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. Praeterea, II Cor. XII, apostolo dicitur, sufficit tibi gratia mea. Non autem sufficeret si sacramenta essent necessaria ad salutem. Non sunt ergo sacramenta saluti humanae necessaria. Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle was told (2 Cor 12:9): My grace is sufficient for thee. But it would not suffice if sacraments were necessary for salvation. Therefore sacraments are not necessary for man’s salvation. Praeterea, posita causa sufficienti, nihil aliud videtur esse necessarium ad effectum. Sed passio Christi est sufficiens causa nostrae salutis, dicit enim apostolus, ad Rom. V, si, cum inimici essemus, reconciliati sumus Deo per mortem filii eius, multo magis, reconciliati, salvi erimus in vita ipsius. Non ergo requiruntur sacramenta ad salutem humanam. Obj. 3: Further, given a sufficient cause, nothing more seems to be required for the effect. But Christ’s Passion is the sufficient cause of our salvation; for the Apostle says (Rom 5:10): If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son: much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by His life. Therefore sacraments are not necessary for man’s salvation. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, XIX contra Faust., in nullum nomen religionis, seu verum seu falsum, coadunari homines possunt, nisi aliquo signaculorum vel sacramentorum visibilium consortio colligentur. Sed necessarium est ad humanam salutem homines adunari in unum verae religionis nomen. Ergo sacramenta sunt necessaria ad humanam salutem. On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): It is impossible to keep men together in one religious denomination, whether true or false, except they be united by means of visible signs or sacraments. But it is necessary for salvation that men be united together in the name of the one true religion. Therefore sacraments are necessary for man’s salvation. Respondeo dicendum quod sacramenta sunt necessaria ad humanam salutem triplici ratione. Quarum prima sumenda est ex conditione humanae naturae, cuius proprium est ut per corporalia et sensibilia in spiritualia et intelligibilia deducatur. Pertinet autem ad divinam providentiam ut unicuique rei provideat secundum modum suae conditionis. Et ideo convenienter divina sapientia homini auxilia salutis confert sub quibusdam corporalibus et sensibilibus signis, quae sacramenta dicuntur. I answer that, Sacraments are necessary unto man’s salvation for three reasons. The first is taken from the condition of human nature which is such that it has to be led by things corporeal and sensible to things spiritual and intelligible. Now it belongs to Divine providence to provide for each one according as its condition requires. Divine wisdom, therefore, fittingly provides man with means of salvation, in the shape of corporeal and sensible signs that are called sacraments. Secunda ratio sumenda est ex statu hominis, qui peccando se subdidit per affectum corporalibus rebus. Ibi autem debet medicinale remedium homini adhiberi ubi patitur morbum. Et ideo conveniens fuit ut Deus per quaedam corporalia signa hominibus spiritualem medicinam adhiberet, nam, si spiritualia nuda ei proponerentur, eius animus applicari non posset, corporalibus deditus. The second reason is taken from the state of man who in sinning subjected himself by his affections to corporeal things. Now the healing remedy should be given to a man so as to reach the part affected by disease. Consequently it was fitting that God should provide man with a spiritual medicine by means of certain corporeal signs; for if man were offered spiritual things without a veil, his mind being taken up with the material world would be unable to apply itself to them. Tertia ratio sumenda est ex studio actionis humanae, quae praecipue circa corporalia versatur. Ne igitur esset homini durum si totaliter a corporalibus actibus abstraheretur, proposita sunt ei corporalia exercitia in sacramentis, quibus salubriter exerceretur, ad evitanda superstitiosa exercitia, quae consistunt in cultu Daemonum, vel qualitercumque noxia, quae consistunt in actibus peccatorum. The third reason is taken from the fact that man is prone to direct his activity chiefly towards material things. Lest, therefore, it should be too hard for man to be drawn away entirely from bodily actions, bodily exercise was offered to him in the sacraments, by which he might be trained to avoid superstitious practices, consisting in the worship of demons, and all manner of harmful action, consisting in sinful deeds. Sic igitur per sacramentorum institutionem homo convenienter suae naturae eruditur per sensibilia; humiliatur, se corporalibus subiectum recognoscens, dum sibi per corporalia subvenitur; praeservatur etiam a noxiis corporalibus per salubria exercitia sacramentorum. It follows, therefore, that through the institution of the sacraments man, consistently with his nature, is instructed through sensible things; he is humbled, through confessing that he is subject to corporeal things, seeing that he receives assistance through them: and he is even preserved from bodily hurt, by the healthy exercise of the sacraments. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod corporalis exercitatio, inquantum est corporalis, non multum utilis est. Sed exercitatio per usum sacramentorum non est pure corporalis, sed quodammodo est spiritualis, scilicet per significationem et causalitatem. Reply Obj. 1: Bodily exercise, as such, is not very profitable: but exercise taken in the use of the sacraments is not merely bodily, but to a certain extent spiritual, viz. in its signification and in its causality. Ad secundum dicendum quod gratia Dei est sufficiens causa humanae salutis. Sed Deus dat hominibus gratiam secundum modum eis convenientem. Et ideo necessaria sunt hominibus sacramenta ad gratiam consequendam. Reply Obj. 2: God’s grace is a sufficient cause of man’s salvation. But God gives grace to man in a way which is suitable to him. Hence it is that man needs the sacraments that he may obtain grace. Ad tertium dicendum quod passio Christi est causa sufficiens humanae salutis. Nec propter hoc sequitur quod sacramenta non sint necessaria ad humanam salutem, quia operantur in virtute passionis Christi, et passio Christi quodammodo applicatur hominibus per sacramenta, secundum illud apostoli, Rom. VI, quicumque baptizati sumus in Christo Iesu, in morte ipsius baptizati sumus. Reply Obj. 3: Christ’s Passion is a sufficient cause of man’s salvation. But it does not follow that the sacraments are not also necessary for that purpose: because they obtain their effect through the power of Christ’s Passion; and Christ’s Passion is, so to say, applied to man through the sacraments according to the Apostle (Rom 6:3): All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum ante peccatum fuerint homini necessaria sacramenta Whether before sin sacraments were necessary to man?