|
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
(Dt. 4:2): "You shall not add to the word that I speak to
you, neither shall you take away from it"; and (Apoc.
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.
Objection 2: Further, in the sacraments words are by way of form,
as stated above (Article 6, ad 2; Article 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.
Objection 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.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
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).
|
|