Utrum fides ministri sit de necessitate sacramenti
Whether faith is required of necessity in the minister of a sacrament?
Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fides ministri sit de necessitate sacramenti. Sicut enim dictum est, intentio ministri est necessaria ad sacramenti perfectionem. Sed fides intentionem dirigit, ut Augustinus dicit, contra Iulianum. Ergo, si desit vera fides in ministro, non perficitur sacramentum.
Objection 1: It seems that faith is required of necessity in the minister of a sacrament. For, as stated above (A. 8), the intention of the minister is necessary for the validity of a sacrament. But faith directs in intention as Augustine says against Julian (In Psalm xxxi, cf. Contra Julian iv). Therefore, if the minister is without the true faith, the sacrament is invalid.
Praeterea, si minister Ecclesiae veram fidem non habeat, videtur esse haereticus. Sed haeretici, ut videtur, non possunt sacramenta conferre. Dicit enim Cyprianus, in epistola contra haereticos, omnia quaecumque faciunt haeretici, carnalia sunt et inania et falsa, ita ut nihil eorum quae illi gesserint, a nobis debeat probari. Et Leo Papa dicit, in epistola ad Leonem Augustum, manifestum est per crudelissimam et insanissimam vesaniam in Alexandrina sede omnium caelestium sacramentorum lumen extinctum. Intercepta est sacrificii oblatio, defecit chrismatis sanctificatio, et paricidalibus manibus impiorum omnia sese subtraxere mysteria. Ergo vera fides ministri est de necessitate sacramenti.
Obj. 2: Further, if a minister of the Church has not the true faith, it seems that he is a heretic. But heretics, seemingly, cannot confer sacraments. For Cyprian says in an epistle against heretics (lxxiii): Everything whatsoever heretics do, is carnal, void and counterfeit, so that nothing that they do should receive our approval. And Pope Leo says in his epistle to Leo Augustus (clvi): It is a matter of notoriety that the light of all the heavenly sacraments is extinguished in the see of Alexandria, by an act of dire and senseless cruelty. The sacrifice is no longer offered, the chrism is no longer consecrated, all the mysteries of religion have fled at the touch of the parricide hands of ungodly men. Therefore a sacrament requires of necessity that the minister should have the true faith.
Praeterea, illi qui non habent veram fidem, videntur esse per excommunicationem ab Ecclesia separati, dicitur enim in secunda canonica Ioannis, si quis venit ad vos et hanc doctrinam non affert, nolite recipere eum in domum, nec ave dixeritis ei; et Tit. III, haereticum hominem, post primam et secundam correctionem, devita. Sed excommunicatus non videtur conferre posse Ecclesiae sacramentum, cum sit ab Ecclesia separatus, ad cuius ministerium pertinet sacramentorum dispensatio. Ergo videtur quod vera fides ministri sit de necessitate sacramenti.
Obj. 3: Further, those who have not the true faith seem to be separated from the Church by excommunication: for it is written in the second canonical epistle of John (10): If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house, nor say to him; God speed you: and (Titus 3:10): A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition avoid. But it seems that an excommunicate cannot confer a sacrament of the Church: since he is separated from the Church, to whose ministry the dispensation of the sacraments belongs. Therefore a sacrament requires of necessity that the minister should have the true faith.
Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, contra Petilianum Donatistam, mementote sacramentis Dei nihil obesse mores malorum hominum, quod illa vel non sint, vel minus sancta sint.
On the contrary, Augustine says against the Donatist Petilian: Remember that the evil lives of wicked men are not prejudicial to God’s sacraments, by rendering them either invalid or less holy.
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, quia minister in sacramentis instrumentaliter operatur, non agit in virtute propria, sed in virtute Christi. Sicut autem pertinet ad propriam virtutem hominis caritas, ita et fides. Unde, sicut non requiritur ad perfectionem sacramenti quod minister sit in caritate, sed possunt etiam peccatores sacramenta conferre, ut supra dictum est; ita non requiritur fides eius, sed infidelis potest verum sacramentum praebere, dummodo cetera adsint quae sunt de necessitate sacramenti.
I answer that, As stated above (A. 5), since the minister works instrumentally in the sacraments, he acts not by his own but by Christ’s power. Now just as charity belongs to a man’s own power so also does faith. Wherefore, just as the validity of a sacrament does not require that the minister should have charity, and even sinners can confer sacraments, as stated above (A. 5); so neither is it necessary that he should have faith, and even an unbeliever can confer a true sacrament, provided that the other essentials be there.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod potest contingere quod aliquis patiatur defectum fidei circa aliquid aliud, et non circa veritatem sacramenti quod exhibet, puta si aliquis credat iuramentum esse in omni casu illicitum, et tamen credat Baptismum efficaciam habere ad salutem. Et sic talis infidelitas non impedit intentionem conferendi sacramentum. Si vero patiatur fidei defectum circa ipsum sacramentum quod exhibet, licet credat per id quod agitur exterius nullum sequi interiorem effectum, non tamen ignorat quod Ecclesia Catholica intendit per huiusmodi quae exterius aguntur, sacramentum praebere. Unde, non obstante infidelitate, potest intendere facere id quod facit Ecclesia, licet existimet id nihil esse. Et talis intentio sufficit ad sacramentum, quia, sicut supra dictum est, minister sacramenti agit in persona totius Ecclesiae, ex cuius fide suppletur id quod deest fidei ministro.
Reply Obj. 1: It may happen that a man’s faith is defective in regard to something else, and not in regard to the reality of the sacrament which he confers: for instance, he may believe that it is unlawful to swear in any case whatever, and yet he may believe that baptism is an efficient cause of salvation. And thus such unbelief does not hinder the intention of conferring the sacrament. But if his faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for a sacrament: because as stated above (A. 8, ad 2) the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith any defect in the minister’s faith is made good.
Ad secundum dicendum quod haereticorum quidam in collatione sacramentorum formam Ecclesiae non servant. Et tales neque sacramentum conferunt, neque rem sacramenti. Quidam vero servant Ecclesiae formam. Et tales conferunt quidem sacramentum, sed non conferunt rem sacramenti. Et hoc dico, si sunt manifeste ab Ecclesia praecisi. Quia ex hoc ipso quod aliquis accipit sacramenta ab eis, peccat, et per hoc impeditur ne effectum sacramenti consequatur. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de fide ad Petrum, firmissime tene, et nullatenus dubites, extra Ecclesiam baptizatis, si ad Ecclesiam non redierint, Baptismo cumulari perniciem. Et per hunc modum dicit Leo Papa in sede Alexandrina sacramentorum lumen esse extinctum, scilicet, quantum ad rem sacramenti, non autem quantum ad ipsum sacramentum.
Reply Obj. 2: Some heretics in conferring sacraments do not observe the form prescribed by the Church: and these confer neither the sacrament nor the reality of the sacrament. But some do observe the form prescribed by the Church: and these confer indeed the sacrament but not the reality. I say this in the supposition that they are outwardly cut off from the Church; because from the very fact that anyone receives the sacraments from them, he sins; and consequently is hindered from receiving the effect of the sacrament. Wherefore Augustine (Fulgentius, De Fide ad Pet.) says: Be well assured and have no doubt whatever that those who are baptized outside the Church, unless they come back to the Church, will reap disaster from their Baptism. In this sense Pope Leo says that the light of the sacraments was extinguished in the Church of Alexandria; viz. in regard to the reality of the sacrament, not as to the sacrament itself.
Cyprianus autem nec sacramentum conferre haereticos credebat, sed in hoc eius sententia non tenetur. Unde Augustinus dicit, martyrem Cyprianum, qui apud haereticos vel schismaticos datum Baptismum nolebat cognoscere, tanta merita, usque ad triumphum martyrii, secuta sunt, ut caritatis qua excellebat luce obumbratio illa fugaretur, et, si quid purgandum erat, passionis falce tolleretur.
Cyprian, however, thought that heretics do not confer even the sacrament: but in this respect we do not follow his opinion. Hence Augustine says (De unico Baptismo xiii): Though the martyr Cyprian refused to recognize Baptism conferred by heretics or schismatics, yet so great are his merits, culminating in the crown of martyrdom, that the light of his charity dispels the darkness of his fault, and if anything needed pruning, the sickle of his passion cut it off.
Ad tertium dicendum quod potestas ministrandi sacramenta pertinet ad spiritualem characterem, qui indelebilis est, ut ex supra dictis patet. Et ideo per hoc quod aliquis ab Ecclesia suspenditur vel excommunicatur, vel etiam degradatur, non amittit potestatem conferendi sacramentum, sed licentiam utendi hac potestate. Et ideo sacramentum quidem confert, sed tamen peccat conferendo. Et similiter ille qui ab eo accipit sacramentum, et sic non percipit rem sacramenti, nisi forte per ignorantiam excusetur.
Reply Obj. 3: The power of administering the sacraments belongs to the spiritual character which is indelible, as explained above (Q. 63, A. 3). Consequently, if a man be suspended by the Church, or excommunicated or degraded, he does not lose the power of conferring sacraments, but the permission to use this power. Wherefore he does indeed confer the sacrament, but he sins in so doing. He also sins that receives a sacrament from such a man: so that he does not receive the reality of the sacrament, unless ignorance excuses him.
Utrum intentio recta ministri requiratur ad perfectionem sacramenti
Whether the validity of a sacrament requires a good intention in the minister?
Ad decimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod intentio recta ministri requiratur ad perfectionem sacramenti. Intentio enim ministri debet conformari intentioni Ecclesiae, ut ex dictis patet. Sed intentio Ecclesiae semper est recta. Ergo de necessitate ad sacramenti perfectionem requiritur intentio recta ministri.
Objection 1: It seems that the validity of a sacrament requires a good intention in the minister. For the minister’s intention should be in conformity with the Church’s intention, as explained above (A. 8, ad 1). But the intention of the Church is always good. Therefore the validity of a sacrament requires of necessity a good intention in the minister.
Praeterea, perversa intentio deterior esse videtur quam intentio iocosa. Sed intentio iocosa tollit sacramentum, puta si aliquis non serio, sed ludo aliquem baptizaret. Ergo multo magis perversa intentio aufert sacramentum, puta si aliquis aliquem baptizaret ut postmodum eum occideret.
Obj. 2: Further, a perverse intention seems worse than a playful one. But a playful intention destroys a sacrament: for instance, if someone were to baptize anybody not seriously but in fun. Much more, therefore, does a perverse intention destroy a sacrament: for instance, if somebody were to baptize a man in order to kill him afterwards.
Praeterea, perversa intentio facit totum opus vitiosum, secundum illud Luc. XI, si oculus tuus fuerit nequam, totum corpus tuum tenebrosum erit. Sed sacramenta Christi non possunt inquinari per malos homines, sicut Augustinus dicit, contra Petilianum. Ergo videtur quod, si sit perversa intentio ministri, non sit ibi verum sacramentum.
Obj. 3: Further, a perverse intention vitiates the whole work, according to Luke 11:34: If thy eye be evil, thy whole body will be darksome. But the sacraments of Christ cannot be contaminated by evil men; as Augustine says against Petilian (Cont. Litt. Petil ii). Therefore it seems that, if the minister’s intention is perverse, the sacrament is invalid.
Sed contra est quod perversa intentio pertinet ad malitiam ministri. Sed malitia ministri non tollit sacramentum. Ergo nec perversa intentio.
On the contrary, A perverse intention belongs to the wickedness of the minister. But the wickedness of the minister does not annul the sacrament: neither, therefore, does his perverse intention.
Respondeo dicendum quod intentio ministri potest perverti dupliciter. Uno modo, respectu ipsius sacramenti, puta cum aliquis non intendit sacramentum conferre, sed delusorie aliquid agere. Et talis perversitas tollit veritatem sacramenti, praecipue quando suam intentionem exterius manifestat.
I answer that, The minister’s intention may be perverted in two ways. First in regard to the sacrament: for instance, when a man does not intend to confer a sacrament, but to make a mockery of it. Such a perverse intention takes away the truth of the sacrament, especially if it be manifested outwardly.
Alio modo potest perverti intentio ministri quantum ad id quod sequitur sacramentum, puta si sacerdos intendat aliquam feminam baptizare ut abutatur ea; vel si intendat conficere corpus Christi ut eo ad veneficia utatur. Et quia prius non dependet a posteriori, inde est quod talis intentionis perversitas veritatem sacramenti non tollit, sed ipse minister ex tali intentione graviter peccat.
Second, the minister’s intention may be perverted as to something that follows the sacrament: for instance, a priest may intend to baptize a woman so as to be able to abuse her; or to consecrate the Body of Christ, so as to use it for sorcery. And because that which comes first does not depend on that which follows, consequently such a perverse intention does not annul the sacrament; but the minister himself sins grievously in having such an intention.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Ecclesiae intentio recta est et quantum ad sacramenti perfectionem, et quantum ad sacramenti usum, sed prima rectitudo perficit sacramentum, secunda operatur ad meritum. Et ideo minister qui conformat intentionem suam Ecclesiae quantum ad primam rectitudinem, non autem quantum ad secundam, perficit quidem sacramentum, sed non est sibi ad meritum.
Reply Obj. 1: The Church has a good intention both as to the validity of the sacrament and as to the use thereof: but it is the former intention that perfects the sacrament, while the latter conduces to the meritorious effect. Consequently, the minister who conforms his intention to the Church as to the former rectitude, but not as to the latter, perfects the sacrament indeed, but gains no merit for himself.
Ad secundum dicendum quod intentio ludicra vel iocosa excludit primam rectitudinem intentionis, per quam perficitur sacramentum. Et ideo non est similis ratio.
Reply Obj. 2: The intention of mimicry or fun excludes the first kind of right intention, necessary for the validity of a sacrament. Consequently, there is no comparison.
Ad tertium dicendum quod perversa intentio pervertit opus intendentis, non autem opus alterius. Et ideo ex perversa intentione ministri pervertitur id quod agit in sacramentis inquantum est opus eius, non inquantum est opus Christi, cuius est minister. Et est simile si minister alicuius hominis prava intentione deferret pauperibus eleemosynam, quam dominus recta intentione mandaret.
Reply Obj. 3: A perverse intention perverts the action of the one who has such an intention, not the action of another. Consequently, the perverse intention of the minister perverts the sacrament in so far as it is his action: not in so far as it is the action of Christ, Whose minister he is. It is just as if the servant of some man were to carry alms to the poor with a wicked intention, whereas his master had commanded him with a good intention to do so.
De numero sacramentorum
The Number of the Sacraments
Deinde considerandum est de numero sacramentorum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor.
We have now to consider the number of the sacraments: and concerning this there are four points of inquiry:
Primo, utrum sint septem sacramenta.
(1) Whether there are seven sacraments?
Secundo, de ordine eorum ad invicem.
(2) The order of the sacraments among themselves;
Tertio, de comparatione eorum.
(3) Their mutual comparison;
Quarto, utrum omnia sint de necessitate salutis.
(4) Whether all the sacraments are necessary for salvation?
Utrum debeant esse septem sacramenta
Whether there should be seven sacraments?
Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non debeant esse septem sacramenta. Sacramenta enim efficaciam habent ex virtute divina, et ex virtute passionis Christi. Sed una est virtus divina, et una est Christi passio, una enim oblatione consummavit sanctificatos in sempiternum, ut dicitur Heb. X. Ergo non debuit esse nisi unum sacramentum.
Objection 1: It seems that there ought not to be seven sacraments. For the sacraments derive their efficacy from the Divine power, and the power of Christ’s Passion. But the Divine power is one, and Christ’s Passion is one; since by one oblation He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified (Heb 10:14). Therefore there should be but one sacrament.
Praeterea, sacramentum ordinatur contra defectum peccati. Hic autem est duplex, scilicet poena et culpa. Ergo sufficeret esse duo sacramenta.
Obj. 2: Further, a sacrament is intended as a remedy for the defect caused by sin. Now this is twofold, punishment and guilt. Therefore two sacraments would be enough.
Praeterea, sacramenta pertinent ad actiones ecclesiasticae hierarchiae, ut patet per Dionysium. Sed, sicut ipse dicit, tres sunt actiones hierarchicae, purgatio, illuminatio et perfectio. Ergo non debent esse nisi tria sacramenta.
Obj. 3: Further, sacraments belong to the actions of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, as Dionysius explains (Eccl. Hier. v). But, as he says, there are three actions of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, namely, to cleanse, to enlighten, to perfect. Therefore there should be no more than three sacraments.
Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, XIX contra Faustum, sacramenta novae legis sunt numero pauciora quam sacramenta veteris legis. Sed in veteri lege non erat aliquod sacramentum quod responderet confirmationi et extremae unctioni. Ergo neque debent numerari inter sacramenta novae legis.
Obj. 4: Further, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix) that the sacraments of the New Law are less numerous than those of the Old Law. But in the Old Law there was no sacrament corresponding to Confirmation and Extreme Unction. Therefore these should not be counted among the sacraments of the New Law.
Praeterea, luxuria non est gravius inter cetera peccata, ut patet ex his quae in secunda parte dicta sunt. Sed contra alia peccata non instituitur aliquod sacramentum. Ergo neque contra luxuriam debuit institui sacramentum matrimonii.
Obj. 5: Further, lust is not more grievous than other sins, as we have made clear in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 74, A. 5; II-II, Q. 154, A. 3). But there is no sacrament instituted as a remedy for other sins. Therefore neither should matrimony be instituted as a remedy for lust.