Articulus 7 Article 7 Utrum requirantur determinata verba in sacramentis Whether determinate words are required in the sacraments? Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non requirantur determinata verba in sacramentis. Ut enim philosophus dicit, voces non sunt eaedem apud omnes. Sed salus, quae per sacramentum quaeritur, est eadem apud omnes. Ergo non requiruntur aliqua determinata verba in sacramentis. Objection 1: It seems that determinate words are not required in the sacraments. For as the Philosopher says (Peri Herm. i), words are not the same for all. But salvation, which is sought through the sacraments, is the same for all. Therefore determinate words are not required in the sacraments. Praeterea, verba requiruntur in sacramentis inquantum sunt principaliter significativa, sicut supra dictum est. Sed contingit per diversa verba idem significari. Ergo non requiruntur determinata verba in sacramentis. Obj. 2: Further, words are required in the sacraments forasmuch as they are the principal means of signification, as stated above (A. 6). But it happens that various words mean the same. Therefore determinate words are not required in the sacraments. Praeterea, corruptio cuiuslibet rei variat eius speciem. Sed quidam corrupte verba proferunt, nec tamen propter hoc impediri creditur sacramentorum effectus, alioquin illiterati et balbi qui sacramenta conferunt, frequenter defectum in sacramentis inducerent. Ergo videtur quod non requirantur in sacramentis determinata verba. Obj. 3: Further, corruption of anything changes its species. But some corrupt the pronunciation of words, and yet it is not credible that the sacramental effect is hindered thereby; else unlettered men and stammerers, in conferring sacraments, would frequently do so invalidly. Therefore it seems that determinate words are not required in the sacraments. Sed contra est quod dominus determinata verba protulit in consecratione sacramenti Eucharistiae, dicens, Matth. XXVI, hoc est corpus meum. Similiter etiam mandavit discipulis ut sub determinata forma verborum baptizarent, dicens, Matth. ult., euntes, docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti. On the contrary, our Lord used determinate words in consecrating the sacrament of the Eucharist, when He said (Matt 26:26): This is My Body. Likewise He commanded His disciples to baptize under a form of determinate words, saying (Matt 28:19): Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, in sacramentis verba se habent per modum formae, res autem sensibiles per modum materiae. In omnibus autem compositis ex materia et forma principium determinationis est ex parte formae, quae est quodammodo finis et terminus materiae. Et ideo principalius requiritur ad esse rei determinata forma quam determinata materia, materia enim determinata quaeritur ut sit proportionata determinatae formae. Cum igitur in sacramentis requirantur determinatae res sensibiles, quae se habent in sacramentis sicut materia, multo magis requiritur in eis determinata forma verborum. I answer that, As stated above (A. 6, ad 2), in the sacraments the words are as the form, and sensible things are as the matter. Now in all things composed of matter and form, the determining principle is on the part of the form, which is as it were the end and terminus of the matter. Consequently for the being of a thing the need of a determinate form is prior to the need of determinate matter: for determinate matter is needed that it may be adapted to the determinate form. Since, therefore, in the sacraments determinate sensible things are required, which are as the sacramental matter, much more is there need in them of a determinate form of words. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., verbum operatur in sacramentis, non quia dicitur, idest, non secundum exteriorem sonum vocis, sed quia creditur, secundum sensum verborum qui fide tenetur. Et hic quidem sensus est idem apud omnes, licet non eaedem voces quantum ad sonum. Et ideo, cuiuscumque linguae verbis proferatur talis sensus, perficitur sacramentum. Reply Obj. 1: As Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.), the word operates in the sacraments not because it is spoken, i.e., not by the outward sound of the voice, but because it is believed in accordance with the sense of the words which is held by faith. And this sense is indeed the same for all, though the same words as to their sound be not used by all. Consequently no matter in what language this sense is expressed, the sacrament is complete. Ad secundum dicendum quod, licet in qualibet lingua contingat diversis vocibus idem significari, semper tamen aliqua illarum vocum est qua principalius et communius homines illius linguae utuntur ad hoc significandum. Et talis vox assumi debet in significatione sacramenti. Sicut etiam inter res sensibiles illa assumitur ad significationem sacramenti cuius usus est communior ad actum per quem sacramenti effectus significatur, sicut aqua communius utuntur homines ad ablutionem corporalem, per quam spiritualis ablutio significatur; et ideo aqua assumitur ut materia in Baptismo. Reply Obj. 2: Although it happens in every language that various words signify the same thing, yet one of those words is that which those who speak that language use principally and more commonly to signify that particular thing: and this is the word which should be used for the sacramental signification. So also among sensible things, that one is used for the sacramental signification which is most commonly employed for the action by which the sacramental effect is signified: thus water is most commonly used by men for bodily cleansing, by which the spiritual cleansing is signified: and therefore water is employed as the matter of baptism. Ad tertium dicendum quod ille qui corrupte profert verba sacramentalia, si hoc ex industria facit, non videtur intendere facere quod facit Ecclesia, et ita non videtur perfici sacramentum. Si autem hoc faciat ex errore vel lapsu linguae, si sit tanta corruptio quae omnino auferat sensum locutionis, non videtur perfici sacramentum. Et hoc praecipue contingit quando fit corruptio ex parte principii dictionis, puta si, loco eius quod est in nomine patris, dicat, in nomine matris. Si vero non totaliter auferatur sensus locutionis per huiusmodi corruptelam, nihilominus perficitur sacramentum. Et hoc praecipue contingit quando fit corruptio ex parte finis, puta si aliquis dicat patrias et filias. Quamvis enim huiusmodi verba corrupte prolata nihil significent ex virtute impositionis, accipiuntur tamen ut significantia ex accommodatione usus. Et ideo, licet mutetur sonus sensibilis, remanet tamen idem sensus. Reply Obj. 3: If he who corrupts the pronunciation of the sacramental words—does so on purpose, he does not seem to intend to do what the Church intends: and thus the sacrament seems to be defective. But if he do this through error or a slip of the tongue, and if he so far mispronounce the words as to deprive them of sense, the sacrament seems to be defective. This would be the case especially if the mispronunciation be in the beginning of a word, for instance, if one were to say in nomine matris instead of in nomine Patris. If, however, the sense of the words be not entirely lost by this mispronunciation, the sacrament is complete. This would be the case principally if the end of a word be mispronounced; for instance, if one were to say patrias et filias. For although the words thus mispronounced have no appointed meaning, yet we allow them an accommodated meaning corresponding to the usual forms of speech. And so, although the sensible sound is changed, yet the sense remains the same. Quod autem dictum est de differentia corruptionis circa principium vel finem dictionis, rationem habet quia apud nos variatio dictionis ex parte principii mutat significationem, variatio autem ex fine dictionis ut plurimum non mutat significationem. Quae tamen apud Graecos variatur etiam secundum principium dictionis in declinatione verborum. What has been said about the various mispronunciations of words, either at the beginning or at the end, holds forasmuch as with us a change at the beginning of a word changes the meaning, whereas a change at the end generally speaking does not effect such a change: whereas with the Greeks the sense is changed also in the beginning of words in the conjugation of verbs. Magis tamen videtur attendenda quantitas corruptionis ex parte dictionis. Quia ex utraque parte potest esse tam parva quod non aufert sensum verborum, et tam magna, quod aufert. Sed unum horum facilius accidit ex parte principii, aliud ex parte finis. Nevertheless the principal point to observe is the extent of the corruption entailed by mispronunciation: for in either case it may be so little that it does not alter the sense of the words; or so great that it destroys it. But it is easier for the one to happen on the part of the beginning of the words, and the other at the end. Articulus 8 Article 8 Utrum liceat addere verbis in quibus consistit forma sacramentorum Whether it is lawful to add anything to the words in which the sacramental form consists? Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod nihil liceat addere verbis in quibus consistit forma sacramentorum. Non enim minoris sunt necessitatis huiusmodi verba sacramentalia quam verba sacrae Scripturae. Sed verbis sacrae Scripturae nihil licet addere vel minuere, dicitur enim Deut. IV, non addetis ad verbum quod vobis loquor, nec auferetis ab eo; et Apoc. ult., contestor omni audienti verba prophetiae libri huius, si quis apposuerit ad haec, apponet super eum Deus plagas scriptas in libro isto; et si quis diminuerit, auferet Deus partem eius de libro vitae. Ergo videtur quod neque in formis sacramentorum liceat aliquid addere vel minuere. Objection 1: It seems that it is not lawful to add anything to the words in which the sacramental form consists. For these sacramental words are not of less importance than are the words of Holy Scripture. But it is not lawful to add anything to, or to take anything from, the words of Holy Scripture: for it is written (Deut 4:2): You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it; and (Rev 22:18, 19): I testify to everyone that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: if any man shall add to these things, God shall add to him the plagues written in this book. And if any man shall take away . . . God shall take away his part out of the book of life. Therefore it seems that neither is it lawful to add anything to, or to take anything from, the sacramental forms. Praeterea, verba se habent in sacramentis per modum formae, ut dictum est. Sed in formis quaelibet additio vel subtractio variat speciem, sicut et in numeris, ut dicitur in VIII Metaphys. Ergo videtur quod, si aliquid addatur vel subtrahatur a forma sacramenti, non erit idem sacramentum. Obj. 2: Further, in the sacraments words are by way of form, as stated above (A. 6, ad 2; A. 7). But any addition or subtraction in forms changes the species, as also in numbers (Metaph. viii). Therefore it seems that if anything be added to or subtracted from a sacramental form, it will not be the same sacrament. Praeterea, sicut ad formam sacramenti determinatus numerus dictionum requiritur, ita etiam requiritur determinatus ordo verborum, et etiam orationis continuitas. Si ergo additio vel subtractio non aufert sacramenti veritatem, videtur quod pari ratione nec transpositio verborum, aut etiam interpolatio pronuntiationis. Obj. 3: Further, just as the sacramental form demands a certain number of words, so does it require that these words should be pronounced in a certain order and without interruption. If therefore, the sacrament is not rendered invalid by addition or subtraction of words, in like manner it seems that neither is it, if the words be pronounced in a different order or with interruptions. Sed contra est quod in formis sacramentorum quaedam apponuntur a quibusdam quae ab aliis non ponuntur, sicut Latini baptizant sub hac forma, ego te baptizo in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti; Graeci autem sub ista, baptizatur servus Christi n. in nomine patris, et cetera. Et tamen utrique verum conferunt sacramentum. Ergo in formis sacramentorum licet aliquid addere vel minuere. On the contrary, Certain words are inserted by some in the sacramental forms, which are not inserted by others: thus the Latins baptize under this form: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; whereas the Greeks use the following form: The servant of God, N . . . is baptized in the name of the Father, etc. Yet both confer the sacrament validly. Therefore it is lawful to add something to, or to take something from, the sacramental forms. Respondeo dicendum quod circa omnes istas mutationes quae possunt in formis sacramentorum contingere, duo videntur esse consideranda. Unum quidem ex parte eius qui profert verba, cuius intentio requiritur ad sacramentum, ut infra dicetur. Et ideo, si intendat per huiusmodi additionem vel diminutionem alium ritum inducere qui non sit ab Ecclesia receptus, non videtur perfici sacramentum, quia non videtur quod intendat facere id quod facit Ecclesia. I answer that, With regard to all the variations that may occur in the sacramental forms, two points seem to call for our attention. One is on the part of the person who says the words, and whose intention is essential to the sacrament, as will be explained further on (Q. 64, A. 8). Wherefore if he intends by such addition or suppression to perform a rite other from that which is recognized by the Church, it seems that the sacrament is invalid: because he seems not to intend to do what the Church does. Aliud autem est considerandum ex parte significationis verborum. Cum enim verba operentur in sacramentis quantum ad sensum quem faciunt, ut supra dictum est, oportet considerare utrum per talem mutationem tollatur debitus sensus verborum, quia sic manifestum est quod tollitur veritas sacramenti. Manifestum est autem quod, si diminuatur aliquid eorum quae sunt de substantia formae sacramentalis, tollitur debitus sensus verborum, et ideo non perficitur sacramentum. Unde Didymus dicit, in libro de spiritu sancto, si quis ita baptizare conetur ut unum de praedictis nominibus praetermittat, scilicet patris et filii et spiritus sancti, sine perfectione baptizabit. Si autem subtrahatur aliquid quod non sit de substantia formae, talis diminutio non tollit debitum sensum verborum, et per consequens nec sacramenti perfectionem. Sicut in forma Eucharistiae, quae est, hoc est enim corpus meum, ly enim sublatum non tollit debitum sensum verborum, et ideo non impedit perfectionem sacramenti, quamvis possit contingere quod ille qui praetermittit, peccet ex negligentia vel contemptu. The other point to be considered is the meaning of the words. For since in the sacraments, the words produce an effect according to the sense which they convey, as stated above (A. 7, ad 1), we must see whether the change of words destroys the essential sense of the words: because then the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid. Now it is clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form be suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed; and consequently the sacrament is invalid. Wherefore Didymus says (De Spir. Sanct. ii): If anyone attempt to baptize in such a way as to omit one of the aforesaid names, i.e., of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, his baptism will be invalid. But if that which is omitted be not a substantial part of the form, such an omission does not destroy the essential sense of the words, nor consequently the validity of the sacrament. Thus in the form of the Eucharist—For this is My Body, the omission of the word for does not destroy the essential sense of the words, nor consequently cause the sacrament to be invalid; although perhaps he who makes the omission may sin from negligence or contempt. Circa additionem etiam contingit aliquid apponi quod est corruptivum debiti sensus, puta si aliquis dicat, ego te baptizo in nomine patris maioris et filii minoris, sicut Ariani baptizabant. Et ideo talis additio tollit veritatem sacramenti. Si vero sit talis additio quae non auferat debitum sensum, non tollitur sacramenti veritas. Nec refert utrum talis additio fiat in principio, medio vel fine. Ut, si aliquis dicat, ego te baptizo in nomine Dei patris omnipotentis, et filii eius unigeniti, et spiritus sancti Paracleti, erit verum Baptisma. Et similiter, si quis dicat, ego te baptizo in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti, et beata virgo te adiuvet, erit verum Baptisma. Again, it is possible to add something that destroys the essential sense of the words: for instance, if one were to say: I baptize thee in the name of the Father Who is greater, and of the Son Who is less, with which form the Arians baptized: and consequently such an addition makes the sacrament invalid. But if the addition be such as not to destroy the essential sense, the sacrament is not rendered invalid. Nor does it matter whether this addition be made at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end: For instance, if one were to say, I baptize thee in the name of the Father Almighty, and of the only Begotten Son, and of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the baptism would be valid; and in like manner if one were to say, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; and may the Blessed Virgin succour thee, the baptism would be valid. Forte autem si diceret, ego te baptizo in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti et beatae virginis Mariae, non esset Baptismus, quia dicitur I Cor. I, nunquid Paulus pro vobis crucifixus est? Aut in nomine Pauli baptizati estis? Sed hoc verum est si sic intelligatur in nomine beatae virginis baptizari sicut in nomine Trinitatis, quo Baptismus consecratur, talis enim sensus esset contrarius verae fidei, et per consequens tolleret veritatem sacramenti. Si vero sic intelligatur quod additur, et in nomine beatae virginis, non quasi nomen beatae virginis aliquid operetur in Baptismo, sed ut eius intercessio prosit baptizato ad conservandam gratiam baptismalem, non tollitur perfectio sacramenti. Perhaps, however, if one were to say, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the baptism would be void; because it is written (1 Cor 1:13): Was Paul crucified for you or were you baptized in the name of Paul? But this is true if the intention be to baptize in the name of the Blessed Virgin as in the name of the Trinity, by which baptism is consecrated: for such a sense would be contrary to faith, and would therefore render the sacrament invalid: whereas if the addition, and in the name of the Blessed Virgin be understood, not as if the name of the Blessed Virgin effected anything in baptism, but as intimating that her intercession may help the person baptized to preserve the baptismal grace, then the sacrament is not rendered void. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod verbis sacrae Scripturae non licet aliquid apponere quantum ad sensum, sed quantum ad expositionem sacrae Scripturae, multa verba eis a doctoribus apponuntur. Non tamen licet etiam verba sacrae Scripturae apponere ita quod dicantur esse de integritate sacrae Scripturae, quia hoc esset vitium falsitatis. Et similiter si quis diceret aliquid esse de necessitate formae quod non est. Reply Obj. 1: It is not lawful to add anything to the words of Holy Scripture as regards the sense; but many words are added by Doctors by way of explanation of the Holy Scriptures. Nevertheless, it is not lawful to add even words to Holy Scripture as though such words were a part thereof, for this would amount to forgery. It would amount to the same if anyone were to pretend that something is essential to a sacramental form, which is not so. Ad secundum dicendum quod verba pertinent ad formam sacramenti ratione sensus significati. Et ideo, quaecumque fiat additio vel subtractio vocum quae non addat aliquid aut subtrahat debito sensui, non tollitur species sacramenti. Reply Obj. 2: Words belong to a sacramental form by reason of the sense signified by them. Consequently any addition or suppression of words which does not add to or take from the essential sense, does not destroy the essence of the sacrament. Ad tertium dicendum quod, si sit tanta interruptio verborum quod intercipiatur intentio pronuntiantis, tollitur sensus sacramenti, et per consequens veritas eius. Non autem tollitur quando est parva interruptio proferentis, quae intentionem et intellectum non aufert. Reply Obj. 3: If the words are interrupted to such an extent that the intention of the speaker is interrupted, the sacramental sense is destroyed, and consequently, the validity of the sacrament. But this is not the case if the interruption of the speaker is so slight, that his intention and the sense of the words is not interrupted. Et idem etiam dicendum est de transpositione verborum. Quia, si tollit sensum locutionis, non perficitur sacramentum, sicut patet de negatione praeposita vel postposita signo. Si autem sit talis transpositio quae sensum locutionis non variat, non tollitur veritas sacramenti, secundum quod philosophus dicit quod nomina et verba transposita idem significant. The same is to be said of a change in the order of the words. Because if this destroys the sense of the words, the sacrament is invalidated: as happens when a negation is made to precede or follow a word. But if the order is so changed that the sense of the words does not vary, the sacrament is not invalidated, according to the Philosopher’s dictum: Nouns and verbs mean the same though they be transposed (Peri Herm. x). Quaestio 61 Question 61 De necessitate sacramentorum The Necessity of the Sacraments Deinde considerandum est de necessitate sacramentorum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. We must now consider the necessity of the sacraments; concerning which there are four points of inquiry: Primo, utrum sacramenta sint necessaria ad salutem humanam. (1) Whether sacraments are necessary for man’s salvation? Secundo, utrum fuerint necessaria in statu ante peccatum. (2) Whether they were necessary in the state that preceded sin? Tertio, utrum fuerint necessaria in statu post peccatum ante Christum. (3) Whether they were necessary in the state after sin and before Christ? Quarto, utrum fuerint necessaria post Christi adventum. (4) Whether they were necessary after Christ’s coming? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum sacramenta fuerint necessaria ad humanam salutem Whether sacraments are necessary for man’s salvation? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sacramenta non fuerint necessaria ad humanam salutem. Dicit enim apostolus, I ad Tim. IV, corporalis exercitatio ad modicum utilis est. Sed usus sacramentorum pertinet ad corporalem exercitationem, eo quod sacramenta perficiuntur in significatione sensibilium rerum et verborum, ut dictum est. Ergo sacramenta non sunt necessaria ad humanam salutem. Objection 1: It seems that sacraments are not necessary for man’s salvation. For the Apostle says (1 Tim 4:8): Bodily exercise is profitable to little. But the use of sacraments pertains to bodily exercise; because sacraments are perfected in the signification of sensible things and words, as stated above (Q. 60, A. 6). Therefore sacraments are not necessary for the salvation of man.