|
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.
Objection 2: Further, words are required in the sacraments
forasmuch as they are the principal means of signification, as stated
above (Article 6). But it happens that various words mean the
same. Therefore determinate words are not required in the sacraments.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, our Lord used determinate words in consecrating the
sacrament of the Eucharist, when He said (Mt. 26:26):
"This is My Body." Likewise He commanded His disciples to
baptize under a form of determinate words, saying (Mt.
28:19): "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
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.
Nevertheless the principle 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.
|
|