|
Objection 1: It would seem that the form of this sacrament is
unsuitably set forth in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24). Because
the sacraments take their efficacy from their form. Now the efficacy
of the sacraments is from the divine power, which works our salvation
in them in a most hidden manner. Therefore the form of this sacrament
should include a mention of the divine power by the invocation of the
Trinity, as in the other sacraments.
Objection 2: Further, to command pertains to one who has
authority. Now the dispenser of the sacrament exercises no authority,
but only ministry. Therefore he should not use the imperative mood by
saying: "Do" or "Receive" this or that, or some similar
expression.
Objection 3: Further, mention should not be made in the sacramental
form, except of such things as are essential to the sacrament. But
the use of the power received is not essential to this sacrament, but
is consequent upon it. Therefore it should not be mentioned in the
form of this sacrament.
Objection 4: Further, all the sacraments direct us to an eternal
reward. But the forms of the other sacraments make no mention of a
reward. Therefore neither should any mention be made thereof in the
form of this sacrament, as in the words: "Since thou wilt have a
share, if faithfully," etc.
I answer that, This sacrament consists chiefly in the power
conferred. Now power is conferred by power, as like proceeds from
like; and again power is made known by its use, since powers are
manifested by their acts. Wherefore in the form of order the use of
order is expressed by the act which is commanded; and the conferring of
power is expressed by employing the imperative mood.
Reply to Objection 1: The other sacraments are not ordained chiefly
to effects similar to the power whereby the sacraments are dispensed,
as this sacrament is. Hence in this sacrament there is a kind of
universal communication. Wherefore in the other sacraments something
is expressed on the part of the divine power to which the effect of the
sacrament is likened, but not in this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 2: There is a special reason why this
sacrament, rather than the others, is conferred by employing the
imperative mood. For although the bishop who is the minister of this
sacrament has no authority in respect of the conferring of this
sacrament, nevertheless he has some power with regard to the power of
Order, which power he confers, in so far as it is derived, from
his.
Reply to Objection 3: The use of power is the effect of power in
the genus of efficient cause, and from this point of view it has no
reason to be mentioned in the definition of Order. But it is somewhat
a cause in the genus of final cause, and from this point of view it can
be placed in the definition of order.
Reply to Objection 4: There is here a difference between this and
the other sacraments. Because by this sacrament an office or the power
to do something is conferred; and so it is fitting that mention be made
of the reward to be obtained if it be administered faithfully. But in
the other sacraments no such office or power to act is conferred, and
so no mention of reward is made in them. Accordingly the recipient is
somewhat passive in relation to the other sacraments, because he
receives them for the perfecting of his own state only, whereas in
relation to this sacrament he holds himself somewhat actively, since he
receives it for the sake of exercising hierarchical duties in the
Church. Wherefore although the other sacraments, from the very fact
that they give grace, direct the recipient to salvation, properly
speaking they do not direct him to a reward, in the same way as this
sacrament does.
|
|