The following post is probably going to be more of interest to those who have studied the debate about the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of Mass) in Catholicism and Traditionalist objections against it more than Latter-day Saints, but I came across this as part of my research for a future project (full-length book addressing all areas of soteriology [baptismal regeneration; transformative justification; Eucharistic theology, etc]).
It seems that conservative Catholic theologians, pre-Vatican II, held that all the priest had to say to confect the wine was “this is my blood” or “this is the chalice of my blood.” For those who are familiar with the debate about how to translate pro mundis (“for many”) and the theological implications of saying “for all,” this should be of interest.
Arthur Devine in his volume on sacramental theology wrote:
The form of the Holy Eucharist consists in the words of consecration. This form is twofold, according to the twofold matter. For the bread the form is, Hoc est Corpus Meum (This is My Body). And for the wine the full form to be used, as is clear from the Councils of Florence and Trent, is: Hic est enim calix Sanguinis Mei, novi et aeterni testimenti mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum (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 to the remission of sins). Of this form, the words This is My Blood, or This is the chalice of My Blood, are essential, but to omit any of the above is not lawful. The priest is bound by a grave obligation to pronounce all the words in the full form of the consecration of the chalice, and if he should by chance say only the first part, he would be bound to repeat the whole form conditionally. (Arthur Devine, The Sacraments Explained According to the Teaching and Doctrine of the Catholic Church [3d ed.; London: R&T Washbourne, 1905], 178-79; italics in original; bold added for emphasis)
Elsewhere Devine wrote:
Here in the Holy Eucharist, the effect is the greatest that can possibly be conceived, that which is called by the Church, in the Canon of the Mass, the Mystery of Faith. This sublime and marvellous effect is produced as soon as the priest says the words This is my Body . . . this is My Blood, and it consists in the real, true, and substantial presence of our Lord Jesus Christ under the appearances of bread and wine. (Ibid., 183; italics in original; bold added for emphasis)
So in Catholic theology, at least according to some, to confect the wine, all one had to say was “this is the chalice of my blood,” although leaving it at that would not be licit (a sacrament can be effectuated without it being licit in Catholic theology, though it would be a sin on the behalf of the priest/bishop confecting such [whether it is venial or mortal depends on their intent and other considerations]). Having read, on and off, Traditionalist and Sedevacantist works on the Mass, I do find it interesting that many of their arguments do not really hold up.
A good book addressing the problems with Sedevacantism is that of John Salza and Robert Siscoe, True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors (Winona, Minn.: St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, 2015) which was published by the SSPX.
For a listing of some of my articles interacting with, and critiquing one of the best Catholic works defending the Mass, see:
