The charge Christ gave his apostles before he left them was to go forth and baptize all nations. The rite of baptism is a visible sign – the pouring of or immersion in water – that symbolizes the cleansing of the soul from sin. Baptism is a sacrament and one retained by Christians who let all the other sacraments slip into oblivion. It is rightly held to be the sine qua non of the Christian life. Why should one person’s pouring water on another and saying the prescribed words have the spiritual effect it is supposed to have?
Taken as such, water and words have no such power. But baptism was instituted by Christ as a means of making available the grace he had won by his suffering and death. The human minister is merely an instrument, a surrogate.
Thomas recognized seven sacraments which differ from one another in important ways. None the less, they share not only the name but an essence or nature, and in the following discussion Thomas sets out to state what that common nature of the sacraments is.
SUMMA THEOLOGIAE, THIRD PART, QUESTION 6
After considering matters pertaining to the Incarnate Word, we must discuss the sacraments of the Church which have their efficacy from that very Incarnate Word. First, we will discuss sacraments in general, then each sacrament in particular. With respect to the first, there are five topics to take up: what is a sacrament; the necessity of the sacraments; the effects of the sacraments; their cause; and their number.
Eight questions arise as to the nature of a sacrament: (1) whether the sacrament is a kind of sign; (2) whether every sign of the sacred is a sacrament; (3) whether a sacrament is the sign of only one thing; (4) whether a sacrament is always a sensible sign; (5) whether a definite sensible thing is needed for sacrament; (6) whether the meaning of a sacrament requires words; (7) whether definite words are required; (8) whether one can add to or subtract from those words.
Article 1: Is a sacrament a kind of sign?
It seems that it is not.
1. Sacrament seems to derive from sacrando as medicament from medicating. But this seems to belong to the genus of cause rather than of sign. Therefore, the sacrament belongs in the genus of cause rather than sign.
2. Moreover, a sacrament seems to signify something hidden, according to Tobias 12.7, ‘For it is good to hide the sacrament of the king,’ and Ephesians 3.19, ‘to know Christ’s love which surpasses knowledge’. But that which surpasses knowledge seems to be the opposite of a sign, for a sign is that which, besides the form it exhibits to the senses, makes something else come to be known, as is clear from Augustine in On Christian Doctrine 2. Therefore, sacrament does not seem to be a kind of sign.
3. Moreover, an oath is sometimes named a sacrament, for it is said in the Decretals 22.5 that youngsters not yet of the age of reason are not forced to swear and he who once perjures himself is not again asked to be a witness, nor does he come forward to the sacrament, that is, to the oath. But an oath does not belong to the genus of sign. Therefore the sacrament is not a kind of sign.
ON THE CONTRARY:
There is what Augustine says in the City of God, that the visible sacrifice is the sacrament of the invisible sacrifice, namely the sacred sign.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that all things that are ordered to something one, though differently, can be denominated from it, as from the health that is in the animal not only the animal which is the subject of health is denominated healthy, but medicine insofar as it restores health, diet insofar as it preserves it, and urine insofar as it signifies it. Therefore something can be called a sacrament either because it has in itself some hidden holiness, and according to this a sacrament is the same as a sacred secret, or because it has some order to this holiness, whether of cause or of sign or whatever other relation. But we speak now especially of the sacraments insofar as they imply the relation of sign. And on this basis the sacrament is put into the genus of sign.
Ad 1. It should be said that because medicine is the efficient cause of health, all the things denominated from medicine are said with reference to one first agent, and because of this medication implies some causality. But sanctity, from which sacrament is denominated, is not signified by way of an efficient cause, but rather in the manner of a formal or final cause. Therefore it is not necessary that sacrament always imply causality.
Ad 2. It should be said that this argument proceeds insofar as sacrament is the same as a sacred secret. But it is not only a secret of God, but also of the king, that is said to be sacred and a sacrament. According to the ancients, the holy and sacrosanct were whatever it was not licit to violate, such as the walls of the city and persons constituted in dignity. Those secrets, therefore, whether divine or human, which it is not licit to be violated by anyone making them public are called sacred and sacraments.
Ad 3. It should be said that an oath too has some relation to sacred matters, insofar as testifying is done by something sacred. And on this basis it is said to be a sacrament, but not for the same reason that we are now speaking of sacraments. Although ‘sacrament’ is not taken equivocally, but analogically, that is, according to different relations to something one, which is the sacred thing.
Article 2: Is every sign of the sacred a sacrament?
It seems that it is.
1. All sensible creatures are signs of sacred things, according to Romans 1.19–20, ‘his invisible attributes – his everlasting power also and divinity – being understood through the things that are made’. However, not all sensible things can be called sacraments. Therefore, not every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament.
2. Moreover, all the things that come about in the Old Law prefigure Christ who is the holy of holies, according to 1 Corinthians 10.11, ‘Now all these things happened to them as a type,’ and Colossians 2.17, ‘These are a shadow of things to come, but the substance of Christ.’ But not all the deeds of the fathers of the Old Testament or even all the ceremonies of the law are sacraments, but some special ones, as was shown in Part 2. Therefore, it seems that not every sign of the sacred is a sacrament.
3. Moreover, in the New Testament also many things are done as a sign of sacred things, which, however, are not called sacraments, such as the sprinkling of holy water, the consecration of the altar, and the like. Therefore not every sign of the sacred is a sacrament.
ON THE CONTRARY:
The definition is convertible with the defined. But some define sacrament by the fact that it is a sign of a sacred thing, and this is seen on the authority of Augustine mentioned earlier. Therefore, it seems that every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that signs are given to men, who naturally go from the known to the unknown. Therefore, that is properly called a sacrament which is a sign of some sacred thing pertaining to men, such that that is properly called a sacrament, as we now speak of sacraments, which is a sign of a sacred thing sanctifying men.
Ad 1. It should be said that sensible creatures signify something sacred, namely the divine wisdom and goodness, insofar as they are in themselves sacred, but not insofar as through them we are sanctified. Therefore, they cannot be called sacraments as we are now using the term.
Ad 2. It should be said that some things belonging to the Old Testament signified the sanctity of Christ insofar as he is holy in himself. Others signified his sanctity insofar as through it we are sanctified, such as the immolation of the paschal lamb signified the immolation of Christ, whereby we are made holy. Such things are properly called the sacraments of the Old Law.
Ad 3. It should be said that a thing is named from its end and perfection. But disposition is not the end, perfection is. Therefore, things which signify a disposition to sanctity are not called sacraments – and it is from these that the objection proceeds – but only those things that signify the perfection of human sanctity.
Article 3: Is a sacrament the sign of only one thing?
It seems that it is not.
1. That by which many things are signified is an ambiguous sign, and consequently an occasion of deception, as is clear from equivocal terms. But every fallacy ought to be removed by the Christian religion, according to Colossians 2.8: ‘see to it that no one deceives you by philosophy and vain deceit.’ Therefore, it seems that a sacrament is not a sign of several things.
2. Moreover, as was said, sacrament signifies a sacred thing insofar as it is a cause of human sanctification. But there is only one cause of human sanctification, namely the blood of Christ, according to Hebrews 13.12: ‘And so Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people by his blood, suffered outside the gate.’ Therefore, it seems that a sacrament does not signify several things.
3. Moreover, it was said that a sacrament properly signifies the end itself of sanctification. But the end of sanctification is eternal life, according to Romans 6.22: ‘You have your fruit unto sanctification, and as your end, life everlasting.’ Therefore, it seems that sacraments signify only one thing, namely, eternal life.
ON THE CONTRARY:
In the sacrament of the altar two things are signified, namely the true and mystical body of Christ, as Augustine says in the book on the opinions of Prosperus.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that, as was remarked, a sacrament properly so called is ordered to signify our sanctification. In which three things are to be considered, namely the cause itself of our sanctification, which is the passion of Christ; the form of our sanctification, which consists in grace and virtues; and the ultimate end of our sanctification, which is eternal life. All these are signified by sacraments. Hence a sacrament is a commemorative sign of that which preceded, namely the passion of Christ; and demonstrative of that which is effected in us by Christ’s passion, namely grace; and prognostic, that is, foretelling, of future glory.
Ad 1. It should be said that a sign is ambiguous and gives occasion for deception, when it signifies many things one of which is not ordered to another. But when it signifies many things insofar as of them some one order is effected, then it is a certain and not an ambiguous sign, just as the term man signifies soul and body insofar as from them human nature is constituted. And in this way a sacrament signifies the three foregoing insofar as they are of one order.
Ad 2. It should be said that the sacrament, insofar as it signifies a sanctifying thing, must signify the effect which is understood in that sanctifying cause insofar as it is a sanctifying cause.
Ad 3. It should be said that it suffices for the definition of sacrament that it signifies the perfection which is form, nor is it necessary that it only signify the perfection which is the end.
Article 4: Is a sacrament always some sensible thing?
It seems that it is not.
1. According to the Philosopher in Prior Analytics 1, every effect is a sign of its cause. But just as there are sensible effects, so there are intelligible effects, as science is an effect of demonstration. Therefore, not every sign is sensible. But it suffices for the definition of sacrament that it be a sign of some sacred thing insofar as man is sanctified by it, as was said above. Therefore it is not required that a sacrament be some sensible thing.
2. Moreover, sacraments pertain to the reign and cult of God. But sensible things do not seem to pertain to the cult of God, for it is said in John 4.24, ‘God is spirit, and they who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth,’ and Romans 14.17, ‘For the kingdom of God does not consist in food and drink.’ Therefore sensible things are not required for sacraments.
3. Moreover, Augustine says in On Free Will that sensible things are least good and a man can live rightly without them. But sacraments are necessary for human salvation, as will be made clear below, and thus without them a man cannot live rightly. Therefore sensible things are not required for the sacraments.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Augustine says in commenting on John that a ‘word attains an element and a sacrament comes to be’. And he is speaking there of a sensible element, namely water. Therefore, sensible things are required for the sacraments.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that divine wisdom provides for each thing according to its own manner, and because of this it is said in Wisdom 8.1, ‘she reacheth from end to end mightily and ordereth all things sweetly.’ So too Matthew 25.15, ‘To each according to his particular ability.’ But it is connatural to man that he arrive at knowledge of intelligible things by way of the sensible. But a sign is that by which someone comes into knowledge of something else. Hence, since sacred things which are signified by the sacraments are spiritual and intelligible goods by which man is sanctified, it follows that the signification of the sacrament is fulfilled through sensible things, just as by the likeness of sensible things in divine Scripture spiritual things are described for us. Thence it is that sensible things are required for the sacraments, as Dionysius too proves in On the Celestial Hierarchy 1.
Ad 1. It should be said that a thing is chiefly denominated and defined by that which belongs to it first and of itself, not by what belongs to it by another. The sensible effect as such leads to knowledge of something else, as first and as such making things known to man, because all our knowledge takes its rise from the senses. But intelligible effects only lead to knowledge of something else insofar as they are manifested by something else, that is, by some sensible thing. Thence it is that what are first and principally called signs are things offered to the senses. As Augustine says in On Christian Doctrine 2, a sign is that which, over and above the species that it impresses on the senses, brings something else to our knowledge. Intelligible effects only have the note of sign insofar as they are made manifest by signs. And in this way some non-sensible things are said to be in a certain way sacraments, insofar as they are signified by sensible things, of which we will treat below.
Ad 2. It should be said that sensible things, considered in themselves, do not pertain to the cult of the kingdom of God, but only insofar as they are signs of spiritual things, in which the kingdom of God consists.
Ad 3. It should be said that Augustine speaks there of sensible things considered in their own natures, not as they are taken up to signify spiritual things, which are the greatest goods.
Article 5: Are determinate things needed for sacraments?
It seems not.
1. Sensible things are required in the sacraments for signification, as has been said. But nothing prevents the same thing from being signified by different sensible things, as in Sacred Scripture God is sometimes metaphorically signified by a stone, sometimes by a lion, sometimes by the sun, or other like things. Therefore it seems that different things can converge in the same sacrament and definite things are not required in the sacraments.
2. Moreover, the salvation of the soul is more necessary than the health of the body. But in medicines which are ordered to the health of the body, one can be substituted for another if it is defective. Much more then in the sacraments which are spiritual medicines ordered to the health of the soul can one thing be taken for another when it fails.
3. Moreover, it is not fitting that the salvation of men be restricted by divine law, especially the law of Christ, who came to save all men. But in the state of the law of nature definite things were not required in the sacraments, but were assumed at will, as is clear in Genesis 28.20, where Jacob vows to offer to God tithes and peace offerings. Therefore, it seems that man ought not to be constrained, especially in the New Law, to the use of definite things in the sacraments.
ON THE CONTRARY:
The Lord says in John 3.5, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.’
RESPONSE:
It should be said that in the use of the sacraments two things can be considered, namely the divine cult and the sanctification of man, of which the first pertains to man with reference to God and the second conversely pertains to God with reference to man. It does not pertain to anyone to determine what is in the power of another, but only what is in his own power. Therefore, because the sanctification of man is in the power of the sanctifying God, it does not pertain to man to assume by his own judgement the things by which he will be sanctified, but this ought to be determined by divine institution. Therefore in the sacraments of the New Law, by which men are sanctified, according to 1 Corinthians 6.11, ‘You have been washed, you have been sanctified,’ it is necessary to use the things determined by divine institution.
Ad 1. It should be said that if the same thing can be signified by different signs, to decide what sign ought to be used for signifying pertains to the one signifying. But God is the one who signifies to us spiritual things by means of sensible things in the sacraments, and by verbal similarities in the Scripture. Therefore, just as what similitudes will signify spiritual things in certain texts of Scripture is determined by the judgement of the Holy Spirit, so what things are taken to signify in this or that sacrament ought to be determined by divine institution.
Ad 2. It should be said that sensible things naturally have placed in them powers conducive to bodily health, and therefore it does not matter which of two having the same power one uses. But they are not ordered to sanctification by any power naturally in them, but only by divine institution. Therefore it was necessary that it be determined divinely which sensible things ought to be used in the sacraments.
Ad 3. It should be said that, as Augustine wrote in Against Faustus 19, different sacraments suit different times, just as different times are signified by different verbs, namely the present, past and future. Therefore, just as in the state of the law of nature men, with no exterior law being given them, were moved by interior instinct alone to worship God, so also by an exterior instinct were determined for them the sensible things that would be used in the cult of God. Afterwards however it was necessary for an exterior law to be given, both because of the obscurity of the law of nature due to the sins of men, and also for the more express signification of the grace of Christ by which the human race is sanctified. Therefore, it was also necessary that the things men would use in the sacraments be determined. The way of salvation is not constrained by this, because the things whose use is necessary in the sacraments are either commonly had or can be had with a slight effort.
Article 6: Are words needed for the meaning of sacraments?
It seems that they are not.
1. Augustine asks in Against Faustus, what are certain bodily sacraments if not, as it were, visible words? Thus it would seem that to add words to the sensible things in the sacraments would be to add words to words. But that is superfluous. Therefore words are not needed along with sensible things in the sacraments.
2. Moreover, a sacrament is something one. But it does not seem possible that something one can be made of things of different genera. Therefore, since sensible things and words are of different genera, because sensible things are from nature and words from reason, it seems that words are not needed in the sacraments along with sensible things.
3. Moreover, the sacraments of the New Law replace those of the Old Law because these are instituted when the latter have been taken away, as Augustine says in Against Faustus. But in the sacraments of the Old Law no form of words was required. Therefore, neither are words required in the sacraments of the New Law.
ON THE CONTRARY:
The Apostle says in Ephesians 5.25–6, ‘Christ also loved the Church, and delivered himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, cleansing her in the bath of water by means of the word.’ And Augustine says in commenting on John, ‘The word attained the element and a sacrament came to be.’
RESPONSE:
It should be said that sacraments, as has been pointed out, are offered for the sanctification of men as certain signs. They can be considered in three ways, each of which underscores that words are joined to sensible things. First, they can be considered on the part of the sanctifying cause, which is the Incarnate Word, to whom the sacrament in a certain way conforms, in that the word is added to the sensible thing, just as in the mystery of the incarnation the Word of God was united to sensible flesh.
Second, the sacraments can be considered from the side of man who is sanctified, who is composed of soul and body, to whom the sacramental medicine is proportioned, which touches the body through the visible sign and by the word is believed by the soul. Hence Augustine says on John 15.3, ‘You are already clean because of the word that I have spoken…’; ‘Whence comes this great power of water that it should touch the body and cleanse the heart if not because the word makes it so, not because it is said, but because it is believed?’
Third, they can be considered on the part of the very sacramental signification. But Augustine says in On Christian Doctrine 2.3 that among men words take pride of place in signification because words can be differently formed to express different concepts of the mind, and because of this we can more distinctly express in words what we conceive with the mind. Therefore the perfection of sacramental signification required that the signification of sensible things be determined by certain words. For water can signify both cleansing, because of its wetness, and refreshment, because of its coolness, but when it is said, ‘I baptize you,’ it is made clear that we use water in baptism to signify a spiritual cleansing.
Ad 1. It should be said that the visible things of the sacraments are called words by a kind of similitude, namely insofar as they shared some of the power of signifying which is chiefly in words themselves, as has been said, and therefore it is not a superfluous doubling of words when words are added to visible things in the sacraments, because one of them is determined by the other, as has been said.
Ad 2. It should be said that although words and other sensible things are in different genera so far as the nature of the thing is concerned, they share the note of signifying, which is more perfectly in words than in other things. Therefore from words and things something one comes to be in the sacraments as from form and matter, insofar as by words the signification of things is perfected, as was said. Under things are included sensible acts themselves, such as washing and anointing and the like, because there is the same note of signifying in them as in things.
Ad 3. It should be said that, as Augustine says in Against Faustus, sacraments of present and of future things should differ. But the sacraments of the Old Law were announcements of the coming of Christ. Therefore they did not as expressly signify Christ as do the sacraments of the New Law, which flow from Christ himself and have in them some likeness of him, as was said. However in the Old Law they used certain words in the cult of God, both the priests who were ministers of those sacraments, according to Numbers 6.23–4, ‘Thus shall you bless the children of Israel, saying: The Lord bless thee and keep thee,’ as well as those who used those sacraments, according to Deuteronomy 26.3: ‘I profess this day before the Lord thy God…’
Article 7: Are definite words needed in sacraments?
It seems that they are not.
1. As the Philosopher says, words are not the same with all. But salvation which is sought through the sacrament is the same for all. Therefore definite words are not required for the sacraments.
2. Moreover, words are required in the sacraments insofar as they are significant par excellence, as was said above. But the same thing can be signified by different words. Therefore definite words are not required in the sacraments.
3. Moreover, the corruption of anything changes its species. But some speak words corruptly and this does not impede belief in the effect of the sacraments; otherwise the illiterate and stutterers who confer the sacraments would frequently cause a defect in the sacraments. Therefore, it seems that definite words are not required for the sacraments.
ON THE CONTRARY:
The Lord spoke definite words in the consecration of the sacrament of the eucharist, Matthew 26.26: ‘This is my body.’ Similarly he commanded his disciples under a definite form of words, saying in Matthew 28.19, ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’
RESPONSE:
It should be said that, as was pointed out, in the sacraments words are as form and sensible things as matter. But in all things composed of matter and form the principle of determination is from the form which is in its way the end and term of matter. Therefore a definite form is more important for the existence of the thing than determinate matter, for determinate matter is sought that it might be proportionate to the determinate form. Therefore, since in the sacraments definite sensible things are required, which are as matter in the sacraments, much more is a definite form of words required.
Ad 1. It should be said that as Augustine wrote on John, the word operates in the sacraments, not because it is said – that is, not according to the exterior sound of the voice – but because it is believed, according to the sense of the words which is held by faith. And here indeed the sense is the same for all, although not the same words with respect to sound. Therefore, in whatever language such a sense is expressed by words, the sacrament is perfected.
Ad 2. It should be said that although in some languages it happens that the same thing is signified by different words, it is always the case that speakers of the language use some of those words chiefly and more commonly to signify it. And such a word should be used in the signification of the sacrament. For just as among sensible things those are taken for the signification of the sacraments whose use is more common to the act through which the effect of the sacrament is signified, as men more commonly use water for bodily cleansing, by which spiritual cleansing is signified. Therefore, water is taken as the matter in baptism.
Ad 3. It should be said that he who defectively pronounces the sacramental words, if he does this purposefully, does not seem to intend to do what the Church does and then the sacrament is not perfected. If, however, he does this by mistake or by a slip of the tongue and it is a mistake that wholly removes the sense of the locution, the sacrament does not seem to be perfected. This is especially so when the defect occurs at the beginning of the formula, for example, if in place of ‘in the name of the Father’ were said ‘in the name of the mother’. But if the sense of the formula is not completely taken away by such a mistake, the sacrament is none the less perfected. This is especially true when the defect is at the end, for example if someone said ‘of the fathers and of the sons’.
For although such words defectively said signify nothing from the force of the imposition, they are taken as signifying from the use to which they are put. Therefore, although the sensible sound is changed, there remains the same sense. What is said about a defect at the beginning or end of the expression is caused by the fact that with us the variation of an expression at the beginning changes its meaning, whereas by and large a change at the end does not change the meaning. But in Greek there is variation at the beginning of words as well as in their endings. But the amount of defect in the expression ought to be taken into account. In both cases there can be a little defect that does not take away the sense of the words, and a large that does. But one of these more easily occurs at the beginning and the other at the end.
Article 8: Can anything be added to the words?
It seems not.
1. There is no less necessity in the sacramental words than in those of Sacred Scripture. But no one may add or diminish the words of Sacred Scripture, for it is said in Deuteronomy 4.2, ‘You shall not add to the word that I speak to you; neither shall you take away from it.’ And the Apocalypse 22.18, ‘I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if anyone shall add to them, God will add unto the plagues that are written in this book. If anyone shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his portion from the tree of life.’ Therefore, it seems that no one may add or detract anything from the form of the sacraments.
2. Moreover, words are as form in the sacraments, as has been said, but in forms any addition or subtraction changes the species, as it does with numbers, as is said in Metaphysics 8.7. Therefore it seems that if someone should add or subtract from the form of the sacrament, it would not be the same sacrament.
3. Moreover, just as a definite number of words is required for the form of the sacrament, so a definite order of the words is required, as well as continuity of speech. Therefore, if addition or subtraction does not take away the truth of the sacrament, it seems by parity of reasoning that neither would the transposition of words or even altered pronunciation.
ON THE CONTRARY:
In the form of the sacraments some things are put in by some that are not put in by others, as the Latins baptize under this form, ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father…’ but the Greeks under this, ‘the servant of Christ is baptized in the name of the Father…’ Yet both truly confer the sacrament. Therefore, it is licit to add to or subtract something from the forms of the sacraments.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that in all these changes that can happen in the form of the sacraments, two things ought to be considered. One indeed on the side of the speaker, whose intention is required for the sacrament, as will be said below. Therefore, if he intends by such addition or subtraction to introduce another rite which is not received by the Church, the sacrament does not seem to be perfected because he does not seem to intend to do what the Church does. Another consideration is on the side of the signification of the words. For since words operate in the sacraments because of the sense they convey, as has been said above, it is necessary to consider whether by such a change the fitting sense of the words is taken away, because thus it will be clear if the truth of the sacrament has been removed. But it is manifest that if something of the substance of the sacramental form is subtracted, the fitting sense of the words is removed and the sacrament is not perfected.
Hence Didymus said in On the Holy Spirit if someone so tries to baptize that one of the foregoing words is omitted, namely ‘Of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’, he will fail to baptize. But if he subtracts something that is not of the substance of the form, such a diminution does not remove the fitting sense of the words, and consequently not the perfection of the sacrament, although it can happen that he who omits it sins out of negligence or contempt. With respect to addition, it also happens that something is added that is not corruptive of the fitting sense as it is if someone says, ‘I baptize you in the name of the greater Father and of the lesser Son,’ as the Arians baptized. Such an addition takes away the truth of the sacrament and it does not matter whether such an addition comes at the beginning, the middle or the end. If such an addition does not take away the fitting sense, however, it does not take away the truth of the sacrament, as if someone were to say, ‘I baptize thee in the name of God the Father omnipotent, and of the only begotten Son, and of the Holy Spirit the Paraclete,’ it will be a true baptism.
Similarly if someone were to say, ‘I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,’ it will be a true baptism. But perhaps if he should say, ‘I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and of the Blessed Virgin Mary,’ it would not be a baptism, because as is said in 1 Corinthians 1.13, ‘Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?’ But this is true if it is so understood that one is baptized in the name of the Blessed Virgin as he is in the name of the Trinity by which the baptism is consecrated, such a sense would be contrary to the true faith, and consequently take away the truth of the sacrament. But if someone so understood what is added – ‘and in the name of the Blessed Virgin’ – not as if the name of the Blessed Virgin operated in the baptism, but as if her intercession is asked for the one baptized to preserve baptismal grace, the perfection of the sacrament would not be taken away.
Ad 1. It should be said that one may not add to the words of Sacred Scripture as to their sense, but with respect to the exposition of Sacred Scripture many words are added to them by doctors. But it is not licit to add to the words of Sacred Scripture as if the additions belong to the integrity of Sacred Scripture, for this would be the vice of falsity. Similarly if someone should say something is necessarily of the form that is not.
Ad 2. It should be said that words pertain to the form of the sacrament by reason of the sense signified. Therefore, any addition or subtraction of words that does not add or subtract from the proper sense does not change the species of the sacrament.
Ad 3. It should be said that if there should be such a corruption of words that the intention of the one speaking is interrupted, the sense of the sacrament is removed and consequently its truth. But a small interruption that does not take away the intention and understanding does not do this, and the same should be said of the transposition of words. Because, if they take away the sense of the locution, the sacrament is not perfected, as is evident in a sign of negation before or after. If however the transposition is such that it does not change the sense of the locution, the truth of the sacrament is not taken away; the Philosopher says that transposed nouns and verbs signify the same.