Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 3, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 1

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 3

Textus Latinus

p. 70

ARTICULUS II.

De his quae pertinent ad formam verbi.

Consequenter est quaestio de forma verbi, quae attendenda est in baptismo, et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur, utrum verbum exprimens actum baptizandi sit de necessitate formae baptizandi. Secundo quaeritur, utrum expressio totius Trinitatis sit de necessitate baptismi. Tertio quaeritur de variatione formae.

QUAESTIO I.

Utrum verbum exprimens actum baptizandi sit de necessitate formae baptizandi.

Et quod verbum exprimens actum¹ sit necessarium, videtur:

1. Quia hanc formam servat tota Ecclesia: Ego baptizo in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti. Amen.

2. Item, Alexander tertius² dicit: « Si quis puerum ter in aqua merserit dicendo: In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, nisi dicat: ego baptizo te; talis mersio non potest esse baptismus ».

3. Item, ratione videtur, quia nihil est magis necessarium ad baptismum quam intentio baptizantis; aeque enim est necessaria intentio, ut fides³: ergo nihil est magis de necessitate formae quam verbum exprimens intentionem; sed tale est hoc verbum baptizo: ergo si aliquid est de necessitate formae baptizandi, verbum baptizandi est de necessitate.

Contra: 1. Verba non sunt de necessitate Sacramenti, nisi illa quibus Dominus contulit virtutem in instituendo; sed cum instituit formam, non dedit virtutem huic verbo baptizo: ergo non est de necessitate. Quod non dederit, patet, quia Matthaei ultimo⁴ traditur forma: Docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti: si ergo daretur virtus huic verbo baptizantes, non liceret mutare participium: ergo nulla virtus tradita est ei.

2. Item, quod non sit necessarium propter intentionem, videtur: quia actus baptizandi aeque bene vel magis exprimit intentionem, ut verbum: ergo videtur, quod superfluat, vel saltem non sit verbum necessarium. Quod autem actus exprimat⁵, patet per simile: quia, cum quis signat se signo sanctae crucis, sufficit dicere: In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, nec oportet addere signo.

3. Item, si est necessarium exprimere actum⁶ in Sacramentis propter intentionem: ergo cum intentio sit necessaria in Sacramento eucharistiae, similiter deberet exprimi in forma, et si non exprimitur, non est Sacramentum; sed hoc est falsum: ergo et primum.

CONCLUSIO. Verbum exprimens actum baptizandi est de necessitate formae.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut dicit auctoritas Alexandri, verbum baptizandi est de necessitate formae. Ratio autem, quare est de necessitate, est institutio. Ratio autem institutionis est, quia intentio necessaria est Sacramento, et⁷ hoc est Sacramentum necessitatis et est ad alterum. Ideo propter periculum defectus intentionis proprio verbo expressa est ibi in forma. — Ex his patent obiecta.

p. 71

Ad obiecta:

1. Quod enim obiicitur, quod Dominus non tradidit in forma⁸; dicendum, quod Dominus, antequam illud diceret, formam instituerat, quam modo servat Ecclesia et accepit ab Apostolis. Illud autem, quod dicitur Matthaei ultimo, fuit commemoratio iam institutae; aut si Christus ipse non instituit, instituit Ecclesia instinctu Spiritus sancti, et hoc tantum est, ac si ipse proprio ore dixisset. Tota enim Trinitas approbat quod ipse Spiritus sanctus inspirat fieri, sicut illud quod Christus instituit.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non oportet, quia actus intentionem exprimit: dicendum, quod immo oportet, quia actus potest fieri multiplici intentione; potest enim quis immergere, ut ludat, ut corpus abluat, ut baptizet. Et quia actus multiplici intentione fieri poterat, ideo non determinate intentionem baptizandi exprimebat; sed actus signandi una intentione principali consuevit fieri: ideo non est simile⁹.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de eucharistia, dicendum, quod non est Sacramentum necessitatis et praeterea non est ad alterum; et iterum, cum maiori fit solemnitate: et ideo intentio ibi colligitur, non evagatur tunc; propterea non est necesse exprimi verbo, et ideo non oportuit institui, nec per consequens observari. — Alia ratio est huius, sed infra¹⁰ dicetur, cum agetur de forma eucharistiae.

SCHOLION

I. Communis catholicorum doctorum doctrina, quae tenet, in forma actum baptizandi necessario esse exprimendum, insuper confirmatur decreto Concilii Florentini (pro Armenis) et etiam propositione (27.) ab Alexandro VIII. 7 Dec. 1690 reprobata: « Voluit aliquando baptismus sub hac forma collatus: In nomine Patris etc, praetermissis illis: Ego te baptizo ». — De hac I. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 3. a. 3. § 2. — Scot., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 2. — S. Thom., de hac et duabus seqq. qq. hic q. I. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1-3; S. III. q. 66. a. 5. — B. Albert., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 2. a. I. quaestiunc. 1.2. — Richard. a Med., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic a. 2. q. 3. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. I. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 2.

II. In seq. (2.) quaestione ad 3. docetur cum S. Thoma omnibusque antiquis Scholasticis, in primitiva Ecclesia ob specialem Dei dispositionem valuisse baptismum collatum in nomine Christi sine expressione Ss. Trinitatis; immo alii pauci, quibus adhaesit Caietanus, asseruerunt, etiam nostra aetate baptismum ita collatum valere, sed non licere. Nititur autem haec opinio quibusdam locis Act. (2, 38; 8, 16; 10, 48.) et praecipue verbis Ambrosii (l. de Spiritu S. c. 3.) et Papae Nicolai I. (ad Bulgaros). Posteriores tamen theologi putant, non constare de facto, quod scilicet Apostoli reapse sine consueta nostra formula baptizaverint, immo Estius (hic § i. 5.) dixit, hanc suppositionem esse improbabilem. Melius tamen Catechismus Rom. (p. II. de Baptismo, n. 16.) ita censet: « Quamquam dubium forlasse alicui videri potest, an cuiusmodi forma Apostoli aliquem baptizaverint; si Ambrosii et Basilii sanctissimorum et gravissimorum Patrum auctoritatem sequi volumus, qui ita baptismum in nomine Iesu Christi interpretati sunt, ut dixerint, iis verbis significari baptismum, non qui a Ioanne, sed qui a Christo Domino traditus esset; tametsi a communi et usitata forma, quae distincta trium personarum nomina continet, Apostoli non discederent ». — Dici igitur potest, antiquos Scholasticos locutos esse potius hypothetice sive in suppositione illius facti, quin ipsum factum absolute sustinuerint. Praeter locos citt.: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 4. — S. Thom., S. loc. cit. a. 6.

III. De 3. quaestione praeter locos citt.: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Durand. hic q. 2.

English Translation

p. 70

ARTICLE II.

On the things that pertain to the form of the word.

Next there is a question about the form of the word, which must be attended to in baptism, and concerning this three things are asked. First it is asked whether the word expressing the act of baptizing belongs to the necessity of the form of baptizing. Second it is asked whether the expression of the whole Trinity belongs to the necessity of baptism. Third there is a question about the variation of the form.

QUESTION I.

Whether the word expressing the act of baptizing belongs to the necessity of the form of baptizing.

And that the word expressing the act¹ is necessary, it seems:

1. Because the whole Church keeps this form: I baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

2. Likewise, Alexander III² says: « If anyone immerses a child three times in water, saying: In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, unless he say: I baptize you; such an immersion cannot be a baptism ».

3. Likewise, it seems by reason, because nothing is more necessary for baptism than the intention of the one baptizing; for the intention is as necessary as faith³: therefore nothing belongs more to the necessity of the form than the word expressing intention; but such is this word I baptize: therefore if anything belongs to the necessity of the form of baptizing, the word of baptizing belongs to the necessity.

On the contrary: 1. Words do not belong to the necessity of the Sacrament, except those to which the Lord conferred power in instituting it; but when He instituted the form, He did not give power to this word I baptize: therefore it does not belong to the necessity. That He did not give it is evident, because in the last [chapter] of Matthew⁴ the form is handed down: Teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: if therefore power were given to this word baptizing, it would not be permitted to change the participle: therefore no power has been handed down to it.

2. Likewise, that it is not necessary on account of intention, it seems: because the act of baptizing expresses intention equally well or more, than the word: therefore it seems that it is superfluous, or at least is not a necessary word. But that the act expresses [it]⁵ is evident by a similar case: because, when someone signs himself with the sign of the holy cross, it suffices to say: In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, nor is it necessary to add with the sign.

3. Likewise, if it is necessary to express the act⁶ in the Sacraments on account of intention: therefore since intention is necessary in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, it ought likewise to be expressed in the form, and if it is not expressed, it is not a Sacrament; but this is false: therefore the first [is false] also.

CONCLUSION. The word expressing the act of baptizing belongs to the necessity of the form.

I respond: It must be said that, as the authority of Alexander says, the word of baptizing belongs to the necessity of the form. But the reason why it belongs to the necessity is the institution. And the reason for the institution is that intention is necessary to the Sacrament, and⁷ this is the Sacrament of necessity and is ordered to another. Therefore on account of the danger of a defect of intention it was expressed there in the form by its proper word. — From these things the objections are clear.

p. 71

To the objections:

1. For what is objected, that the Lord did not hand it down in the form⁸; it must be said that the Lord, before He said that, had instituted the form, which the Church now keeps and received from the Apostles. But that which is said in the last [chapter] of Matthew was a commemoration of the [form] already instituted; or, if Christ Himself did not institute it, the Church instituted it by the prompting of the Holy Spirit, and this is as much as if He Himself had said it with His own mouth. For the whole Trinity approves what the Holy Spirit Himself inspires to be done, just as that which Christ instituted.

2. To what is objected, that it is not necessary, because the act expresses intention: it must be said that on the contrary it is necessary, because the act can be done with manifold intention; for someone can immerse [another] in order to play, in order to wash the body, in order to baptize. And because the act could be done with manifold intention, therefore it did not determinately express the intention of baptizing; but the act of signing is wont to be done with one principal intention: therefore it is not a similar case⁹.

3. To what is objected concerning the Eucharist, it must be said that it is not a Sacrament of necessity and moreover is not ordered to another; and again, it is done with greater solemnity: and therefore the intention there is gathered together, it does not wander then; therefore it is not necessary that it be expressed by a word, and therefore it did not need to be instituted, nor consequently observed. — There is another reason for this, but it will be said below¹⁰, when the form of the Eucharist is treated.

SCHOLION

I. The common doctrine of the Catholic doctors, which holds that in the form the act of baptizing must necessarily be expressed, is further confirmed by the decree of the Council of Florence (for the Armenians) and also by proposition (27.) reproved by Alexander VIII on 7 December 1690: « At one time a baptism conferred under this form was valid: In the name of the Father, etc., those words being omitted: I baptize you ». — On this Question I: Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV. q. 8. m. 3. a. 3. § 2. — Scotus, on this and the 2 following questions, here q. 2. — St. Thomas, on this and the two following questions, here q. I. a. 2. subquestions 1-3; Summa III. q. 66. a. 5. — Blessed Albert, on this and the 2 following questions, here a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, on this and the following question, here q. 2. a. I. subquestions 1.2. — Richard of Mediavilla, on this and the 2 following questions, here a. 2. q. 3. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. I. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the 2 following questions, here q. 2.

II. In the following (2nd) question, to the 3rd [objection], it is taught with St. Thomas and all the ancient Scholastics that in the primitive Church, on account of a special disposition of God, a baptism conferred in the name of Christ without the expression of the Most Holy Trinity was valid; indeed a few others, to whom Cajetan adhered, asserted that even in our age a baptism so conferred is valid, but not licit. This opinion rests on certain passages of Acts (2:38; 8:16; 10:48) and especially on the words of Ambrose (On the Holy Spirit, bk., c. 3.) and of Pope Nicholas I (to the Bulgarians). Later theologians, however, think that it is not established as a fact that the Apostles actually baptized without our customary formula; indeed Estius (here § i. 5.) said that this supposition is improbable. But the Roman Catechism (p. II, On Baptism, n. 16.) judges better thus: « Although it can perhaps seem doubtful to someone with what kind of form the Apostles baptized anyone; if we wish to follow the authority of Ambrose and Basil, most holy and most weighty Fathers, who interpreted baptism in the name of Jesus Christ in such a way as to say that by those words is signified the baptism handed down not by John, but by Christ the Lord; even though the Apostles did not depart from the common and customary form, which contains the distinct names of the three persons ». — It can therefore be said that the ancient Scholastics spoke rather hypothetically, that is, on the supposition of that fact, without absolutely maintaining the fact itself. Besides the places cited: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 4. — St. Thomas, Summa loc. cit. a. 6.

III. On the 3rd question, besides the places cited: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 2. — Durandus, here q. 2.

Apparatus Criticus

1
Cfr. III. Sent. d. 20. q. 5. — Superius pro utriusque fere omnes codd. in utrisque. Inferius pro quae sint codd. R S quod fides sit.
Cf. III. Sent. d. 20. q. 5. — Above, for utriusque (of each) almost all codices read in utrisque (in each). Below, for quae sint (what they may be) codices R S read quod fides sit (that faith may be).
2
Cap. Si quis puerum. X. (lib. III. tit. 42.) de Baptismo et eius effectu: Si quis puerum ter in aqua immerserit in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, amen, et non dixerit: Ego baptizo te in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, non est puer baptizatus.
Chapter Si quis puerum, in the Decretals X. (bk. III. tit. 42.) On Baptism and its effect: If anyone immerses a child three times in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, amen, and does not say: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, the child is not baptized.
3
Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.
See the scholion to Question I of this article.
4
Codd. F H actum baptizandi.
Codices F H read actum baptizandi (the act of baptizing).
5
Vers. 19. — In fine arg. multi codd. omittunt est ei, pro quo edd. est verbo.
Verse 19. — At the end of the argument many codices omit est ei (to it), for which the editions read est verbo (to the word).
6
Cod. O supplet intentionem. In fine arg., posito dicere pro addere, cod. H cum cod. F legit signo me.
Codex O supplies intentionem (intention). At the end of the argument, with dicere (to say) put for addere (to add), codex H with codex F reads signo me.
7
Codd. M O verbum.
Codices M O read verbum (word).
8
Codd. H et quia.
Codices H read et quia (and because).
9
Codd. M O quod verba non sunt de necessitate Sacramenti, nisi illa, quibus Dominus contulit virtutem, cod. Z quod Dominus non tradiderit virtutem illi verbo. In fine arg. codd. C H S addunt fieri.
Codices M O read quod verba non sunt de necessitate Sacramenti, nisi illa, quibus Dominus contulit virtutem (that words do not belong to the necessity of the Sacrament, except those to which the Lord conferred power), codex Z quod Dominus non tradiderit virtutem illi verbo (that the Lord did not hand down power to that word). At the end of the argument codices C H S add fieri (to be done).
10
Idem pluribus verbis dicit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 3. a. 3. § 2. — Circa initium solut. post dicendum, quod supplevimus ex cod. Z immo, pro quo multi codd. corrupte scribunt non; codd. H P legunt quod non sufficit, quia.
Alexander of Hales says the same in many words, Summa p. IV. q. 8. m. 3. a. 3. § 2. — Near the beginning of the solution, after dicendum (it must be said), quod (that) we have supplied from codex Z; immo (on the contrary), for which many codices corruptly write non (not); codices H P read quod non sufficit, quia (that it does not suffice, because). [Note: Quaracchi p. 71 note 2 (Dist. 8. p. II. a. 1. q. 1.) gives the cross-reference for the "below" mentioned in reply 3 — the form of the Eucharist treated at IV Sent. d. 8.]