Dist. 6, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 2
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 6
Quaestio II. Utrum recta intentio sit necessaria ad baptismum.
Secundo quaeritur circa hoc, utrum recta intentio sit necessaria ad baptismum. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Quia ad baptismum requiritur intentio1: ergo ad recte baptizare requiritur recta intentio.
2. Item, minus malum est nihil intendere in opere, quam malum finem intendere: ergo si defectus intentionis non potest stare cum baptismo, multo minus obliqua intentio.
3. Item, opera, ad quae necessaria est intentio, ab ipsa denominantur2: ergo cum ad baptismum necessaria sit intentio, si ergo intentio recta, et baptismus; et si obliqua, et baptismus; sed non est baptismus nisi rectus: ergo etc.
Contra: 1. Supra3 probatum est, quod haereticus baptizat; sed haereticus semper habet obliquam intentionem, quia vult trahere ad suam haeresim: ergo non est ad baptismum necessaria recta intentio.
2. Item, mala voluntas in baptizante non nocet: ergo nec obliqua intentio.
3. Item, baptismus est opus Dei, non humanum: ergo non potest esse obliquum; sed intentionis rectitudo exigitur propter rectitudinem operis: ad baptismum ergo non est necessaria recta intentio.
Conclusio. De necessitate Sacramenti est tantum intentio operis, non recta intentio operantis, nisi de congruitate.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod intentio idem est quod voluntas ratiocinata, prout dirigitur in finem4. Sed finis duplex est: est enim finis, qui est rei terminus vel complementum, et est finis, qui est rei utilitas. Sic in Sacramento duplex est finis; unus scilicet, qui est complementum, scilicet quod ibi sit unio verbi et elementi; et finis utilitas, scilicet baptizati, vel baptizantis. — Secundum hunc duplicem finem duplex est intentio: sicut aliquis, qui fundat domum, intendit eam consummare et intendit inhabitare; sic in Sacramento intendit quis prima intentione Sacramentum Ecclesiae ministrare, consequenter vel intendit suam utilitatem, vel parvuli salutem, vel quidquid illud sit. — Prima intentio est de necessitate Sacramenti; secunda tantum de congruitate. Prima intentio non habet rectum et obliquum, sed secunda est quae habet rectum et obliquum. — Unde patet responsio, quod ad Sacramentum baptismi nihil facit intentio recta, nec aliquid obstat intentio non recta quantum ad substantiam Sacramenti, nocet tamen, vel prodest habenti.
Ad oppositorum solutionem:
Ad 1. Argumenta igitur, quae probant, quod ad baptismum requiritur intentio recta, supponunt, ad baptismum requiri intentionem, quae est intentio utilitatis; et ideo omnia super falsum fundantur, ut patet de primo.
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod melius est nihil intendere quam male; dicendum, quod defectus intentionis non impedit Sacramentum propter culpam, sed propter illius actus necessariam exigentiam5.
Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod opera denominantur ab intentione; dicendum, quod hoc verum est de operibus, ad quorum informationem6 necessaria est intentio finis, ut est utilitas. — Notandum tamen, quod quamvis non sit necessarium intendere efficaciam baptismi in se et principaliter, tamen intenditur in quolibet baptizato vel in generali vel in speciali, vel in se vel in annexo, vel propter se vel propter aliud. Ad hoc enim, quod quis baptizetur, oportet, si est adultus, quod intendat, quod fiat in se vel circa se quod facit Ecclesia; similiter intendat baptizans facere. Actui autem exteriori, ut est Ecclesiae, iunctus est character interior; sic enim, et non aliter, est actus sacramentalis7.
The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation; the apparatus is rendered in the section that follows.
III. Sequentis (2.) quaestionis solutio nititur in distinctione duplicis intentionis, scilicet vel operis, vel operantis, ut vulgo dicitur, quae aliis verbis explicantur in corp. Quaestio proprie ponitur de intentione operantis.
De eadem: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 2. — Scot., hic q. a. n. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2; S. III. q. 64. a. 10. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. ad 1.
---
Question II. Whether right intention is necessary for baptism.
Secondly it is asked concerning this matter, whether right intention is necessary for baptism. And that it is so, seems [to be the case]:
1. Because for baptism intention is required1: therefore for baptizing rightly, right intention is required.
2. Likewise, it is a lesser evil to intend nothing in an action than to intend an evil end: therefore if a defect of intention cannot stand with baptism, much less can a crooked intention.
3. Likewise, the works for which intention is necessary take their name from it2: therefore, since for baptism intention is necessary, then if the intention is right, so [is] the baptism; and if [the intention is] crooked, so [is] the baptism; but there is no baptism unless it is right: therefore etc.
On the contrary: 1. Above3 it has been proved that a heretic baptizes; but a heretic always has a crooked intention, because he wishes to draw [the baptized] to his heresy: therefore right intention is not necessary for baptism.
2. Likewise, an evil will in the one baptizing does no harm: therefore neither does a crooked intention.
3. Likewise, baptism is the work of God, not of man: therefore it cannot be crooked; but rectitude of intention is required on account of the rectitude of the work: therefore right intention is not necessary for baptism.
Conclusion. Belonging to the necessity of the Sacrament is only the intention of the work, not the right intention of the one acting, except by way of congruity.
I respond: It must be said that intention is the same as reasoned will, insofar as it is directed to an end4. But the end is twofold: for there is an end which is the terminus or completion of a thing, and there is an end which is the usefulness of a thing. Thus in the Sacrament the end is twofold; one, namely, which is the completion, namely that there be there the union of word and element; and the end [which is] usefulness, namely of the one baptized, or of the one baptizing. — According to this twofold end the intention is twofold: just as someone who builds a house intends both to complete it and intends to dwell [in it]; so in the Sacrament one intends by a first intention to minister the Sacrament of the Church, [and] consequently either intends his own usefulness, or the salvation of the child, or whatever it may be. — The first intention belongs to the necessity of the Sacrament; the second only to congruity. The first intention does not have a right and a crooked [form], but it is the second which has a right and a crooked [form]. — Hence the response is plain, that right intention contributes nothing to the Sacrament of baptism, nor does an intention that is not right oppose anything as regards the substance of the Sacrament, yet it harms, or profits, the one who has it.
To the solution of the [objections] on the opposite side:
To 1. The arguments, therefore, which prove that right intention is required for baptism, presuppose that for baptism an intention is required which is the intention of usefulness; and therefore they are all founded upon a falsehood, as is plain regarding the first.
To 2. To that which is objected, that it is better to intend nothing than [to intend] evil; it must be said that a defect of intention does not impede the Sacrament on account of fault, but on account of the necessary requirement of that act5.
To 3. To that which is objected, that works take their name from intention; it must be said that this is true of works for whose informing6 intention of the end is necessary, as is usefulness. — It must be noted, however, that although it is not necessary to intend the efficacy of baptism in itself and principally, nevertheless it is intended in every baptized person either in general or in particular, either in itself or in something annexed, either on its own account or on account of something else. For in order that someone be baptized, it is necessary, if he is an adult, that he intend that there be done in him or about him what the Church does; likewise that the one baptizing intend to do [the same]. But to the exterior act, insofar as it is the Church's, is joined the interior character; for thus, and not otherwise, is it a sacramental act7.
III. The solution of the following (2nd) question rests on the distinction of the twofold intention, namely either of the work or of the one acting, as it is commonly called, which are explained in other words in the body [of the text]. The question is properly posed concerning the intention of the one acting.
On the same: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 2. — Scotus, here q., a., n. 3. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2, quaestiuncula 2; Summa III, q. 64, a. 10. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2, ad 1.
---
- 1Ut ostensum est quaest. praeced.As was shown in the preceding question.
- 2Ambros., l. de Officiis, c. 30. n. 147: Affectus tuus nomen imponit operi tuo; quomodo a te proficiscitur, sic aestimatur.Ambrose, On the Duties [of Ministers], bk. [I], c. 30, n. 147: "Your disposition gives its name to your work; as it proceeds from you, so is it esteemed."
- 3Dist. 5. a. 1. q. 2. et a. 2. q. 2, nec non ibid. lit. Magistri, c. 1, ubi etiam duo seqq. argg. tanguntur.Distinction 5, a. 1, q. 2 and a. 2, q. 2; likewise the text of the Master there, c. 1, where also the two following arguments are touched upon.
- 4Vide II. Sent. d. 38. a. 2. q. 2, d. 40. a. 1. q. 1. — De duplici fine cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 35. et 37. (c. 4.), V. Metaph. text. 22. (IV. c. 17.).See II Sentences, d. 38, a. 2, q. 2; d. 40, a. 1, q. 1. — On the twofold end cf. Aristotle, On the Soul II, text 35 and 37 (c. 4); Metaphysics V, text 22 (IV, c. 17).
- 5Ut ostensum est quaest. praeced.As was shown in the preceding question.
- 6Cod. H consummationem, in cod. bb secunda manus addit consummationem.Codex H [reads] consummationem; in codex bb a second hand adds consummationem.
- 7Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion on the preceding question. ---