion is only "probable," and that the opposite view has great weight. Thus, for example, Suarez, who held the "short form" position, conceded that the "entire form" opinion contrary to his is very probable and of great authority ("Haec opinio est valde probabilis, et magnae auctoritatis").

But some of our present-day Adversarii adopt a completely different attitude, as is indicated in the examples just given. Now that the matter has become one of clear and present danger -- that is, now that we are faced with a "consecration form" (so-called) that actually contains a mutilation in the mooted final words--, they vehemently insist on its validity, superficially and temerariously citing as "conclusive proof" speculative opinions of a few theologians of far lesser authority than St. Thomas, who moreover (as we have seen) do not even hold those opinions our pitiable Adversarii so ignorantly ascribe to them!

I have in my files a four-page document entitled, "Two Letters of Father Forrest Concerning The English Mass". It contains excerpts from some personal correspondence of the late Father Michael D. Forrest, M.S.C., to a Mr. Chester D. Mann of Tustin, California. Here are several of Fr. Forrest's statements:

(1) "As to the All-English Canon now used in this country ... However, defective and bad as the translation of the Canon is, I emphatically defend that it does not invalidate the Mass."

(2) "The entire valid form of consecration is simply: 'This is My Body; this is My Blood,' or 'this is the chalice (cup) of My Blood'." (Underscoring in Fr. Forrest's original letter).

(3) "No, Chester, you can be sure that Mass celebrated according to the new badly worded Canon is VALID." (Emphasis is Fr. Forrest's).

(4) "However, this is my definite view: It is morally certain [my emphasis] that the only essential [Fr. Forrest's underscoring] form of consecration are the words: Hoc est corpus meum; hic est sanguis meus."

(5) "When I was teaching theology (long ago in Australia), I had at my disposal a magnificent library. I treasured two large, pig-skin covered volumes of Cardinal John de Lugo ... (who) stoutly defended that the only essential form of consecration of the wine is HIC EST SANGUIS MEUS, and he appealed prolifically in abundant quotations to numerous Liturgies [many of which were proved conclusively by the Salmanticenses to be either spurious or those of schismatics, as we have noted], showing that these were the only consecrating words COMMON TO ALL LITURGIES."

Father Forrest claimed the view that the short form "This is My Blood" suffices for validity to be a morally certain view. Father Felix Cappello, S.J., earlier made the same rash asseveration. Now "morally certain" certainly sounds terribly definite. To many readers those words "morally certain" must surely convey a sense of finality. If they can be "morally certain" there is no invalidity problem with the English "Mass," then the matter is no doubt more or less settled in their minds. This is certainly morally dangerous. If trusted advisors (who are so positive in asserting their opinions) are in fact fatally wrong on the "invalidity issue," -- as we believe they are -- then they are leading many Catholics to accept a "Mass" that is very possibly an idolatrous performance, and therefore imperilling to their eternal salvation.

What exactly does the phrase "morally certain" mean? Well, it is defined in Webster's Twentieth Century Dictionary (Unabridged). The first part of the definition is: "Supported by the evidence of reason or probability." If we consider only that part of the definition, then it can with equal justification be said that the view that the entire consecration form is essential is also morally certain.

The second part of the definition of "morally certain" is: "founded on experience of the ordinary course of things." Here the claim that the short form opinion is "morally certain" disintegrates, while the moral certainty of the entire form position would be thoroughly vindicated. For if we base the verdict on experience, all experience shows that there is not a single example of an unquestionably valid liturgy that uses or has ever used only the mere words "This is My Blood." (From the foregoing demonstration it must not be inferred that I am now being so bold as to claim our opinion to be morally certain, I hasten to add.)

Cappello had written, "Whatever may be the opinion of the Holy Doctor [St. Thomas] and of other theologians, the opposite opinion is common and morally certain." To conclude this discussion on "morally certain," I would point out that the fair-minded Doronzo, a man of apparent equanimity, quotes those words of Cappello with displeasure and upbraids him for writing far too frivolously ("nimis leviter scribit") on so important a matter.

Albeit the matter concerning which words of the wine-consecration form are essential cannot be settled conclusively by any theologian, nevertheless one cannot minimize the importance of the opinion of St. Thomas. He is and always has been the one central figure, not only in this dispute, but in all theological questions. To begin to appreciate the unique role of the Angelic Doctor in the affairs of the Church one should read Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Aeterni Patris. In that document we find, among others, the following exceptional tributes to the Angelic Doctor:

'The ecumenical councils have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the councils of Lyons, Vienne, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers.'

'But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of the conclave to lay upon the altar, together with the code of sacred Scripture and the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.'

The view of St. Thomas on the essential words of the wine-consecration form is stated in three different places: (1) Scriptum Super Lib. IV Sententiarum; (2) In 1 Cor. XI, (lect. 6); (3) The Summa Theologica.

(1) In Scriptum Super Lib. IV Sententiarum (dist. 8, Q. 2, a. 2, q. 1, ad 3) we read: "And therefore those words which follow [that is, which follow 'This is the chalice of My Blood'] are essential to the blood, inasmuch as it is consecrated in this sacrament; and therefore they must be of the substance of the form."

(2) In 1 Cor. XI, (lect. 6) has the following: "In regard to these words which the Church uses in the consecration of the Blood, some think that not all of them are necessary for the form, but the words 'This is the chalice of My Blood' only, not the remainder which follows, 'of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.' But it would appear that this is not said correctly, because all that which follows is a determination of the predicate [the predicate being 'This is the chalice of my blood'] : hence those subsequent words belong to the meaning or signification of the same pronouncement. And because, as has often been said, it is by signifying that the forms of sacraments have their effect, hence all of these words appertain to the effecting power of the form." (Emphasis added).

(3) In Summa Theologica (III, Q. 78, A. 3) St. Thomas again lucidly expounds his view:

"I answer that, There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words This is the chalice of My blood alone belong to the substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ's blood; consequently they belong to the integrity of its [i.e, the form's] recitation.

"And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, As often as ye shall do this, which belong to the use of the sacrament, and consequently do not belong to the substance of the form. Hence it is that the priest pronounces all these words under the same rite and manner, namely, holding the chalice in his hands."

There are three types of Adversarii. First, we have those who are able to read and who honestly concede that they have the Angelic Doctor against them. All of the earlier theologians who espoused the "short form" theory up through the time of Cajetan, and including Cajetan himself, fell into this category. Earlier we quoted the words of Suarez, who affirmed that the opinion of St. Thomas, though opposed to his own, "is very probable and of great authority, and Scotus himself did not venture to contradict it, but left it as a doubtful matter." Most of our present-day Adversarii are of this first type.

The second class of Adversarii includes those who claim it is not clear what the Angelic Doctor really taught, or that he wrote ambiguously, or that he contradicted himself, or that he was unsure of himself. Or that he changed his mind from one of his writings to the next! That ludicrous claim was actually made by Billuart, who for so doing was derisively accused by Doronzo of "flying to the extreme." To all those confused Adversarii of this class we reply in the words of Capisuccus to De Lugo: "The opinion of St. Thomas is not difficult if it is properly understood."

These first two categories do not at present capture our attention. With the first group we have no quarrel: we see eye to eye with them, at least regarding what it was that St. Thomas actually held. To the second group I say merely that what confuses me is that anyone could be so confused as to think the Angelic Doctor was confused.

About four centuries ago there was a certain argument of the "short form" apologists making the rounds, and occasionally (but fortunately not very often) some of the present-day Adversarii haul it out and attempt to expound it, at least to the degree they are able to understand it. St. Alphonsus does not think much of this particular argument, remarking that how such a theory squares with the mind of St. Thomas is not at all apparent. That remark is a polite understatement. For the argument to which we are here referring is that St. Thomas indeed supports the "short form" position! Which is surely a quaint theory, and one which therefore brings us to the third class, namely, the Adversarii Cogitationis Cupidae.

Before examining this painfully tortuous argument of those wishful thinkers, let us in anticipation of it recall a few facts that have already been presented. In the first work of St. Thomas that we considered (Script. Sup. Lib. IV Sent.) he says that the entire sacramental form is essential (essentialia) and also in the very same sentence he uses the the equivalent phraseology 'of the substance' (de substantia) of the form. In the second source cited (In 1 Cor. XI) St. Thomas uses different phraseology, namely, necessary (de necessitate), referring of course to the form in its entirety. Finally, in the Summa he reverts to the word substantia (the substance of the form).

Now sometime after the Council of Trent, certain "short form" exponents devised the theory that St. Thomas in the Summa did not mean by the word 'substantia' what everyone up to that time had always thought he meant, namely, a term synonymous with 'essentia' or with 'necessitas'. They claimed that by substance he did not mean necessary for validity, but only necessary for the integrity or completeness of the form. From the Angelic Doctor's statement that the words following 'This is the chalice of my blood' are "determinations of the predicate," they erroneously inferred that he meant those additional words of the form are necessary only to express the properties of the blood; that is to say, to make the form one single complete utterance that neatly links together all these (supposedly unnecessary) determinations of the predicate. That is the argument in a nutshell.

After this bit of seeming sophistry had surfaced, many sound theologians, including Capisuccus and the Salmanticenses, painstakingly and methodically refuted it point by point, as does Doronzo (all of these commentators exhibiting a laudable patience in the face of foolishness, it would seem).

The first thing that comes to mind that would seem to torpedo this argument is that it was not advanced until about three hundred years after the death of St. Thomas. As we saw earlier, the Salmanticenses mentioned that all the earlier Thomists, unanimously, up to Cajetan taught that the entire form is necessary. And as we read in de la Taille, St. Pius V ordered the expunging of Cajetan's contrary opinion "as being opposed to the teaching of the Angelic Doctor," which is exactly what Cardinal Raymond Capisuccus said in the passage quoted earlier (see text associated with footnote 30). It would seem that the contemporaries of St. Thomas and those who followed soon thereafter -- not only those who agreed with him, but also those who opposed his view -- must be considered more reliable interpreters of the mind of St. Thomas than those who came upon the scene much later, coming as they did after the fashion of innovators, entertaining such entirely revolutionary (and patently unsound) theories.

The second thing that comes to mind is that those wishful thinking bearers of novelties were evidently employing what Mgr. Pierre Batiffol has called la méthode régressive:

"This is a cumbrous and uncomfortable method. The theory comes first, and then the evidence. Sometimes it refuses to go in; and there is nothing for it but to show that the author says the opposite elsewhere, and is therefore inconsistent, or else to prove that the passage or the whole work is not genuine."

Finally what comes to mind is the fact that in the very same Summa Theologica where this supposed difficult or problematical word "substance" (substantia) is used, St. Thomas actually defines what he means by substance. In his section on the sacraments in general he establishes principles that are to apply to all the sacraments individually when he will be discussing them later in the work. Ergo, in his Summa Th., (III, Q. 60, A. 8) he avers:

"Now it is clear that if anything that is of the substance of the sacramental form would be suppressed, then that would destroy the essential sense of the words; and consequently the sacrament would not be accomplished." ("Manifestum est quod si diminuatur aliquid eorum, quae sunt de substantia formae sacramentalis, tollitur debitus sensus verborum: et ideo non perficitur sacramentum."). -- [Emphasis added].

On p. 151 of his classic work Doronzo adverts to this claim of certain Pars Affirmativa ("short form") advocates that St. Thomas allegedly supports their position, and comments dryly, "so they say" (ut dicunt). Later (on p. 153) he writes: "Furthermore a special probability is given to the negative [entire form] opinion by the authority of Pope Innocent III, the more obvious interpretation [emphasis added] of the words of St. Thomas, and the words of the Catechism of the Council of Trent and of the Roman Missal."

Here is Emmanuel Doronzo's full elucidation of the "substance as opposed to essence" theory:

"There is no use objecting that the holy Doctor does not teach that all these words are of the essence of the form, but only 'of the substance of the form'; as though the words 'This is My blood' are of the substance as an essential part, and the other words are of the substance as an integral part ...

[To support and to bring out even more clearly what Doronzo is saying here, we interrupt his exposition and interpolate this cogent clarification by Cardinal Capisuccus from p. 214 of his work that was cited earlier (footnote 29). "And then the reasoning of St. Thomas holds," says Capisuccus, "because inasmuch as all those words are determinations of the predicate, the predicate being the Blood of Christ itself, they all belong to the same identical theme and the utterance of it ... Therefore some of the words of the entire form may not be dropped in such a way as to imply that some of these words concur to confect the Blood of Christ while certain others would not concur in confecting the Blood of Christ. For this would be the same as saying that the very same cause applied to bring about a given effect partly concurs to bring about that effect and partly does not do so, which involves a contradiction."]

We proceed with Doronzo's exposition:

"For although the expression 'to be of the substance of the form' may be interpreted [by some] in the alleged double sense, nevertheless they are not thus meant here by St. Thomas. For in Q. 60, Art. 8, in handing down the general doctrine on the sacraments (which he intends to apply in this place), he says: 'Now it is clear that if anything that is of the substance of the sacramental form would be suppressed, then that would destroy the essential sense of the words; and consequently the sacrament would not be accomplished.' ...

"From all this we gather that for St. Thomas these four expressions have the same meaning (a) to have reference not to the use of the sacrament, but to the sacrament itself; (b) to be of the substance of the form; (c) to be of the necessity of the form; (d) to be that by which the sacrament is performed or accomplished. ...

"Besides, St. Thomas does not say that these words pertain 'to the integrity of the form,' but rather 'to the integrity of the recitation of the form,' which is itself the very substance or essence of the form."

Although I have the greatest admiration for the Reverend Doctor Emmanuel Doronzo, I do have one criticism of him: he is far too benevolent. Let us recall his "concluding remarks" that were quoted much earlier. After affirming that he is strongly moved to judge the "entire form" position as being the more probable (because of the authority of St. Thomas and the Roman Catechism), he then awards "equal probability" to the opposite opinion solely because it is the view of some benighted persons that the mind of St. Thomas is not clearly evident! This, mind you, after his own devastating rebuttal of those confused individuals (which we have seen just above), in which he himself brilliantly demonstrates what is clearly the mind of St. Thomas!

Up till now we have been frequently using the expression, "the entire form." It is essential to understand exactly what we mean when we say the entire form is necessary for the validity of the Sacrament, and, perforce, for the validity of the Mass. We do not mean necessary in an absolutely universal sense (relating to all rites), but in the limited sense, that is, with respect to our own Latin Rite. For what is essential in one of the rites of the Church is not necessarily essential in another rite. This important idea will be developed.

First, let us examine the entire form, as translated literally from the Latin of the Roman Missal:

"FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS."

To begin with, the word 'for' ('enim') is considered by no one to be an essential part of the form. However, St. Thomas does mention that this word "is set in the form according to the custom of the Roman Church, which derived it from Peter the Apostle." Nevertheless it is "not part of the form." (Summa Th., III, Q. 78, A. 2, ad 5). Elsewhere (in Q. 60, A. 8) he states that one who would omit this word, 'for,' would perhaps in so doing sin from negligence or contempt.

It is erroneously believed by some that transubstantiation is the only thing that is necessary to be signified in the sacramental form for the Holy Eucharist. This mistaken belief leads to the false theory that "This is My blood" is sufficient for the sacramental form. On the contrary, there are in fact four things that must be signifed, namely: (1) transubstantiation; (2) propitiation; (3) sacrifice; (4) the effect of the Sacrament (called its "Res Sacramenti"), which is the union of the Mystical Body of Christ.

(1) Transubstantiation. As is evident, transubstantiation is clearly denoted by the first words of the form, "This is the chalice of My blood." It is denoted, but it does not yet occur once these words have been uttered, for the essential additional determinations of this statement have not yet been expressed.

Just as the washing away of sin and the imprinting of the indelible sacramental character of Baptism do not occur just as soon as the words, "I baptize thee," have been uttered (as all will admit), but these effects await the completion of the sacramental form with those necessary additional words, "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." So the words "I baptize thee," as is easily seen, are not true as soon as they are pronounced, because the recipient in very fact at that moment is not baptized. Similarly the words, "This is My Blood," are not true until the recitation of the entire form has been completed.

(2) Propitiation. With Christ's propitiatory sacrifice on Calvary the Old Law was permanently abrogated, as is so beautifully expressed by the words of St. Thomas in the "Tantum Ergo" : "Et antiquum documentum novo cedat ritui." The sacrifices of the Old Law, though pleasing to God, were not true sacrifices of propitiation -- that is, truly expiatory or atoning in nature -- for, it goes without saying, the blood of animals has no power to expiate sins. The Passion and Death of the Man-God, the True Unique Atonement for the sins of man by the Son of God made man, was required.

Hence we see this necessary concept of propitiation is denoted in the sacramental form by the words, "of the new and eternal testament," meaning that the Blood of Christ is that of God's new testament with man, in contradistinction to the impotent blood of animals as shed under the the Old Law. As we read in the Catholic Encyclopedia: "As may be gathered from the words of consecration of the Chalice, Christ established the New Testament in His Blood, just as the Old Testament had been established in the typical blood of animals (cf. Ex., xxiv, 8; Heb., ix, 11 sqq.)."

(3) Sacrifice. The Holy Eucharist is both Sacrament and Sacrifice. As Maurice de la Taille points out, had Christ so willed it, He could have left us the Sacrament of His Body and Blood completely apart from His Sacrifice on Calvary, simply by giving his priests the power of transubstantiating. However, He in fact did will to leave us this Holy Sacrament in the context of His Sacrifice on the Cross. None of the words of the sacramental form considered thus far bring out the idea of sacrifice. Because the words, "This is the Chalice of My Blood," denote only transubstantiation; and the words, "of the new and eternal testament" denote only propitiation. Therefore we see that the words "which shall be shed" are the necessary words that fulfill the role of signifying the shedding of Christ's blood; i.e., sacrifice.

(4) The Union of the Mystical Body. This is "the effect" of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, which was defined as such by the Council of Florence in these words: "The effect of this sacrament, which is brought about in the soul of him who receives it worthily, is to unite him to Christ. And since through this grace [the grace proper of the sacrament] a man becomes incorporated into Christ and is united with His members...".

As is so well known, a sacrament must signify what it effects, especially its chief effect (the effect). Consequently it is evident that this principal effect, the Res Sacramenti or the "grace proper" of the Sacrament, which is the union of the Mystical Body of Christ, must necessarily be signified in the sacramental form. The words, "for you and for many unto the remission of sins," provide this essential signification in the sacramental form.

These four things must be expressed, and they are in fact expressed, in the sacramental wine-consecration forms of the various liturgies presently used in all those diverse Eastern rites of the Catholic Church, although the precise wordings in all these various forms are not all identically the same. The forms used in these eight Oriental rites can be found in Eastern Catholic Worship, by Donald Attwater, The Devin-Adair Co., New York, 1945, on pages 35, 58-59, 85, 107, 126-127, 151, 175-176 and 202.

Moreover, we always find these same four things signified in all the ancient rites that we know for certain were valid (which excludes, of course, those used by known heretical or schismatic sects, and also excluding those patently invalid forms once used by the Ethiopians, and also excluding those of doubtful authenticity, such as that form found in the "Canons of Hippolytus," of which there is no evidence whatever that it was ever actually used, except perhaps in Ethiopia). On pages 730-750 of Dictionnaire d'Archeologie Chrétienne et de Liturgie one can find the texts (in Latin) of some eighty-five of these ancient forms, many of which, as we have said, are categorically invalid or of very doubtful validity. Nevertheless, even most of those forms used by the various schismatical Syrian sects do in fact contain these four essential signifying elements.

As alluded to earlier, when we speak of the entire form being necessary for validity, we do not mean that the form of words, exactly as laid down in the Roman Missal, must be used verbatim. This point is so obvious from an examination of the various Oriental liturgies that it hardly needs mentioning. An historical example, however, will be useful to illustrate how this fundamental fact can be misunderstood. After Pope Leo XIII had declared Anglican Orders to be categorically invalid because of a defective form of words (via his Bull Apostolicae Curae, 1896), the Anglican Hierarchy argued that there are Oriental liturgies which Rome has always acknowledged to be valid, but which do not employ the exact sacramental form of words for Holy Orders as is used in the Latin Rite.

This objection was answered by the Catholic Bishops of England in the famous Vindication of the Bull 'Apostolicae Curae':

"But you are also mistaken in thinking that matters have been left by Our Lord in such uncertainty, and that there is no one definite form which has prevailed in the Catholic Church, both in the East and in the West. If, indeed, you mean merely that no identical form of words has always and everywhere been in use ... you say what all will admit, and the Bull nowhere denies. ... The Bull, however...is requiring, not that the form should always consist of the same words, but that it should always be conformed to the same definite type." (Emphasis in the original text).

Now according to de la Taille some of those who opposed the opinion of St. Thomas labored under a similar misunderstanding, thinking that the Angelic Doctor was insisting that the exact entire form of words used in the Latin Rite is required for validity in an absolute sense, that is to say, universally in all rites. "Suarez, however," writes de la Taille, "interpreted the mind of the holy Doctor too narrowly, as though St. Thomas meant that the actual words used by the Roman Church are necessary in their actual grammatical tenor, and not merely in this or some other form equivalent in sense. Scotus, however, noted well that equivalence of sense would suffice (4, D. 8, 2; cf. Reportata 4, D. 8, 2)."

Other opponents, in order to "exculpate" the Angelic Doctor for having "erred," alleged that he was ignorant of the Greek liturgies (the expression "Greek liturgies" is a generic term that includes the various Oriental liturgies), and that if he had been familiar with them he would not have held his view that the entire form is required. To that theory the Salmanticenses replied that it deserves not to be attacked but to be laughed at (non impugnationem sed risum meretur), going on to point out that the Holy Doctor was not ignorant of those Greek liturgies and rites, for he wrote a most brilliant minor work against their errors. (Tum quia S. Doctor non ignoravit Graecorum Liturgias, et ritus, qui luculentissimum opusculum scripsit contra illorum errores).

The following is taken from a letter I received, dated April 23, 1990. It is from one of the seasoned Adversarii of about twenty years' standing, who also happens to be an American priest of the Society of St. Pius X.

"It seems to me that your basic error is that you treat the opinions of St. Thomas as if they were dogmas. We know that St. Thomas was wrong in some of his opinions, notably about the Immaculate Conception. So why could he not be wrong in other areas? Did St. Thomas have the same detailed knowledge of Scripture -- and of the Hebrew and Greek languages used in it -- that scholars have today? There has been no progress at all in the past seven centuries? ... And, since it is known that St. Thomas was not at all familiar with Greek or Hebrew, we can hardly expect him to have the depth of reference on this point that modern scholars have."

The widely circulated claim (which I regard as nothing more than a canard) of the Angelic Doctor's supposed ignorance of Greek is based primarily, if not solely, on the fact that he at one time persuaded a Belgian Dominican, William of Moerbeke, who was one of the foremost Greek scholars of his time, to undertake a complete translation of the works of Aristotle into Latin. Which, of course, in itself proves nothing. What should most logically be inferred is simply that St. Thomas committed this laborious task to a specialist who would be able to do the job more speedily and efficiently. The episode furnishes no real evidence whatever that St. Thomas was "not at all familiar with Greek."

Now I, appearing on the scene seven centuries later, am no more able to prove that St. Thomas knew Greek than others (for example, my correspondent) removed equally far away in time, can prove that he did not. No biographies of the Holy Doctor comment with certainty or give any conclusive proof on this particular issue one way or the other. Our Adversarius, this priest of the Society of St. Pius X, who apparently prefers the "depth of reference" of the "modern scholars" to that of St. Thomas, asks: "Did St. Thomas have the same detailed knowledge of Scripture ... that scholars have today?" We shall let his own St. Pius X reply:

"To hear them [the Modernists] talk about their works on the Sacred Books...one would imagine that before them nobody ever even glanced through the pages of Scripture; whereas the truth is that a whole multitude of doctors, infinitely superior to them in genius, in erudition, and in sanctity, have sifted them; and the deeper they have gone into them, the more and more have they thanked God for His Divine Bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men." (From the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis).

By way of prologue, let us now revert to our earlier remarks on the important idea that what is absolutely essential for the validity of a sacramental form in one rite or liturgy of the Church may not necessarily be essential in a universally absolute sense; that is, may not be essential for all, or even for any, of the other rites.

This notion, which at first might seem to be revolutionary or astonishing, is in fact quite valid and true, as we shall see later from the lucid exposition thereof by Raymond Capisuccus. First of all, however, let us, by way of ground work, consider a certain significant parallelism. For two of the other requisites for the validity of a sacrament besides the form -- namely, the matter and the proper minister -- it is easily seen by examples that what is necessary for validity in the Latin Rite is in some cases quite clearly not necessary in the Eastern Rites.

Minister. We need only consider the Sacrament of Confirmation, as a start. In the Latin Rite the ordinary minister of Confirmation, and the only valid minister (with the exceptions noted immediately below) is a bishop. The extraordinary minister of Confirmation is a priest to whom the faculty to confirm has been given either by common law or by a general or special indult of the Holy See, (according to Canon 782). However, such extraordinary ministers of the Latin Rite (under the same Canon 782), can validly confirm only Catholics of the Latin Rite. Ergo, it is certain that ordinary Latin Rite priests cannot validly administer this Sacrament. Whereas it is a well known fact that in the Oriental rites any priest at all confirms validly and licitly, even Catholics of the Latin Rite.

Matter. In the Eastern rites the ordinary valid matter for the Consecration of the Body of Christ is leavened bread. But in contrariety to this we know that: "In the Latin Church hosts must be unleavened and circular in form." A Latin Rite priest cannot consecrate using leavened bread, except under one extraordinary condition: "Leavened bread may be used in the Latin Rite only to complete the Sacrifice already begun."

Matter. Now let us consider the Sacrament of Holy Orders. In the Oriental rites the matter of this Sacrament (for the order of presbyterate) is and always has been simply the bishop's imposition of hands. Up until Nov. 30, 1947, the matter of this Sacrament (for ordination to the priesthood) in the Latin Rite was twofold; namely, the aforesaid imposition of hands and the "bestowal of the instruments," that is, the touching by the candidate of a chalice containing wine and a few drops of water, and a paten with host. Both elements of this twofold matter were considered to be essential for validity. On the aforementioned date Pope Pius XII issued the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, in which the Pontiff determined that thereafter the valid matter for the Latin Rite would consist of only the first imposition of hands by the bishop, and not the bestowal of the instruments also.

Pius XII distinctly implied, nevertheless, that not only was the bestowal of the instruments considered necessary for validity previously, but that it was in fact necessary: "(B)y Our Apostolic Authority We do ... decide that the bestowal of the instruments at least for the future ('saltem in posterum') is not necessary for the validity...," noting that "this Our Constitution does not have retroactive force." He also granted the possibility that the Church might even in the future revert to maintaining that the bestowal of the instruments is necessary for validity: "But if, according to the will and prescription of the Church, the same should some day be held necessary for validity also, all would know the Church is able even to change and to abrogate what She has established."

[Note: The Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII had both the power and the right to determine further the matter of Holy Orders, since that Sacrament was instituted by Christ "in genere." Contrariwise, no agency on earth, neither pope nor council nor all the bishops of the world collectively, can alter the substance -- i.e., the matter and the form -- of the Holy Eucharist, which Christ instituted "in specie." For a fuller development of these ideas see the pamphlet, Has The Church The Right?].

Having thus seen that certain things or qualifications necessary for validity as regards matter and minister in the Latin Rite are sometimes not necessary in the Oriental Churches, by parallelism it should not be repugnant to the intellect to entertain the probability that similar disparities may exist regarding what is essential for validity with respect to the sacramental forms in the different rites.

For example, we find the words, "the mystery of faith," in the Latin Rite form for the wine-consecration; but we find those same words in none of the Oriental rites, save those of the Maronites, the Chaldeans and the Malabarites. From this only one thing can be deduced with certainty, namely, that those words are not essential for those rites that do not use them. It cannot be deduced that they are not essential for the consecrations in the Latin, Maronite, Chaldean and Malabarite rites, which do use them.

All the words in the Latin Rite wine-consecration form are taken from Holy Scripture, with the exceptions of (a) "and eternal" and (b) "the mystery of faith". In a letter to a certain John, Archbishop of Lyons, who had asked who it was that added the words, "the mystery of faith," to the consecration form, since they are found nowhere in Holy Scripture, Pope Innocent III replied that no one had added them, but that they had been there from the beginning. Said Innocent, "Surely we find many such things omitted by the Evangelists from the words as well as from the deeds of the Lord, which things the Apostles supplied by word or expressed by deed. ... Therefore we believe that the form of words, as is found in the Canon, the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors from them."

"Now while the Latin Church uses the entire form as laid down in the Roman Missal," observes Capisuccus, "and whereas the other rites, of the Greek and of other Churches, do not have all those words in the form, it may be reasonably said that all those other forms were likewise instituted by Christ for the consecration of the wine, and that the Apostles and their successors had them from Christ. Hence James Goar, in the Greek Ritual which he annotated, says: 'As to the question whence there arose a certain diversity between the Greeks and the Latins regarding the words of the Gospel requisite for the consecration, it is abundantly clear that this diversity arose from the traditions handed down by the different Apostles'."

"And this does not change the fact that all those words which the Latin Church uses in the consecration of the wine are of the essence of that form. For it is one thing to say that all those words are not of the essence of the form as such, and it is another thing to say that they are not of the essence of the form that the Latin Church uses. Therefore we say that although all those words are not of the essence of the form as such, they are of the essence of the form in which they are found, such as that form which the Latin Church uses." (Emphasis added).

"Hence from the fact that the Latin Church does use all those words, we may gather that Christ the Lord, although He did not require that all [rites] use the same identical words in the Consecration of the Blood, nevertheless He wished that they who do use all those words use them as being essential. Moreover He gave to those words the power to consecrate His Blood, provided that those words are in fact used. And consequently those words, seeing that they are in fact all pronounced, are of the essence of this form in which they are used." (Emphasis added).

"In confirmation of the foregoing," continues Capisuccus, "we can adduce an example very suited to our statements. For the Apostles in the early Church baptized in the name of Christ (Acts, ch. 8), and St. Thomas teaches (III, Q. 66, A. 6, ad 1), and others with him, that the form of Baptism consisted only in these words, 'I baptize thee in the Name of Christ.' But there was also another form, 'I baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.' Now who, unless he has lost his reason, will say that these words of this second form, 'in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,' are not essential for that form, simply because of the fact that the Apostles used for Baptism that other form in which these words are not found?

"Certainly each form sufficed and was licit at that time for Baptism. And although the Apostles were able to baptize and sometimes did baptize with only these words, 'I baptize thee in the name of Christ,' nevertheless they were also able to baptize with those other words, 'I baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.' And in those cases where they did use this latter form, all those words efficiently contributed to the Baptism, and all of them were therefore of the essence of that form.

"Thus in our case -- that is, the form for the Eucharist -- the Greeks validly consecrate the blood of Christ through the form they use, in which the following words are not found: 'and eternal' and 'the mystery of faith.'... Now those of the Latin Rite consecrate validly through the form in which those words are in fact found; and in this case wherein the Latins use all those words, all those words are of the essence of the form which they use."

Earlier we quoted Father Michael Forrest, who said that De Lugo "appealed prolifically in abundant quotations to numerous liturgies, showing that these words [viz., 'This is My Blood'] were the only consecrating words common to all liturgies." Provided that De Lugo did in fact go through such an exercise, and if he had been careful to consider only those liturgies that are valid beyond doubt (which the Salmanticenses proved was not the case), nevertheless to glean only those words "common to all liturgies" would prove nothing, as we have just demonstrated by quoting at length from the brilliant and unanswerable exposition given by Cardinal Raymond Capisuccus, O.P.

As was discussed back in Section 8, there are four things that must be signified in the sacramental form for the Holy Eucharist, viz., transubstantiation, propitiation, sacrifice and the union of the Mystical Body. We then went through the words of the wine-consecration form showing how each one of the various phrases and clauses signifies one of these four things. In so doing, we passed over these words, "the mystery of faith." Having just expounded the foregoing important ideas concerning the differences that occur in the phraseologies of the divers rites of the Church, we are now ready to discuss those words, "mysterium fidei."

"The mystery of faith." In their context in the form of consecration what is the precise meaning or signification of these words? The Roman Catechism teaches:

"for it is call'd the mystery of Faith, because by Faith we perceive Christ's Blood hid under the Species of Wine."

And Pope Innocent III teaches likewise that the significance of these words in the sacramental form lies in the fact that they express the doctrine of the Real Presence:

"Yet 'mysterium fidei' is mentioned, since something is believed there other than what is perceived; and something is perceived other than what is believed. For the species of the bread and wine is perceived there, but what is believed is the truth of the Body and Blood of Christ and the power of unity and love."

In that the doctrine of the Real Presence is already implicitly signified in those words that denote transubstantiation -- to wit: "This is My Body; This is the Chalice of My Blood" -- and therefore the words, "The Mystery of Faith," would appear to be superfluous here; and inasmuch as we find the words, "The Mystery of Faith," in no other consecration form other than that of the Latin Rite and only three of the Oriental rites, it would appear that those words, "The Mystery of Faith," are not essential and could be omitted without endangering the validity of the Mass.

To this I reply simply: I deny! St. Thomas clearly teaches that all the words following "This is the Chalice of My Blood" are necessary. We admit that those words, "mysterium fidei," are not necessary in an absolute sense (which is self-evident by virtue of their absence from many of the liturgies), but we affirm that they are necessary for those rites in which God has willed that they be included. For according to the Divine Dispensation, the inscrutable wisdom of which no man can comprehend, and according to what was so evidently willed by Our Lord when He handed these words down to the Apostles to be used among certain peoples of certain traditions and cultures, we must insist with the Angelic Doctor, whose teaching has been so lucidly expounded by Cardinal Capisuccus, that even the words, "The Mystery of Faith," are of the essence of those consecration forms in which they occur.

"Hence from the fact that the Latin Church does use all those words, we may gather that Christ the Lord, although He did not require that all [rites] use the same identical words in the Consecration of the Blood, nevertheless He wished that they who do use all those words use them as being essential. Moreover He gave to those words the power to consecrate His Blood, provided that those words are in fact used. And consequently those words, seeing that they are in fact all pronounced, are of the essence of this form in which they are used." (The words of Capisuccus quoted earlier).

And therefore our Ancient Enemy Satan, who being our "adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour" (1 Pet., 5, 8) inspired his terrestrial agents, those Masonic members of his own 'Mystical Body' who devised the "Novus Ordo Missae," to delete these words, "The Mystery of Faith," from the consecration form, thus doubly jeopardizing the validity of those "Masses" they had already vitiated earlier in 1967 by means of their "for all men, etc." corruption.

"In adhering rigidly to the rite handed down to us we can always feel secure; whereas if we omit or change anything, we may perhaps be abandoning just that element which is essential."

Not only did they delete those words, but they made a mockery of them. For they were retained, not in the form of consecration, but in a subsequent acclamation, to which the people respond: "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again." Inasmuch as these three truths that are expressed -- orthodox as they are -- have nothing whatever to do with the true meaning of "the mystery of faith" in this place, this response to the acclamation suppresses this true meaning, which, as we have seen, is to affirm our belief in the Real Presence, and substitutes a false construction on the words "the Mystery of Faith." And therefore this response, by its suppression of the Real Presence doctrine, implicitly but effectively and in very truth denies it. What is here manifest is the mark of the Father of Lies, the supreme expert in the art of denying truth by affirming what is true.

Here is my own theory why in the Divine Dispensation the words, "The Mystery of Faith," were handed down in the Latin Rite and not in the majority of the Eastern rites. Through God's Infinite Wisdom, Providence, design and foreknowledge of all things, it has turned out that only in the Western Church has the doctrine of the Real Presence been assailed. We know this to be true from the striking testimony of history. Berengarius, Tanchelmus of Antwerp, who in the 12th century was resisted and vanquished by St. Norbert, Wyclif, the "Sacramentarians," Calvin, Zwingli, the whole host of 16th-century Protestant Revolutionaries, etc. -- all these deniers of the Real Presence arose in the West.

With one notable known exception, the doctrine of the Real Presence has never been attacked by heretics in the Eastern churches; on the contrary, it has always been believed and upheld, even by the schismatics since the 11th century and by the early Oriental heretics. "In fact," we read in the Catholic Encyclopedia, "even the Nestorians and Monophysites, who broke away from Rome in the fifth century, have, as is evident from their literature and liturgical books, preserved their faith in the Eucharist as unwaveringly as the Greeks, and this in spite of the dogmatic difficulties which, on account of their denial of the hypostatic union, stood in the way of a clear and correct notion of the Real Presence."

Staining this glorious banner of constant faithfulness in the Orient is the sole ignominious blot of Cyrillos Lucaris (1572-1637). In his younger days having come under the influence of Calvinistic errors while studying in Geneva, he published in 1629 his famous Confessio espousing Calvinistic doctrines, including, of course, the denial of the Real Presence. At that time Lucaris was Patriarch of Constantinople. The publication of his Confessio set off in the Orthodox churches a fierce and fiery controversy -- à la byzantine.

The "schism within a schism" lasted over sixty years, ending in 1691 when the Synod of Jerusalem affirmed all the Orthodox doctrines, including the Real Presence, thus condemning the Calvinistic errors of Cyril Lucaris. The errors, but not Lucaris. As Fortescue observes, "The Fathers, however, are anxious to save Lukaris's reputation." In the byzantine style that is so typical of the Orthodox schismatics even today, the Fathers of the Synod attacked the "wicked attempts of the Calvinists to poison the Orthodox Church with heresy," and staunchly defended Lucaris, denying that he ever wrote the Confessio (which, of course, was the very thing for which he was singularly known), and moreover anathematizing "anyone who shall ever say that he was its author."

The Maronites, one of those few groups of Eastern rite Catholics that have "The Mystery of Faith" in their consecration form, were literally forced to have these words included in the form. When many Maronites became reunited with the Church of Rome after having been for a long time in schism, the Sovereign Pontiff Clement VIII for the sake of uniformity ordered to be discarded their various manuscript Missals, many of which in any case had corrupted and invalid consecration forms. (Schismatics in general, especially those of the Arab world, have always tended to tamper with established liturgical forms, as have the Ethiopian Catholics.)

By Clement's mandate a new Maronite Missal, a printed version, was issued in Rome in 1592; and all priests of the Maronite Rite were required thereafter to use this Missal. Its wine-consecration form, which is still in use today, is identical to that of the Latin Rite, with the words 'mysterium fidei' included.

There is no evidence (at least none known by this author) that any of the Maronite groups while in schism denied or attacked the doctrine of the Real Presence. This, however, cannot be affirmed with absolute certitude, for the conflicting accounts of early Maronite history (one of which strongly avers that they fell into heresy) accomplish nothing for the reader but the strengthening of his own uncertainty. Nevertheless it is interesting to note that the "Profession of Faith" which Benedict XIV subsequently prescribed to be accepted by all returning Maronites does in fact include an affirmation of belief in the Real Presence.

While it is true that the words, "This is My Body, This is My Blood," to the faithful Catholic imply the doctrine of the Real Presence, and consequently the stressing of this doctrine by the more explicit words, "The Mystery of Faith," would not appear to be absolutely necessary for such orthodox Catholics, nevertheless heretics have construed (as is well known) "This is My Body, This is My Blood" to mean only a "spiritual" or "symbolic" presence. Such a supposed symbolic presence of Christ in the Eucharist involves no "mystery of faith" at all; no great mystery requiring no great faith. Hence to these heretics the words, "The Mystery of Faith," in the consecration form defy rational explanation.

We know from the teaching of Pope Innocent III, which we cited earlier (the letter Cum Marthae Circa), that the words, "The Mystery of Faith," were included in our wine-consecration from the beginning, having been handed down by the Apostles who received them from Our Lord. My aforesaid theory therefore concludes that these words are an essential part of the Latin Rite consecration form, having in God's Providence been placed there as a bulwark in defense of the doctrine of the Real Presence, and as a stumbling block and most potent rebuke against those many deniers of this teaching who have sprung up from time to time to attack it, such onslaughts deriving virtually exclusively from the rationalism of the West that has for so long a time infested and infected our Latin Church.

The Adversarii who imagine they have destroyed our arguments against the validity of the vernacularized "Masses" simply by dogmatically asserting that the mere words, "This is the Chalice of My Blood," are sufficient for validity know nothing. What these deluded individuals seem to be overlooking is the fact that the consecration form (so-called) in the English "Mass" is not simply: "This is the Chalice of My Blood."

In point of fact, the ICEL's despoiled wine-consecration form contains a great deal more than "This is the chalice of my blood." The latest version I know of (the meddlers having already tampered with it on three separate occasions since 1967, involving a total of six distinct changes) reads as follows:

"This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven."

Let us assume, purely for the sake of illustrating our point, that the argument of some of our Adversarii is correct, namely, that the first seven words, "This is the cup of my blood," alone by themselves, would be sufficient for a valid consecration.

Of all those reputable theologians of the past who held the view that "This is My blood" suffices, there is not a single one of them who would have denied that such a consecration formula could still be rendered invalid by substantial changes of meaning introduced in the remaining words of the form, even though they did not consider those remaining words essential. That any sacramental form can possibly be rendered invalid by an addition to the essential words is a fact held to be certain by all theologians.

St. Thomas furnishes two examples of such an invalidating addition, one an actual case and the other a hypothetical one. The Arians baptized with the words: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father Who is greater, and of the Son Who is less, etc.". The hypothetical example is: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and of the Blessed Virgin Mary." This would invalidate the Baptism if the intention were to baptize in the name of the Blessed Virgin as though she is on a par with the Trinity, for such a sense is heretical.

One final example, this one regarding the Holy Eucharist, will be more than enough to drive home this point. Suppose a priest were to substitute the word "old" for "new" in the wine-consecration:

"For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the old and eternal testament ...".

Now even supposing (purely hypothetically) that the words, "This is the Chalice of My Blood," do suffice for a valid consecration, "who unless he has lost his reason" (to borrow the words of Capisuccus) would assert that such a substitution, even though occurring in words (hypothetically) considered to be nonessential for validity, would not invalidate the consecration? For clearly that single substituted word, "old," now being part of the same utterance that begins with "For this is the Chalice of My Blood," blasphemously denies the true propitiatory nature of Christ's Sacrifice on Calvary, by implying that His Precious Blood was no more efficacious for atonement than was the blood of animals under the Old Law.

Therefore it should be equally clear that the substitution of the falsifying words "for all" in place of "for many," likewise invalidates the consecration, even though those words in the final phrase of the form might possibly be nonessential for validity (as is claimed). For those words "for all" signify falsely, inasmuch as not all men are members of Christ's Mystical Body. Hence the purpose of the words, "for many," which is to signify the effect of this Sacrament, namely, the union of the members of the Mystical Body, which consists of MANY members only, is frustrated, nay, annihilated by the counterfeit words: "for all." Just as the word "old" in the example given above destroys the signification of propitiation and in fact denies that truth, similarly the word "all" denies the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, whose members are the sole heirs of the Holy Eucharist.

Now we arrive at our ultimate purpose, which is to explain and clarify even further (I have already written on it frequently) a particular thesis that conclusively proves (at least to me) the necessity for validity of the final words of the wine-consecration form: "for you and for many unto the remission of sins". The development of my case is not dependent solely or even primarily on the authority of theologians (although I do cite some esteemed ones for supporting evidence). Rather is it based on reasoning and on conclusions that I believe logically flow necessarily from and must necessarily be inferred from various theological truths established with certitude and handed down authoritatively by the Church, and which therefore cannot be questioned.

In this thesis I shall attempt to show three things: [i] the words, "This is My Body. This is the Chalice of My Blood," and these words alone, cannot possibly suffice as the complete Consecration Form; because: [ii] the words, "for you and for many unto the remission of sins," fulfill an essential and indispensable signifying role in the wine-consecration form; and consequently: [iii] the false words, "for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven," not only render invalid the "English Masses" by losing the aforesaid indispensable signification; but they moreover express a different and false signification, which by its nature makes the celebrants of such "Masses," as well as those who are in attendance, implicitly deny the Catholic Church's doctrine of the Mystical Body; and moreover simultaneously makes them espouse that false ecumenism condemned by the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XI as being tantamount to apostasy.

Many of the ideas underlying -- or perhaps even proving -- these points have already been brought out in the foregoing Part I. What we shall be covering in this present Part II are some fundamental teachings on the sacraments, many of which are doubtless already known quite well by the reader; hence, a part of my presentation is simply a necessary preliminary review, necessary in order to lay the ground work for the unfolding of some additional extremely important aspects of the theology of the sacraments.

These particular aspects are probably not so well known; except, of course, by those of our present readership who happen to be priests. In earlier and less destructive times the laity did not need to explore these finer points of sacramental theology. Nor indeed was your author familiar with them in that saner and happier era. These were said above to be "extremely important aspects," and so they now are; for no true Catholic today -- in this age of ignorance, apostasy, infidelity, treason and indifference -- can plead that he is unable to fight the fight against The Destroyers because he is "not a theologian." Gaining knowledge and understanding of all Catholic truth is, and always has been, a most critical obligation for the one who values his soul.

A sign is by definition something that signifies or denotes something else. The recognizable thing that is signified by a sign is called a reality. These two things, the sign and the reality, are intimately related to one another, but, of course, they are two separate and distinct things. Several examples will illustrate this. A black arm band is a sign that signifies a reality, namely, mourning. That is, it signifies that the person wearing it is mourning the death of one who was loved and respected. The arm band does not cause the mourning; it merely, being only a sign, signifies the mourning. Conversely, the mourning does not per se bring the arm band into existence; it merely prompts the mourner to wear it.

In a written musical score there are to be found many symbols that denote certain musical sounds; these are called notes. The notes not only signify the musical tones themselves, but also the intended duration of these tones, and perhaps also the manner and style in which they are by the composer meant to be heard. These written notes are only signs; they signify something audible, but they are not themselves these sounds. The notes are signs and the sounds are their realities. The written notes do not cause the sounds; the musician playing his instrument and reading the notes is the cause. If no one ever read the score or played what is indicated, then there would be no sounds. And conversely, the realities, namely, the tones, in no way bring about their signs, the written notes.

Finally, consider a motorist travelling along a highway who suddenly is confronted by a sign that reads, for example, "St. Cloud City Limits". This sign indicates or signifies to the motorist that he is crossing an invisible boundary defining one of the limits of that geographical entity known as the city of St. Cloud, Minnesota. The sign does not cause the reality it is signifying, which is St. Cloud, to suddenly be there; it was probably there long before the sign was erected. And conversely, of course, the city did not cause the existence of the sign (although some city officials undoubtedly did at one time).

Now in our study of the Sacraments we encounter these same two concepts: sign and reality. And in sacramental theology a sign (which in Latin is designated by the word sacramentum) and the reality it signifies (the Latin word res) mean exactly the same things as we have just demonstrated in our foregoing examples. When "Sacramentum" is spelled with the capital letter "S" it means a Sacrament in the ordinary sense to which we are accustomed; but when spelled with a lower case "s" as in "sacramentum" it means simply "sign." At least that is the convention we shall adopt.

A Sacrament is defined as "an outward sign instituted by Christ to give (or produce) grace." Below we shall investigate briefly the three parts of this definition, but for now let us ponder the "wonder" aspect of the Sacraments. Unlike any other kind of sign of which we know, our wonderful Sacraments that Our Lord so lovingly gave to His Church for the salvation of men are signs that actually cause or bring about the very realities that they signify. That is what is meant by the familiar axiom: "Sacraments effect what they signify and signify what they effect." Only God can give to a sign this remarkable, inscrutable and wondrous power.

Of the three parts of the definition of a Sacrament, it is the first and the last that are chiefly pertinent to our discussion; namely, "an outward sign" and "to produce grace." The central part, "instituted by Christ," needs but little commentary. It is an Article of Faith that all seven Sacraments were instituted by Our Lord. Of these it is certain that at least two of them, namely, Baptism and the Holy Eucharist, were instituted in specie, that is to say, Our Lord specifically determined the exact matter (water for Baptism; bread and wine for the Eucharist) and the precise words of the sacramental forms. Other Sacraments, however, Christ instituted in genere, that is, in a general manner by instructing the Apostles as to the nature and purpose of these Sacraments and then allowing the Church to determine the matter and the form.

The first person known to have catalogued the Sacraments as exactly seven in number was Peter Lombard (circa 1150). Looking back now, this was at a point farther along than halfway thru the present lifetime of the Church. This does not mean, needless to say, that there were not always seven Sacraments:

"In the centuries that have elapsed since the first Pentecost Sunday, all of Catholic theology has developed. What we mean is that the understanding and the codification of theology by men has developed (i.e., the arguments for the truths of faith, their reasonableness, etc.); this, of course, is entirely different from the Modernists' heresy of the "evolution of doctrine." Periodically the Holy Ghost inspires Peter to lay down theological principles with absolute certainty. Often these pronouncements from the Supreme Teaching Authority are to stem a current heresy, and sometimes, through God's infinite wisdom and omniscience, they are to provide a defense against future attacks on Holy Church." (From p. 7 of Interdum No. 3, May 2, 1970, entitled "Res Sacramenti").

It must be noted carefully that any pronouncement from an alleged "Magisterium" that contradicts, waters down, or introduces an ambiguity into an earlier teaching of the Catholic Church must be rejected. Such activity is one of the marks of The Robber Church, which contradicts not only the Catholic Church but often even controverts itself. The one, true, holy, apostolic, Roman Catholic Church cannot ever contradict Herself, whereas the kingdom of Satan is one of disunion.

In Canon 1 of the section, "On the Sacraments in General," the Council of Trent issued this solemn declaration: "If anyone says that the Sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ, or that there are more or fewer than seven, namely, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order and Matrimony, or that any one of these seven is not truly and intrinsically a Sacrament, let him be anathema."

"A Sacrament is an outward sign," are the beginning words of the definition. Already we have gone into detail about the nature of a sign ("sacramentum") and the reality ("res") it signifies. To complete our analysis of this part of the definition of a Sacrament, it remains only to investigate the word "outward." As used here, this word means simply this: perceptible by one or more of the five senses.

The outward sign that is uniquely and especially associated with each of the Sacraments -- that is the "sacramentum" of the particular Sacrament -- always is composed of two separate and distinct elements, its matter and its form. Since the form consists of words that are spoken, it is clear that it fulfills the requirement of being perceptible by one of the senses, namely, hearing.

The other element, the matter, is in some of the Sacraments a physical substance; for example, bread and wine, water, chrism and blessed oil. These, of course, are perceptible by the senses of sight, smell, taste and touch. In some other Sacraments, however, the matter is not a tangible substance. As we have observed earlier, the matter of the Sacrament of Holy Orders is the imposition of hands. This, as is easily seen, is an action that is perceptible by the senses of sight and touch. For the Sacrament of Penance the matter consists in the acts of the penitent, one of which is the actual confession of sins. This confession must be auricular; it must be heard by the confessor, and thus perceptible by one of the senses.

Finally, the third part of the definition of a Sacrament is "to produce grace." This grace is a supernatural effect brought about in the soul of the recipient. If there were no infusion of the sacramental grace, which is called the Sacrament's "grace proper" or its "Res Sacramenti", the whole nature and purpose of the Sacrament would be frustrated. We have the reserved Blessed Sacrament, the True Body of Christ, sometimes exposed for veneration during Benediction or Corpus Christi processions, etc. But that solemn adoration is not the principal purpose for which Christ instituted this Sacrament. He gave It to us to be received.

Hence with the Holy Eucharist, as with all the Sacraments, there must be the recipients. For otherwise a Sacrament would have no subject in whom it would be able to produce grace. The worthy reception of the Holy Eucharist infuses in the soul the effect of the Sacrament, which is grace. Specifically this "grace proper" of the Holy Eucharist is the incorporation into Christ's Mystical Body of the Catholic who worthily, as a living member, receives It. That is, the solidifying and strengthening of his union with Jesus Christ and with all the other members. This mysterious and very vital truth we will now but touch upon.

"Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?" And Saul, who shortly before had been "breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord," as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, now finding himself suddenly hurled to the ground and mysteriously blinded hears this question asked. "Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And He: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. It is hard for thee to kick against the goad." Our Lord thus gave to the Apostle to the Gentiles the first faint glimmerings of that mysterious reality. It was not "Why persecutest thou my followers?" that he was asked; but "Why persecutest thou Me?" So powerful is the bond of union of the Mystical Body, that an attack upon any of its members is an attack upon all its members and, more significant still, an attack upon the Head of the Mystical Body, Jesus Christ Our Lord.

Within a few days to this "vessel of election," Saul of Tarsus, was revealed to the maximum extent that any finite mind still imprisoned in a mortal coil can comprehend it, at a house in the ancient city of Damascus on the street called Strait, the sublime mystery of the doctrine of the Mystical Body. "Let it be observed also that one is treating here of a hidden mystery, which in this earthly exile can never be fully disclosed and grasped, and expressed in human language," wrote Pius XII in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi. Whoever wishes to gain a clearer insight into this revealed doctrine should study this document, issued by the Pontiff on June 29, 1943, as well as the book entitled, The Doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, According to the Principles of the Theology of St. Thomas, by the learned Abbé Anger.

Though it is quite outside the scope of this essay to attempt to sound the depths of this great mystery (a feat of which we are incapable in any case), nevertheless for our present purposes several important teachings related to it must be set forth.

A person first gains entry into the Mystical Body through the Sacrament of Baptism, as is taught by Pope Eugene IV in these words: "Holy Baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the Sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church." The Mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Church are one and the same thing, as is taught by the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII in the aforementioned Mystici Corporis Christi: "If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ -- which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church -- we shall find no expression more noble, more sublime or more divine than the phrase which calls it 'the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ'."

A baptized Catholic, who by the grace given in that very Sacrament has automatically become a member of the Mystical Body, remains a member unless or until he forfeits membership by one or more of the following: excommunication, heresy, apostasy, schism. "Really to be included as members of the Church," writes Pius XII, "are only those who have been baptized and profess the true faith and who have not unhappily withdrawn from Body-unity or for grave faults have been excluded by legitimate authority." And again Pius: "For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."

By committing mortal sin a Catholic becomes a "dead member" of the Mystical Body, but he still nonetheless remains a member; for he can -- and he must, else he is an ungrateful fool -- be revived and resuscitated to the status of a living member, by his sincere repentance and his restoration to the state of sanctifying grace through the Sacrament of Penance. On the other hand, Jews, Freemasons, Moslems, Hindus, tribal animists in Africa, members of non-Catholic sects, pagans, apostates, infidels, atheists, etc. -- for example -- are not members of Christ's Mystical Body.

Not all men have been given this gratuitous gift from Almighty God, the incorporation into the very Mystical Body of His only-begotten Son. "On this account", wrote Pope Leo XIII, "those who would strive for salvation apart from the Church, wander from the way and are struggling in vain." In the same encyclical Leo also had words for our present-day Robbers: "Never to have known Jesus Christ in any way is the greatest of misfortunes, but it involves no perversity or ingratitude. But, after having known, to reject or forget Him, is such a horrible and mad crime as to be scarcely credible."

The foregoing discussion on the Mystical Body is not a digression from our theme on the Sacraments; rather is it an integral part of it, establishing an important plank in our overall thesis. Next to be explained is a teaching regarding the Sacraments which is probably not too well known by many of our readers. It is one of those vital "finer points" of theology which nowadays it is incumbent upon us to understand.

There are three "things" which are involved in the very make-up of all the Sacraments. These are certain features or aspects or "things," which we prefer to designate as "cornerstones." The three cornerstones are defined and explained as follows.

(1) The "sacramentum tantum"; which is translated as "the sign only." The sacramentum tantum has a role that is solely an active one. It is that cornerstone which has only one function (which is why it is called the sign only), namely, to signify. But it signifies two different realities; that is, two distinct and separate "res's" -- as will be explained.

Furthermore this sacramentum tantum consists of two components, both of which are already familiar to us, namely, the matter of the Sacrament, and the form of words that determine the purpose of the sacramental matter. St. Thomas calls the form the "determining principle." These two components -- the matter and the form -- always act together in the process of signifying; they must be "morally united." In the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, for example, the sacramentum tantum is the bread and wine joined with the Words of Consecration, which are the form of the Sacrament.

(2) The "res et sacramentum"; that is, "a reality and a sign." This cornerstone fulfills two roles, an active one and a passive one. First of all, it is a reality, a res, because it is one of the two separate and distinct realities that are signified by the sacramentum tantum; that is its passive role. But although it is a reality that is itself (by definition) something that is signified, it in turn signifies something else again, thus fulfilling its active role, namely, as a sign. Hence it is readily understood why this cornerstone is said to be both "a reality and a sign" -- it is signified and it also signifies. Unlike the sacramentum tantum which consists of both matter and words (the form), the res et sacramentum is a silent sign, for it signifies by its very presence, without any words being necessary. In the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist the True Body of Christ is the res et sacramentum.

(3) Finally, the res tantum, which means "the reality only," is the third cornerstone. It does no signifying; its nature is solely that of a res; hence, res tantum. It is, so to speak, hit from two different directions. It is signified twice; first by the matter and the form of the sacramentum tantum; and also without words by the res et sacramentum.

Instead of res tantum it is often called by that other term with which we are already familiar, namely, the "Res Sacramenti," which is translated as "the Reality of the Sacrament." Notice the definite article, "the"; it is the reality of the Sacrament, not just a reality. Other ways of expressing this are "the effect" or the "grace proper" of the Sacrament. This third cornerstone, the effect of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, is the union of the Mystical Body. Or perhaps it is better said that the effect on the recipient is his more intense and firmer incorporation in the Mystical Body. This effect is sacramental grace.

These two sentences, taken from a prayer before Holy Communion composed by St. Thomas, beautifully and cogently bring out this idea:

"Grant, I beseech Thee, that I may receive not only the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Our Lord [that is, not just the transubstantiated species, which is the res et sacramentum], but also the reality [res sacramenti] and effect of this Sacrament. O most indulgent God, grant me so to receive the Body of Thine only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, which He took of the Virgin Mary, that I may be found worthy to be incorporated with His Mystical Body and numbered among its members."

Inasmuch as this concept bears such momentous significance for the Catholic, it behooves us to include the following salient comments from the p