← Back to Distinction 3

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

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 3

Textus Latinus
p. 73

Quaestio III. De variatione formae.

Tertio quaeritur de variatione formae; quod potest fieri quinque modis: mutando, addendo, corrumpendo, transmutando, interponendo.

1. Mutatio fit, ut quando ponitur nomen pro nomine, utpote si loco patris dicatur genitoris5. — Et quod hoc non impediat, videtur: quia forma baptismi non attenditur in vocibus, secundum quod voces sunt, quia tunc non esset eadem forma apud nos et Graecos, sed in vocibus secundum quod significativae: si ergo idem significat pater et genitor, idem faciet in forma unum, quod reliquum. — Et praeterea, plus conveniunt pater et genitor, quam nomen patris in Graeco et in Latino, cum sint eiusdem linguae.

2. Additio est, quando nomen, quod non est expressum in forma, superadditur, ut si dicatur in nomine Patris omnipotentis etc. Et quod hoc non impediat, videtur: quia, cum additur nomen, etsi nihil faciat, manet tamen totum quod faciebat Sacramentum6: et si totum manet, in quo est virtus, ergo est plenum et efficax Sacramentum.

3. Corruptio est, quando nominis prolatio est modo minus convenienti, utpote si dicatur: in nomine patrias et filias etc. — Et quod hoc non impediat, videtur: quia Zacharias7 Bonifacio scribens dicit: «Si contingat, aliquem infringendo linguam propter ignorantiam dicere baptizando: in nomine patria et filia, non est rebaptizandus». Et huius ratio reddi potest, quia sanus est sensus.

4. Transpositio est, quando forma aliter ordinatur, utpote si dicatur primo in nomine Filii et post in nomine Patris. — Et quod hoc non impediat, videtur: quia «nomina transposita idem significant, ut si dicatur: est homo albus; est albus homo8»: si ergo omnino idem est sensus et eadem fidei professio, transpositio non impedit.

5. Interpositio est, cum in medio cadit actus, ut sternutatio, vel verbum, ut: in nomine Patris, et aqua ista est frigida, et Filii etc. — Et quod hoc non impediat, videtur: quia totum est salvum, quando aliquid interponitur; et aliqui homines ita sunt obliviosi, quod semper interponunt aliquid, antequam possint complere orationem inceptam.

Contra: 1. Quod mutatio impediat, videtur: quia virtus est data illis verbis, et non aliis: ergo etc.

2. Item, quod additio impediat, videtur: quia, si nihil licet addere canoni Scripturae, multo fortius nec formae Sacramenti. Prima patet per illud quod dicitur Apocalypsis ultimo9: Si quis apposuerit ad haec etc.

3. Item, quod corruptio impediat, videtur: quia verba corrupta aut nihil significant, aut aliud signi- p. 74 ficant: ut patet, cum dicitur patria; sed necessaria sunt verba significantia10: ergo etc.

4. Item, de transmutatione videtur: quia, sicut de integritate fidei est numerus personarum, ita ordo processionis11: ergo sicut mutatio numeri impedit, ita et ordinis.

5. Item, de interpositione videtur: quia baptizare est unus actus continuus: ergo si discontinuatur, necesse est reincipi, aut non erit unus, et ita nec baptismus.

Conclusio. Quaedam variatio formae impedit Sacramentum, quaedam vero non.

Respondeo: Ad hoc voluerunt aliqui dicere, quod qualitercumque fiat variatio, dum tamen omnes personae exprimantur, integrum est Sacramentum. — Aliorum positio fuit, quod necesse est, omnimodam identitatem servari; quantulacumque enim variatio in forma facit, non esse Sacramentum.

Sed utraque istarum positionum respuenda est; quaelibet enim excedit. Unde dicendum, quod aliqua variatio impedit, aliqua non. Variatio enim mutationis impedit, sive fiat ex certa scientia, sive alio modo. Mutatio, inquam, nominis, ut si dicatur: in nomine genitoris et geniti, quia alius modus est exprimendi Trinitatem per nomina principalia, alius per nomina non principalia12. Mutatio etiam numeri impedit, ut si dicatur: baptizo te in nominibus, quia alia est sententia.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod idem significant; dicendum, quod attendendus est modus significandi, quia data fuit virtus nominibus exprimentibus Trinitatem, et hoc principaliter secundum omnem linguam13. — Quod ergo obiicit, quod magis conveniunt, quia in eadem lingua; dicendum, quod etsi magis quantum ad modum loquendi, non tamen magis quantum ad modum significandi. In nomine enim est tria considerare: vocem, notamen sive expressionem, et significationem. Quantum ad primum magis conveniunt14, sed quantum ad secundum minus, quantum ad tertium aequaliter. Et virtus regenerationis data est ratione notaminis sive quantum ad rationem innotescendi, a qua imponitur nomen; et haec est eadem apud omnes15.

2. De additione dicendum, quod aut est additio vocis distrahens intellectum; et haec impedit, si oppositum addatur, ut si dicatur Patris geniti; aut salvans, ut Patris ingeniti, et tunc non impedit, nisi velit inducere errorem. — Quod obiicitur de comminatione Apocalypsis, intelligitur de additione distrahente16.

3. Ad illud quod quaeritur de corruptione, dicendum, quod corruptio aut est tanta, quod nullo modo tenet sensum, et tunc omnino impedit; aut non est tanta, quin bene maneat17, sicut de puero balbutiente, qui intelligitur tamen; et tunc dicendum, quod non impedit. — Quod ergo obiicit, quod voces non significant; dicendum, quod etsi non significent ex institutione, significant tamen ex accommodatione usus, ut olli pro illi18.

4. Ad illud quod quaeritur de transmutatione, dicendum, quod si fiat simpliciter sine erroris dogmatizatione, non impedit. Et ratio huius est, quia ordo intelligitur in ipsis verbis, quod Filius a Patre procedit; et non sic oportet exprimere ordinem, sicut nomina personarum; et ideo patet quod obiicit.

5. Ad illud quod obiicit de interpositione sive intermissione, dicendum, quod aut est tanta intermissio, quod discontinuet intentionem et longam faciat moram: utpote si longum facit sermonem, vel vadit ad urinam faciendam19; et tunc necesse est, quod reincipiat. Sed si intervenit parva morula oblivione vel sternutatione, non discontinuatur actus, nec oportet reincipere20.

---

English Translation
p. 73

Question III. On the variation of the form.

Thirdly it is asked concerning the variation of the form; which can happen in five ways: by changing, by adding, by corrupting, by transmuting, by interposing.

1. Change occurs, as when one name is put for another, for instance if for father one says begetter5. — And that this does not invalidate, seems to be the case: because the form of baptism is not regarded in the words as the words are [mere sounds], for then it would not be the same form among us and among the Greeks, but in the words insofar as they are significative; if therefore father and begetter signify the same, the one will do the same thing in the form as the other. — And besides, father and begetter agree more than the name father in Greek and in Latin, since they are of the same language.

2. Addition is when a name not expressed in the form is added over and above, as if one says in the name of the Father almighty, etc. And that this does not invalidate, seems to be the case: because, when a name is added, even if it does nothing, there nevertheless remains the whole that constituted the Sacrament6: and if the whole, in which the power resides, remains, then it is a full and efficacious Sacrament.

3. Corruption is when the utterance of the name is in a less fitting manner, for instance if one says: in the name of the patrias and the filias, etc. — And that this does not invalidate, seems to be the case: because Zachary7, writing to Boniface, says: «If it should happen that someone, through ignorance, in baptizing says with a broken pronunciation: in the name of the patria and the filia, he is not to be rebaptized». And the reason for this can be given, namely that the sense is sound.

4. Transposition is when the form is ordered otherwise, for instance if one says first in the name of the Son and afterward in the name of the Father. — And that this does not invalidate, seems to be the case: because «transposed names signify the same, as if one says: est homo albus; est albus homo8» [a man is white; white is a man]: if therefore the sense is altogether the same and the profession of faith the same, transposition does not invalidate.

5. Interposition is when in the middle some act intervenes, such as a sneeze, or a word, as: in the name of the Father, and this water is cold, and of the Son, etc. — And that this does not invalidate, seems to be the case: because the whole is preserved when something is interposed; and some men are so forgetful that they always interpose something before they can complete the utterance begun.

On the contrary: 1. That change invalidates, seems to be the case: because the power was given to those words, and not to others: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, that addition invalidates, seems to be the case: because, if nothing may be added to the canon of Scripture, much more strongly nothing may be added to the form of the Sacrament. The first is plain from what is said in the last [chapter] of the Apocalypse9: If anyone shall add to these things, etc.

3. Likewise, that corruption invalidates, seems to be the case: because corrupt words either signify nothing or signify something else: p. 74 as is plain when one says patria; but the words are necessary as significative10: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, concerning transmutation it seems so: because, just as the number of persons belongs to the integrity of the faith, so does the order of procession11: therefore, just as change of number invalidates, so also change of order.

5. Likewise, concerning interposition it seems so: because to baptize is one continuous act: therefore if it is interrupted, it is necessary to begin again, or it will not be one [act], and so neither a baptism.

Conclusion. A certain variation of the form invalidates the Sacrament, but a certain other does not.

I respond: To this some have wished to say that, in whatever way the variation occurs, provided that all the persons are expressed, the Sacrament is whole. — The position of others was that it is necessary that complete identity be preserved; for however small a variation in the form makes it not to be a Sacrament.

But both of these positions are to be rejected; for each goes too far. Hence it must be said that some variation invalidates, some does not. For the variation of change invalidates, whether it is done from sure knowledge or in some other way. Change, I say, of the name, as if one says: in the name of the begetter and the begotten, because it is one mode of expressing the Trinity through the principal names, another through non-principal names12. Change also of number invalidates, as if one says: I baptize thee in the names, because the meaning is different.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that they signify the same; it must be said that the mode of signifying must be attended to, because the power was given to the names expressing the Trinity, and this principally according to every language13. — As for what it objects, that they agree more because they are in the same language; it must be said that, although [they agree] more as to the mode of speaking, nevertheless not more as to the mode of signifying. For in a name there are three things to consider: the sound, the note or expression, and the signification. As to the first they agree more14, but as to the second less, as to the third equally. And the power of regeneration was given by reason of the note, or as to the character of making known, from which the name is imposed; and this is the same among all15.

2. Concerning addition it must be said that it is either an addition of a word distracting from the meaning; and this invalidates, if the opposite be added, as if one says of the Father begotten; or one preserving [it], as of the Father unbegotten, and then it does not invalidate, unless one wishes to introduce an error. — As for what is objected concerning the threat of the Apocalypse, it is understood of an addition that distracts16.

3. To that which is asked concerning corruption, it must be said that corruption is either so great that it in no way holds the sense, and then it altogether invalidates; or it is not so great but that [the sense] well remains17, as with a stammering child, who is nevertheless understood; and then it must be said that it does not invalidate. — As for what it objects, that the words do not signify; it must be said that, although they do not signify by institution, they nevertheless signify by the accommodation of usage, as olli for illi18.

4. To that which is asked concerning transmutation, it must be said that, if it is done simply without the dogmatizing of an error, it does not invalidate. And the reason for this is that the order is understood in the words themselves, namely that the Son proceeds from the Father; and it is not necessary to express the order in the way that the names of the persons [are expressed]; and thus what it objects is plain.

5. To that which it objects concerning interposition or intermission, it must be said that either the intermission is so great that it interrupts the intention and makes a long delay: for instance if one makes a long speech, or goes to make water19; and then it is necessary that he begin again. But if a slight little pause intervenes through forgetfulness or a sneeze, the act is not interrupted, nor is it necessary to begin again20.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 5
    Vide supra a. 1. q. 2. ad 1. — Superius pro dicatur genitoris edd. cum pluribus codd. ponatur genitoris.
    See above, a. 1, q. 2, ad 1. — Above, for dicatur genitoris the editions, with several codices, [read] ponatur genitoris.
  2. 6
    Ex cod. F addidimus Sacramentum, qui subinde pro et si totum manet substituit ergo si totum manet, cod. Q et sic totum illud, codd. E M et Sacramentum manet, codd. H P et et sic salvum manet, alii codd. cum edd. et si salvum manet. Post virtus non pauci codd. cum edd. adiungunt scilicet verbum, quo respicitur illud Augustini: Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit Sacramentum.
    From codex F we have added Sacramentum, which thereupon for et si totum manet substitutes ergo si totum manet; codex Q [reads] et sic totum illud; codices E M et Sacramentum manet; codices H P et et sic salvum manet; other codices with the editions et si salvum manet. After virtus not a few codices with the editions add scilicet verbum, whereby is regarded that saying of Augustine: The word is joined to the element and it becomes a Sacrament.
  3. 7
    Can. Retulerunt (86.), de Consecrat. d. 4, ubi etiam in nota adiecta dicitur, quod pro in nomine patria et filia [et Spiritu sancta] alias legebatur in nomine patrias et filias [et Spiritus sanctias], quam lectionem exhibent etiam codd. F G l. Cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. VI. c. 4. Permulti codd. omittunt baptizando. S. Bonav. non ipsa verba, sed sententiam rescripti profert. — Superius pro patrias et filias edd. Patria et Filia.
    Canon Retulerunt (86), de Consecratione, d. 4, where also in an appended note it is said that, for in the name of the patria and the filia [and the Spiritu sancta], elsewhere was read in the name of the patrias and the filias [and the Spiritus sanctias], which reading codices F G l also exhibit. Cf. below, the text of the Master, d. VI, c. 4. Very many codices omit baptizando. St. Bonaventure brings forward not the words themselves but the sense of the rescript. — Above, for patrias et filias the editions [read] Patria et Filia.
  4. 8
    Aristot., II. Periherm. c. 1. (c. 10.). — In initio arg. post Transpositio edd. adnectunt sive transmutatio, et post quando ex codd. F H (bb a secunda manu) supplevimus forma.
    Aristotle, On Interpretation II, c. 1 (c. 10). — At the beginning of the argument, after Transpositio the editions append sive transmutatio, and after quando, from codices F H (bb by a second hand), we have supplied forma.
  5. 9
    Vers. 18.
    [Apocalypse 22,] verse 18.
  6. 10
    Cod. F (bb a secunda manu) addit et quod fides credit exprimentia.
    Codex F (bb by a second hand) adds et quod fides credit exprimentia [and expressing what faith believes].
  7. 11
    Ita cod. E, alii et edd., contextu repugnante, professionis.
    So codex E; others and the editions, the context resisting, [read] professionis.
  8. 12
    Cfr. I. Sent. d. 27. p. 1. q. 1. — De seq. proposit. vide supra a. 1. q. 2. ad 3. et hic lit. Magistri, c. 4.
    Cf. I Sentences, d. 27, p. 1, q. 1. — On the following proposition see above, a. 1, q. 2, ad 3, and here the text of the Master, c. 4.
  9. 13
    Cod. F (bb a secunda manu) supplet Pater et genitor. Paulo superius ex codd. F H U aa supplevimus vocem tria ante considerare.
    Codex F (bb by a second hand) supplies Pater et genitor. A little above, from codices F H U aa, we have supplied the word tria before considerare.
  10. 14
    Cfr. supra pag. 68, nota 1. — August., de Gen. ad lit. (imperfect. lib.) c. 6. n. 26: Omne quippe vocabulum ad distinctionem valet. Unde etiam nomen, quod rem notet, appellatum est quasi notamen. Notet autem, id est distinguat et doctitanter ad discernendum adiuvet. Vide I. Sent. d. 22. q. 2. in corp. et ibid. pag. 390, nota 6.
    Cf. above, p. 68, note 1. — Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis (the unfinished book), c. 6, n. 26: For every term avails for distinction. Whence even a name, which marks a thing, was called as it were a note (notamen). For let it mark, that is, distinguish, and helpfully assist in discerning. See I Sentences, d. 22, q. 2, in the body, and ibid. p. 390, note 6.
  11. 15
    Vide Sent. in Prolog. Magistri, dub. 2. — Codd. A E M R S V bb detrahente. Superius post nisi velit codd. H K aa addunt per hoc.
    See [I] Sentences, in the Prologue of the Master, dub. 2. — Codices A E M R S V bb [read] detrahente. Above, after nisi velit, codices H K aa add per hoc.
  12. 16
    Supple: sensus. — Mox supplevimus ex cod. H qui intelligitur tamen, pro intelligitur, codd. A G K V W bb intelligitur tamen. Post non impedit edd. addunt nisi velit inducere errorem.
    Supply: sensus [the sense]. — Presently we have supplied, from codex H, qui intelligitur tamen, for intelligitur; codices A G K V W bb [read] intelligitur tamen. After non impedit the editions add nisi velit inducere errorem.
  13. 17
    Cod. F glossando usus eius; exemplum Prisciani olli pro illi. Priscian., l. Grammat. c. 6: I transit... in o: patris, patronus et patro verbum, olli pro illi, saxi saxosus. — Superius post quod voces in cod. E secunda manus bene addidit corruptae.
    Codex F, glossing, [reads] usus eius; exemplum Prisciani olli pro illi. Priscian, Grammar bk. [I], c. 6: I passes... into o: patris, patronus and patro [from] verbum, olli for illi, saxi saxosus. — Above, after quod voces, in codex E a second hand has rightly added corruptae.
  14. 18
    Ita codd. F H P Q bb, in aliis omittitur faciendam, codd. G l substituunt vineam, codd. R S T domum.
    So codices F H P Q bb; in others faciendam is omitted; codices G l substitute vineam; codices R S T [read] domum.
  15. 19
    Vide scholion ad I. huius art. quaest.
    See the scholion to the first question of this article.
  16. 20
    Cfr. supra pag. 28, nota 6.
    Cf. above, p. 28, note 6.
Cited by

1 place in the Opera Omnia citesthis question. Derived from Quaracchi’s own apparatus, never tagged by hand.

Whether intention in the one conferring is necessary for baptism
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 6
supra d. 3. p. 1. a. 2. q. 3.

3 further references address the article or printed page this question belongs to, rather than the question itself.

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