|
Saint Thomas Aquinas - Summa
Theologica
[For the sake of brevity we omit all but Saint Thomas'
salient points, germane to our discussion. Those acquainted with the Summa will notice that we have
generally excluded the objections to Saint Thomas' point of view and the
replies to those objections. Those understanding the difference between
salvation and redemption may wish to proceed directly to S.T.
III, Q.49 a.3. The reader is invited to examine the entire
text either in print or on line (URLs below).]
S.T. III, Q.46 a.1:
Whether it was necessary for Christ to suffer for the deliverance of the human
race?
I answer that, As the Philosopher teaches (Metaph. v), there
are several acceptations of the word "necessary." In one way it means
anything which of its nature cannot be otherwise; and in this way it is evident
that it was not necessary either on the part of God or on the part of man for
Christ to suffer. In another sense a thing may be necessary from some cause
quite apart from itself; and should this be either an efficient or a moving
cause then it brings about the necessity of compulsion; as, for instance, when a
man cannot get away owing to the violence of someone else holding him. But if
the external factor which induces necessity be an end, then it will be said to
be necessary from presupposing such end---namely, when some particular end
cannot exist at all, or not conveniently, except such end be presupposed. It was
not necessary, then, for Christ to suffer from necessity of compulsion, either
on God's part, who ruled that Christ should suffer, or on Christ's own part, who
suffered voluntarily. Yet it was necessary from necessity of the end proposed;
and this can be accepted in three ways. First of all, on our part, who have been
delivered by His Passion, according to John (3:14): "The Son of man must be
lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life
everlasting." Secondly, on Christ's part, who merited the glory of being
exalted, through the lowliness of His Passion: and to this must be referred Lk.
24:26: "Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter
into His glory?" Thirdly, on God's part, whose determination regarding the
Passion of Christ, foretold in the Scriptures and prefigured in the observances
of the Old Testament, had to be fulfilled. And this is what St. Luke says
(22:22): "The Son of man indeed goeth, according to that which is
determined"; and (Lk. 24:44,46): "These are the words which I spoke to
you while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled which are
written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning
Me: for it is thus written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise
again from the dead."
[It should be clear from the preceding and
following paragraph that in Question 60 Saint Thomas speaks of
"Redemption" even though he occasionally refers to
"Salvation" -- "The Son of man must be lifted up, that whosoever
believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting"
(above). "He set us an example of obedience, humility,
constancy, justice, and the other virtues displayed in the Passion, which are requisite
for man's salvation".... "by this man is all the more bound to
refrain from sin" (below). ]
S.T. III, Q.46 a.3:
Whether there was any more suitable way of delivering the human race than by
Christ's Passion?
I answer that, Among means to an end that one is
the more suitable whereby the various concurring means employed are themselves
helpful to such end. But in this that man was delivered by Christ's Passion,
many other things besides deliverance from sin concurred for man's salvation. In
the first place, man knows thereby how much God loves him, and is thereby
stirred to love Him in return, and herein lies the perfection of human
salvation; hence the Apostle says (Rm. 5:8): "God commendeth His charity
towards us; for when as yet we were sinners . . . Christ died for us."
Secondly, because thereby He set us an example of obedience, humility,
constancy, justice, and the other virtues displayed in the Passion, which are
requisite for man's salvation. Hence it is written (1 Pt. 2:21): "Christ
also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow in His
steps." Thirdly, because Christ by His Passion not only delivered man from
sin, but also merited justifying grace for him and the glory of bliss, as shall
be shown later (Question
[48], Article
[1]; Question
[49], Articles
[1], 5). Fourthly, because by this man is all the more bound to refrain from
sin, according to 1 Cor. 6:20: "You are bought with a great price: glorify
and bear God in your body." Fifthly, because it redounded to man's greater
dignity, that as man was overcome and deceived by the devil, so also it should
be a man that should overthrow the devil; and as man deserved death, so a man by
dying should vanquish death. Hence it is written (1 Cor. 15:57): "Thanks be
to God who hath given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." It was
accordingly more fitting that we should be delivered by Christ's Passion than
simply by God's good-will.
S.T. III, Q.48 a.1:
Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation by way of merit?
On the contrary, on the words of Phil. 2:9,
"Therefore God exalted Him," etc., Augustine says (Tract. civ in
Joan.): "The lowliness" of the Passion "merited glory; glory was
the reward of lowliness." But He was glorified, not merely in Himself, but
likewise in His faithful ones, as He says Himself (Jn. 17:10). Therefore it
appears that He merited the salvation of the faithful.
I answer that, As stated above (Question
[7], Articles
[1],9; Question
[8], Articles
[1],5), grace was bestowed upon Christ, not only as an individual, but
inasmuch as He is the Head of the Church, so that it might overflow into His
members; and therefore Christ's works are referred to Himself and to His members
in the same way as the works of any other man in a state of grace are referred
to himself. But it is evident that whosoever suffers for justice's sake,
provided that he be in a state of grace, merits his salvation thereby, according
to Mt. 5:10: "Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice's
sake." Consequently Christ by His Passion merited salvation, not only for
Himself, but likewise for all His members.
["He merited the salvation of the
faithful." -- "Christ by His Passion merited salvation, not only for
Himself, but likewise for all His members." -- "for the
faithful," "for His members," not "for all
men."]
S.T. III, Q.49 a.3:
Whether men are freed from the punishment of sin through Christ's Passion?
I answer that, Through Christ's Passion we have been delivered
from the debt of punishment in two ways. First of all, directly--namely,
inasmuch as Christ's Passion was sufficient and superabundant satisfaction for
the sins of the whole human race: but when sufficient satisfaction has been
paid, then the debt of punishment is abolished. In another way--indirectly, that
is to say--in so far as Christ's Passion is the cause of the forgiveness of sin,
upon which the debt of punishment rests.
Reply to Objection 1. Christ's Passion works its effect in them to
whom it is applied, through faith and charity and the sacraments of faith. And,
consequently, the lost in hell cannot avail themselves of its effects, since
they are not united to Christ in the aforesaid manner.
Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (1, ad 4,5), in order to secure
the effects of Christ's Passion, we must be likened unto Him. Now we are likened
unto Him sacramentally in Baptism, according to Rm. 6:4: "For we are buried
together with Him by baptism into death." Hence no punishment of
satisfaction is imposed upon men at their baptism, since they are fully
delivered by Christ's satisfaction. But because, as it is written (1
Peter 3:18), "Christ died" but "once for our sins,"
therefore a man cannot a second time be likened unto Christ's death by the
sacrament of Baptism. Hence it is necessary that those who sin after Baptism be
likened unto Christ suffering by some form of punishment or suffering which they
endure in their own person; yet, by the co-operation of Christ's satisfaction,
much lighter penalty suffices than one that is proportionate to the sin.
S.T. III, Q.60 a.6:
Whether words are required for the signification of the sacraments?
I answer that, The sacraments, as stated above (Articles
[2],3), are employed as signs for man's sanctification. Consequently they
can be considered in three ways: and in each way it is fitting for words to be
added to the sensible signs. For in the first place they can be considered in
regard to the cause of sanctification, which is the Word incarnate: to Whom the
sacraments have a certain conformity, in that the word is joined to the sensible
sign, just as in the mystery of the Incarnation the Word of God is united to
sensible flesh.
Secondly, sacraments may be considered on the part of man who is
sanctified, and who is composed of soul and body: to whom the sacramental remedy
is adjusted, since it touches the body through the sensible element, and the
soul through faith in the words. Hence Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.) on
Jn. 15:3, "Now you are clean by reason of the word," etc.:
"Whence hath water this so great virtue, to touch the body and wash the
heart, but by the word doing it, not because it is spoken, but because it is
believed?"
Thirdly, a sacrament may be considered on the part of the
sacramental signification. Now Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii) that
"words are the principal signs used by men"; because words can be
formed in various ways for the purpose of signifying various mental concepts, so
that we are able to express our thoughts with greater distinctness by means of
words. And therefore in order to insure the perfection of sacramental
signification it was necessary to determine the signification of the sensible
things by means of certain words. For water may signify both a cleansing by
reason of its humidity, and refreshment by reason of its being cool: but when we
say, "I baptize thee," it is clear that we use water in baptism in
order to signify a spiritual cleansing.
[Saint Thomas' third point is significant in that the
form is necessary to distinguish the matter beyond its mere appearance.
As he indicates, water may be used for a great number of purposes, and words
are needed to distinguish the fact that it is being used to confer the
Sacrament. In some cases, words are necessary to distinguish between
Sacraments. Confirmation and Episcopal Consecration both involve the
laying on of hands and anointing with oil -- the form of words indicates that
in the first case the matter is intended to bring about making the
recipient firm in the Holy Ghost; in the second case the form indicates that
the matter is intended to bring about the fullness of the priesthood in the
recipient. It would clearly be invalid to modify a sacramental form to
indicate some effect not intended by Christ -- some other purpose for
Confirmation, some other effect of Episcopal Consecration, the universal forgiveness of
all sin, or the unity of all men in the Mystical Body of Christ.]
S.T. III, Q.60 a.7:
Whether determinate words are required in the sacraments?
I answer that, As stated above (Article
[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.
S.T. III, Q.60 a.8:
Whether it is lawful to add anything to the words in which the
sacramental form consists?
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 Ghost"; 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.
[Saint Thomas here points to the possibility of legitimate
variation in the form of a Sacrament, as we see between the Western and various
Eastern Rites. It is significant to examine the forms employed by the
various Rites of the Church. A few are accessible from our index
page. There are some slight variations, but there are no
contradictions.]
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 (Question
[64], Article
[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.
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 (Article
[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 Ghost, "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.
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 Ghost, 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 Ghost"; and
may the Blessed Virgin succour thee, the baptism would be valid. Perhaps, however, if one were to say, "I baptize thee in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 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.
[This last paragraph illustrates the possibility of
making a valid form invalid by adding something which distorts the meaning of
the Sacrament. A few writers suggest that the consecration of the wine
is effected with just the beginning of the form: "For this is a
chalice of My blood." Even if this were correct (which is highly
doubtful), the addition of a notion contrary or at variance with our Lord's
stated purpose of the Sacrament -- that It will be effective in forgiving the
sins of all men -- would be invalidating. Consider the obvious
invalidity of something like: "For this is my body if you are foolish
enough to believe it."]
S.T. III, Q.64 a.8:
Whether the minister's intention is required for the validity of a sacrament?
I answer that, When a thing is
indifferent to many uses, it must needs be determined to one, if that one has to
be effected. Now those things which are done in the sacraments, can be done with
various intent; for instance, washing with water, which is done in baptism, may
be ordained to bodily cleanliness, to the health of the body, to amusement, and
many other similar things. Consequently, it needs to be determined to one
purpose, i.e. the sacramental effect, by the intention of him who washes. And
this intention is expressed by the words which are pronounced in the sacraments;
for instance the words, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father,"
etc.
Reply to Objection 1: An inanimate instrument has
no intention regarding the effect; but instead of the intention there is the
motion whereby it is moved by the principal agent. But an animate instrument,
such as a minister, is not only moved, but in a sense moves itself, in so far as
by his will he moves his bodily members to act. Consequently, his intention is
required, whereby he subjects himself to the principal agent; that is, it is
necessary that he intend to do that which Christ and the Church do.
Reply to Objection 2: On this point there are two
opinions. For some hold that the mental intention of the minister is necessary;
in the absence of which the sacrament is invalid: and that this defect in the
case of children who have not the intention of approaching the sacrament, is
made good by Christ, Who baptizes inwardly: whereas in adults, who have that
intention, this defect is made good by their faith and devotion.
This might be true enough of the ultimate effect, i.e.
justification from sins; but as to that effect which is both real and
sacramental, viz. the character, it does not appear possible for it to be made
good by the devotion of the recipient, since a character is never imprinted save
by a sacrament.
Consequently, others with better reason hold that the minister
of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is;
while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and
that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be
expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the
sacrament.
[The form is the outward indicator of the minister's
intent; the use of the prescribed matter and form being adequate proof
of a valid minister's valid intention, and consequent validity of the
Sacrament. See Pope Leo XIII - Apostolicæ curæ.)
It is inconceivable that Christ might have one intention, while the Church
holds something different. One must then ask whether the
mutilation of a sacramental form is the work of Church, or of individuals
claiming to legislate for Her. The mistranslations "for all
men," "per tutti," por todos," etcetera, purport to
translate "pro multis" in the Rite of Pope Paul VI,
which claims to be the new version of the Roman Rite, but was in fact the work
of Protestant ministers under the direction of a Freemason (Pope Paul exiled
Anibale Bugnini to Iran when confronted with documentation of the latter's
Masonic membership). There is no issue of the infallibility of
the Pope or the Church here, for the Novus Ordo was intended for only part of
the Universal Church. There is no issue of indefectability of the
Church here either, for priests are still able to follow a valid rite.
And, if anyone ever thought that Popes or bishops were impeccable that
notion has certainly been put to rest since Vatican II ! ]
Reply to Objection 3: Although he who thinks of
something else, has no actual intention, yet he has habitual intention, which
suffices for the validity of the sacrament; for instance if, when a priest goes
to baptize someone, he intends to do to him what the Church does. Wherefore if
subsequently during the exercise of the act his mind be distracted by other
matters, the sacrament is valid in virtue of his original intention.
Nevertheless, the minister of a sacrament should take great care to have actual
intention. But this is not entirely in man's power, because when a man wishes to
be very intent on something, he begins unintentionally to think of other things,
according to Ps. 39:18: "My heart hath forsaken me.
S.T. III, Q.78 a.1:
Whether this is the form of this sacrament: "This is My body," and
"This is the chalice of My blood"?
[Be careful not to misconstrue this article as Saint
Thomas' approval of the theory that the consecration of the wine is effected
by the first few words of the form. He develops the necessity for the
entire form in S.T. III, Q.78 a.3, which is given below.]
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "The
consecration is accomplished by the words and expressions of the Lord Jesus.
Because, by all the other words spoken, praise is rendered to God, prayer is put
up for the people, for kings, and others; but when the time comes for perfecting
the sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own words, but the words of Christ.
Therefore, it is Christ's words that perfect this sacrament."
I answer that, This sacrament differs from the
other sacraments in two respects. First of all, in this, that this sacrament is
accomplished by the consecration of the matter, while the rest are perfected in
the use of the consecrated matter. Secondly, because in the other sacraments the
consecration of the matter consists only in a blessing, from which the matter
consecrated derives instrumentally a spiritual power, which through the priest
who is an animated instrument, can pass on to inanimate instruments. But in this
sacrament the consecration of the matter consists in the miraculous change of
the substance, which can only be done by God; hence the minister in performing
this sacrament has no other act save the pronouncing of the words. And because
the form should suit the thing, therefore the form of this sacrament differs
from the forms of the other sacraments in two respects. First, because the form
of the other sacraments implies the use of the matter, as for instance,
baptizing, or signing; but the form of this sacrament implies merely the
consecration of the matter, which consists in transubstantiation, as when it is
said, "This is My body," or, "This is the chalice of My
blood." Secondly, because the forms of the other sacraments are pronounced
in the person of the minister, whether by way of exercising an act, as when it
is said, "I baptize thee," or "I confirm thee," etc.; or by
way of command, as when it is said in the sacrament of order, "Take the
power," etc.; or by way of entreaty, as when in the sacrament of Extreme
Unction it is said, "By this anointing and our intercession," etc. But
the form of this sacrament is pronounced as if Christ were speaking in person,
so that it is given to be understood that the minister does nothing in
perfecting this sacrament, except to pronounce the words of Christ.
S.T. III, Q.78 a.3:
Whether this is the proper form for the consecration of the wine: "This is
the chalice of My blood," etc.?
Objection 1: It seems that this is not the proper
form for the consecration of the wine. "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 forgiveness of sins." For as the bread is changed by
the power of consecration into Christ's body, so is the wine changed into
Christ's blood, as is clear from what was said above (Question
[76], Articles
[1],2,3). But in the form of the consecration of the bread, the body of
Christ is expressly mentioned, without any addition. Therefore in this form the
blood of Christ is improperly expressed in the oblique case, and the chalice in
the nominative, when it is said: "This is the chalice of My blood."
[The first objection is given here, not because it is
particularly germane to our concern, but because it states in full the form
being discussed by Saint Thomas.]
On the contrary, The Church, instructed by the apostles,
uses this form.
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 the expression.
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 this 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. Moreover, in Lk. 22:20, the words that follow
are interposed with the preceding words: "This is the chalice, the new
testament in My blood."
Consequently it must be said that all the aforesaid words belong
to the substance of the form; but that by the first words, "This is the
chalice of My blood," the change of the wine into blood is denoted, as
explained above (Article
[2]) in the form for the consecration of the bread; but by the words which
come after is shown the power of the blood shed in the Passion, which power
works in this sacrament, and is ordained for three purposes. First and
principally for securing our eternal heritage, according to Heb. 10:19:
"Having confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of
Christ"; and in order to denote this, we say, "of the New and Eternal
Testament." Secondly, for justifying by grace, which is by faith according
to Rm. 3:25,26: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith
in His blood . . . that He Himself may be just, and the justifier of him who is
of the faith of Jesus Christ": and on this account we add, "The
Mystery of Faith." Thirdly, for removing sins which are the impediments to
both of these things, according to Heb. 9:14: "The blood of Christ . . .
shall cleanse our conscience from dead works," that is, from sins; and on
this account, we say, "which shall be shed for you and for many unto the
forgiveness of sins."
[N.B. "... for removing sins which are the
impediments to both of these things, according to Heb. 9:14: "The blood
of Christ . . . shall cleanse our conscience from dead works," that is,
from sins; and on this account, we say, "which shall be shed for you and
for many unto the forgiveness of sins.""]
S.T. III, Q.78 a.3:
Whether the aforesaid expressions are true?
On the contrary, These words are pronounced in the person
of Christ, Who says of Himself (Jn. 14:6): "I am the truth."
I answer that, There have been many opinions on
this point. Some have said that in this expression, "This is My body,"
the word "this" implies demonstration as conceived, and not as
exercised, because the whole phrase is taken materially, since it is uttered by
a way of narration: for the priest relates that Christ said: "This is My
body."
But such a view cannot hold good, because then these words would
not be applied to the corporeal matter present, and consequently the sacrament
would not be valid: for Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.): "The word is
added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament." Moreover this solution
ignores entirely the difficulty which this question presents: for there is still
the objection in regard to the first uttering of these words by Christ; since it
is evident that then they were employed, not materially, but significatively.
And therefore it must be said that even when spoken by the priest they are taken
significatively, and not merely materially. Nor does it matter that the priest
pronounces them by way of recital, as though they were spoken by Christ, because
owing to Christ's infinite power, just as through contact with His flesh the
regenerative power entered not only into the waters which came into contact with
Christ, but into all waters throughout the whole world and during all future
ages, so likewise from Christ's uttering these words they derived their
consecrating power, by whatever priest they be uttered, as if Christ present
were saying them.
[N.B. "Some have said
that in this expression, "This is My body,"... is uttered by a
way of narration ...But such a view cannot hold good,
because then these words would not be applied to the corporeal matter present,
and consequently the sacrament would not be valid" On some level,
this goes beyond the debate on the proper words of consecration, for Saint
Thomas holds that if the words were uttered as a narration "the sacrament
would not be valid." And this narration is precisely what is
prescribed for Novus Ordo priests in the General Instruction on the
Roman Missal (#55d) and in the so-called "Catechism of the
Catholic Church" (#1353). That this erroneous direction appears
in what purports to be a universal catechism, it must be assumed that this
direction to celebrate invalidly is binding of all priests of the
Conciliar Church, no matter what rite they might use for Mass!
See Bulletin article for December 1997
]
Source: St. Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica
(New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947), trans.Fathers of the English Dominican
Province.
http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/home.html
or http://www.newadvent.org/summa/
or http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0023.htm
|
