|
Objection 1: It seems that Baptism can be conferred in the name of
Christ. For just as there is "one Faith," so is there "one
Baptism" (Eph. 4:5). But it is related (Acts 8:12)
that "in the name of Jesus Christ they were baptized, both men and
women." Therefore now also can Baptism be conferred in the name of
Christ.
Objection 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Spir. Sanct. i):
"If you mention Christ, you designate both the Father by Whom He
was anointed, and the Son Himself, Who was anointed, and the Holy
Ghost with Whom He was anointed." But Baptism can be conferred in
the name of the Trinity: therefore also in the name of Christ.
Objection 3: Further, Pope Nicholas I, answering questions put
to him by the Bulgars, said: "Those who have been baptized in the
name of the Trinity, or only in the name of Christ, as we read in
the Acts of the Apostles (it is all the same, as Blessed Ambrose
saith), must not be rebaptized." But they would be baptized again
if they had not been validly baptized with that form. Therefore
Baptism can be celebrated in the name of Christ by using this form:
"I baptize thee in the name of Christ."
On the contrary, Pope Pelagius II wrote to the Bishop
Gaudentius: "If any people living in your Worship's neighborhood,
avow that they have been baptized in the name of the Lord only,
without any hesitation baptize them again in the name of the Blessed
Trinity, when they come in quest of the Catholic Faith."
Didymus, too, says (De Spir. Sanct.): "If indeed there be
such a one with a mind so foreign to faith as to baptize while omitting
one of the aforesaid names," viz. of the three Persons, "he
baptizes invalidly."
I answer that, As stated above (Question 64, Article 3), the
sacraments derive their efficacy from Christ's institution.
Consequently, if any of those things be omitted which Christ
instituted in regard to a sacrament, it is invalid; save by special
dispensation of Him Who did not bind His power to the sacraments.
Now Christ commanded the sacrament of Baptism to be given with the
invocation of the Trinity. And consequently whatever is lacking to
the full invocation of the Trinity, destroys the integrity of
Baptism.
Nor does it matter that in the name of one Person another is implied,
as the name of the Son is implied in that of the Father, or that he
who mentions the name of only one Person may believe aright in the
Three; because just as a sacrament requires sensible matter, so does
it require a sensible form. Hence, for the validity of the sacrament
it is not enough to imply or to believe in the Trinity, unless the
Trinity be expressed in sensible words. For this reason at Christ's
Baptism, wherein was the source of the sanctification of our
Baptism, the Trinity was present in sensible signs: viz. the
Father in the voice, the Son in the human nature, the Holy Ghost
in the dove.
Reply to Objection 1: It was by a special revelation from Christ
that in the primitive Church the apostles baptized in the name of
Christ; in order that the name of Christ, which was hateful to Jews
and Gentiles, might become an object of veneration, in that the Holy
Ghost was given in Baptism at the invocation of that Name.
Reply to Objection 2: Ambrose here gives this reason why exception
could, without inconsistency, be allowed in the primitive Church;
namely, because the whole Trinity is implied in the name of Christ,
and therefore the form prescribed by Christ in the Gospel was observed
in its integrity, at least implicitly.
Reply to Objection 3: Pope Nicolas confirms his words by quoting
the two authorities given in the preceding objections: wherefore the
answer to this is clear from the two solutions given above.
|
|