Tertia Pars · The Sacraments

Of the Causes of the Sacraments

III, q. 64 · Ten articles

Prooemium · Thomas's plan for this question

Deinde considerandum est de causis sacramentorum, sive per auctoritatem sive per ministerium. Et circa hoc quaeruntur decem. Primo, utrum solus Deus interius operetur in sacramentis. Secundo, utrum institutio sacramentorum sit solum a Deo. Tertio, de potestate quam Christus habuit in sacramentis. Quarto, utrum illam potestatem potuerit aliis communicare. Quinto, utrum potestas ministerii in sacramentis conveniat malis. Sexto, utrum mali peccent dispensando sacramenta. Septimo, utrum Angeli possint esse ministri sacramentorum. Octavo, utrum intentio ministri requiratur in sacramentis. Nono, utrum requiratur ibi recta fides; ita scilicet quod infidelis non possit tradere sacramentum. Decimo, utrum requiratur ibi recta intentio.

In the next place we have to consider the causes of the sacraments, both as to authorship and as to ministration. Concerning which there are ten points of inquiry:

(1) Whether God alone works inwardly in the sacraments?

(2) Whether the institution of the sacraments is from God alone?

(3) Of the power which Christ exercised over the sacraments;

(4) Whether He could transmit that power to others?

(5) Whether the wicked can have the power of administering the sacraments?

(6) Whether the wicked sin in administering the sacraments?

(7) Whether the angels can be ministers of the sacraments?

(8) Whether the minister's intention is necessary in the sacraments?

(9) Whether right faith is required therein; so that it be impossible for an unbeliever to confer a sacrament?

(10) Whether a right intention is required therein?

  1. 1 Whether God Alone, or the Minister Also, Works Inwardly Unto the Sacramental Effect?
  2. 2 Whether the Sacraments Are Instituted by God Alone?
  3. 3 Whether Christ As Man Had the Power of Producing the Inward Sacramental Effect?
  4. 4 Whether Christ Could Communicate to Ministers the Power Which He Had in the Sacraments?
  5. 5 Whether the Sacraments Can Be Conferred by Evil Ministers?
  6. 6 Whether Wicked Men Sin in Administering the Sacraments?
  7. 7 Whether Angels Can Administer Sacraments?
  8. 8 Whether the Minister's Intention Is Required for the Validity of a Sacrament?
  9. 9 Whether Faith Is Required of Necessity in the Minister of a Sacrament?
  10. 10 Whether the Validity of a Sacrament Requires a Good Intention in the Minister?

Articulus I

Whether God Alone, or the Minister Also, Works Inwardly Unto the Sacramental Effect?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non solus Deus, sed etiam minister, interius operetur ad effectum sacramenti. Interior enim effectus sacramenti est ut homo purgetur a peccatis, et illuminetur per gratiam. Sed ad ministros Ecclesiae pertinet purgare, illuminare et perficere, ut patet per Dionysium, in V cap. Coel. Hier. Ergo videtur quod non solus Deus, sed etiam ministri Ecclesiae operentur ad sacramenti effectum.

It seems that not God alone, but also the minister, works inwardly unto the sacramental effect. For the inward sacramental effect is to cleanse man from sin and enlighten him by grace. But it belongs to the ministers of the Church "to cleanse, enlighten and perfect," as Dionysius explains (Coel. Hier. v). Therefore it seems that the sacramental effect is the work not only of God, but also of the ministers of the Church.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, in collatione sacramentorum quaedam orationum suffragia proponuntur. Sed orationes iustorum sunt magis apud Deum exaudibiles quam quorumcumque, secundum illud Ioan. IX, si quis Dei cultor est, et voluntatem Dei facit, hunc Deus exaudit. Ergo videtur quod maiorem effectum sacramenti consequitur ille qui recipit illum a bono ministro. Sic ergo minister operatur aliquid ad interiorem effectum, et non solus Deus.

Further, certain prayers are offered up in conferring the sacraments. But the prayers of the righteous are more acceptable to God than those of any other, according to John 9:31: "If a man be a server of God, and doth His will, him He heareth." Therefore it stems that a man obtains a greater sacramental effect if he receive it from a good minister. Consequently, the interior effect is partly the work of the minister and not of God alone.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, dignior est homo quam res inanimata. Sed res inanimata aliquid operatur ad effectum interiorem, nam aqua corpus tangit et cor abluit, ut Augustinus dicit, super Ioan. Ergo homo aliquid operatur ad interiorem effectum sacramenti, et non solus Deus.

Further, man is of greater account than an inanimate thing. But an inanimate thing contributes something to the interior effect: since "water touches the body and cleanses the soul," as Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.). Therefore the interior sacramental effect is partly the work of man and not of God alone.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur Rom. VIII, Deus qui iustificat. Cum igitur interior effectus omnium sacramentorum sit iustificatio, videtur quod solus Deus operetur interiorem effectum sacramenti.

On the contrary, It is written (Rom. 8:33): "God that justifieth." Since, then, the inward effect of all the sacraments is justification, it seems that God alone works the interior sacramental effect.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod operari aliquem effectum contingit dupliciter, uno modo, per modum principalis agentis; alio modo, per modum instrumenti. Primo igitur modo solus Deus operatur interiorem effectum sacramenti. Tum quia solus Deus illabitur animae, in qua sacramenti effectus consistit. Non autem potest aliquid immediate operari ubi non est. Tum quia gratia, quae est interior sacramenti effectus, est a solo Deo, ut in secunda parte habitum est. Character etiam, qui est interior quorundam sacramentorum effectus, est virtus instrumentalis, quae manat a principali agente, quod est Deus. Secundo autem modo homo potest operari ad interiorem effectum sacramenti, inquantum operatur per modum ministri. Nam eadem ratio est ministri et instrumenti, utriusque enim actio exterius adhibetur, sed sortitur effectum interiorem ex virtute principalis agentis, quod est Deus.

I answer that, There are two ways of producing an effect; first, as a principal agent; secondly, as an instrument. In the former way the interior sacramental effect is the work of God alone: first, because God alone can enter the soul wherein the sacramental effect takes place; and no agent can operate immediately where it is not: secondly, because grace which is an interior sacramental effect is from God alone, as we have established in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 112, A. 1); while the character which is the interior effect of certain sacraments, is an instrumental power which flows from the principal agent, which is God. In the second way, however, the interior sacramental effect can be the work of man, in so far as he works as a minister. For a minister is of the nature of an instrument, since the action of both is applied to something extrinsic, while the interior effect is produced through the power of the principal agent, which is God.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod purgatio, secundum quod attribuitur ministris Ecclesiae, non est a peccato, sed dicuntur diaconi purgare, inquantum vel immundos eiiciunt a coetu fidelium, vel eos sacris admonitionibus disponunt ad sacramentorum receptionem. Similiter etiam sacerdotes illuminare dicuntur sacrum populum, non quidem gratiam infundendo, sed sacramenta gratiae tradendo, ut patet per Dionysium ibidem.

Cleansing in so far as it is attributed to the ministers of the Church is not a washing from sin: deacons are said to "cleanse," inasmuch as they remove the unclean from the body of the faithful, or prepare them by their pious admonitions for the reception of the sacraments. In like manner also priests are said to "enlighten" God's people, not indeed by giving them grace, but by conferring on them the sacraments of grace; as Dionysius explains (Coel. Hier. v).

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod orationes quae dicuntur in sacramentorum collatione, proponuntur Deo non ex parte singularis personae, sed ex parte totius Ecclesiae, cuius preces sunt apud Deum exaudibiles, secundum illud Matth. XVIII, si duo ex vobis consenserint super terram de omni re quamcumque petierint, fiet eis a patre meo. Nihil tamen prohibet quin devotio viri iusti ad hoc aliquid operetur. Illud tamen quod est sacramenti effectus, non impetratur oratione Ecclesiae vel ministri, sed ex merito passionis Christi, cuius virtus operatur in sacramentis, ut dictum est. Unde effectus sacramenti non datur melior per meliorem ministrum. Aliquid tamen annexum impetrari potest recipienti sacramentum per devotionem ministri, nec tamen minister operatur illud, sed impetrat operandum a Deo.

The prayers which are said in giving the sacraments, are offered to God, not on the part of the individual, but on the part of the whole Church, whose prayers are acceptable to God, according to Matt. 18:19: "If two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by My Father." Nor is there any reason why the devotion of a just man should not contribute to this effect. But that which is the sacramental effect is not impetrated by the prayer of the Church or of the minister, but through the merit of Christ's Passion, the power of which operates in the sacraments, as stated above (Q. 62, A. 5). Wherefore the sacramental effect is made no better by a better minister. And yet something in addition may be impetrated for the receiver of the sacrament through the devotion of the minister: but this is not the work of the minister, but the work of God Who hears the minister's prayer.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod res inanimatae non operantur ad interiorem effectum nisi instrumentaliter, ut dictum est. Et similiter homines non operantur ad sacramentorum effectum nisi per modum ministerii, ut dictum est.

Inanimate things do not produce the sacramental effect, except instrumentally, as stated above. In like manner neither do men produce the sacramental effect, except ministerially, as also stated above.

Articulus II

Whether the Sacraments Are Instituted by God Alone?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sacramenta non sint solum ex institutione divina. Ea enim quae sunt divinitus instituta, traduntur nobis in sacra Scriptura. Sed quaedam aguntur in sacramentis de quibus nulla fit mentio in sacra Scriptura, puta de chrismate quo homines confirmantur, et de oleo quo sacerdotes inunguntur, et de multis aliis, tam verbis quam factis, quibus utimur in sacramentis. Non ergo sacramenta sunt solum ex institutione divina.

It seems that the sacraments are not instituted by God alone. For those things which God has instituted are delivered to us in Holy Scripture. But in the sacraments certain things are done which are nowhere mentioned in Holy Scripture; for instance, the chrism with which men are confirmed, the oil with which priests are anointed, and many others, both words and actions, which we employ in the sacraments. Therefore the sacraments were not instituted by God alone.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, sacramenta sunt quaedam signa. Res autem sensibiles naturaliter quaedam significant. Nec potest dici quod Deus quibusdam significationibus delectetur, et non aliis, quia ipse omnia quae fecit approbat. Hoc autem proprium videtur esse Daemonum, ut quibusdam signis ad aliquid alliciantur, dicit enim Augustinus, XXI de Civ. Dei, illiciuntur Daemones per creaturas, quas non ipsi, sed Deus condidit, delectabilibus pro sua diversitate diversis, non ut animalia cibis, sed ut spiritus signis. Non ergo videtur quod sacramenta indigeant esse ex institutione divina.

Further, a sacrament is a kind of sign. Now sensible things have their own natural signification. Nor can it be said that God takes pleasure in certain significations and not in others; because He approves of all that He made. Moreover, it seems to be peculiar to the demons to be enticed to something by means of signs; for Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi): "The demons are enticed . . . by means of creatures, which were created not by them but by God, by various means of attraction according to their various natures, not as an animal is enticed by food, but as a spirit is drawn by a sign." It seems, therefore, that there is no need for the sacraments to be instituted by God.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, apostoli vicem Dei gesserunt in terris, unde apostolus dicit, II Cor. II, nam et ego quod donavi, si quid donavi, propter vos in persona Christi, idest, ac si ipse Christus donasset. Sic ergo videtur quod apostoli, et eorum successores, possint nova sacramenta instituere.

Further, the apostles were God's vicegerents on earth: hence the Apostle says (2 Cor. 2:10): "For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ," i.e. as though Christ Himself had pardoned. Therefore it seems that the apostles and their successors can institute new sacraments.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod ille instituit aliquid qui dat ei robur et virtutem, sicut patet de institutoribus legum. Sed virtus sacramenti est a solo Deo, ut ex dictis patet. Ergo solus Deus potest instituere sacramentum.

On the contrary, The institutor of anything is he who gives it strength and power: as in the case of those who institute laws. But the power of a sacrament is from God alone, as we have shown above (A. 1; Q. 62, A. 1). Therefore God alone can institute a sacrament.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex supra dictis patet, sacramenta instrumentaliter operantur ad spirituales effectus. Instrumentum autem habet virtutem a principali agente. Agens autem respectu sacramenti est duplex, scilicet instituens sacramentum; et utens sacramento instituto, applicando scilicet ipsum ad inducendum effectum. Virtus autem sacramenti non potest esse ab eo qui utitur sacramento, quia non operatur nisi per modum ministerii. Unde relinquitur quod virtus sacramenti sit ab eo qui instituit sacramentum. Cum igitur virtus sacramenti sit a solo Deo, consequens est quod solus Deus sit sacramentorum institutor.

I answer that, As appears from what has been said above (A. 1; Q. 62, A. 1), the sacraments are instrumental causes of spiritual effects. Now an instrument has its power from the principal agent. But an agent in respect of a sacrament is twofold; viz. he who institutes the sacraments, and he who makes use of the sacrament instituted, by applying it for the production of the effect. Now the power of a sacrament cannot be from him who makes use of the sacrament: because he works but as a minister. Consequently, it follows that the power of the sacrament is from the institutor of the sacrament. Since, therefore, the power of the sacrament is from God alone, it follows that God alone can institute the sacraments.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illa quae aguntur in sacramentis per homines instituta, non sunt de necessitate sacramenti, sed ad quandam solemnitatem, quae adhibetur sacramentis ad excitandam devotionem et reverentiam in his qui sacramenta suscipiunt. Ea vero quae sunt de necessitate sacramenti, sunt ab ipso Christo instituta, qui est Deus et homo. Et licet non omnia sint tradita in Scripturis, habet tamen ea Ecclesia ex familiari apostolorum traditione, sicut apostolus dicit, I Cor. XI, cetera cum venero disponam.

Human institutions observed in the sacraments are not essential to the sacrament; but belong to the solemnity which is added to the sacraments in order to arouse devotion and reverence in the recipients. But those things that are essential to the sacrament, are instituted by Christ Himself, Who is God and man. And though they are not all handed down by the Scriptures, yet the Church holds them from the intimate tradition of the apostles, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Cor. 11:34): "The rest I will set in order when I come."

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod res sensibiles aptitudinem quandam habent ad significandum spirituales effectus ex sui natura, sed ista aptitudo determinatur ad specialem significationem ex institutione divina. Et hoc est quod Hugo de sancto Victore dicit, quod sacramentum ex institutione significat. Praeelegit tamen Deus quasdam res aliis ad significationes sacramentales, non quia ad eas contrahatur eius affectus, sed ut sit convenientior significatio.

From their very nature sensible things have a certain aptitude for the signifying of spiritual effects: but this aptitude is fixed by the Divine institution to some special signification. This is what Hugh of St. Victor means by saying (De Sacram. i) that "a sacrament owes its signification to its institution." Yet God chooses certain things rather than others for sacramental signification, not as though His choice were restricted to them, but in order that their signification be more suitable to them.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod apostoli, et eorum successores, sunt vicarii Dei quantum ad regimen Ecclesiae institutae per fidem et fidei sacramenta. Unde, sicut non licet eis constituere aliam Ecclesiam, ita non licet eis tradere aliam fidem, neque instituere alia sacramenta, sed per sacramenta quae de latere Christi pendentis in cruce fluxerunt, dicitur esse fabricata Ecclesia Christi.

The apostles and their successors are God's vicars in governing the Church which is built on faith and the sacraments of faith. Wherefore, just as they may not institute another Church, so neither may they deliver another faith, nor institute other sacraments: on the contrary, the Church is said to be built up with the sacraments "which flowed from the side of Christ while hanging on the Cross."

Articulus III

Whether Christ As Man Had the Power of Producing the Inward Sacramental Effect?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus, secundum quod homo, habuit potestatem operandi interiorem effectum sacramentorum dicit enim Ioannes Baptista, ut habetur Ioan. I, qui me misit baptizare in aqua, ille mihi dixit, super quem videris spiritum descendentem et manentem super eum, hic est qui baptizat in spiritu sancto. Sed baptizare in spiritu sancto est interius gratiam spiritus sancti conferre. Spiritus autem sanctus descendit super Christum inquantum homo, non inquantum Deus, quia sic ipse dat spiritum sanctum. Ergo videtur quod Christus, secundum quod homo, habuit potestatem interiorem effectum sacramentorum causandi.

It seems that Christ as man had the power of producing the interior sacramental effect. For John the Baptist said (John 1:33): "He, Who sent me to baptize in water, said to me: He upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." But to baptize with the Holy Ghost is to confer inwardly the grace of the Holy Ghost. And the Holy Ghost descended upon Christ as man, not as God: for thus He Himself gives the Holy Ghost. Therefore it seems that Christ, as man, had the power of producing the inward sacramental effect.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, Matth. IX dominus dicit, sciatis quod filius hominis habet in terra potestatem dimittendi peccata. Sed remissio peccatorum est interior effectus sacramenti. Ergo videtur quod Christus, secundum quod homo, interiorem effectum sacramentorum operatur.

Further, our Lord said (Matt. 9:6): "That you may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins." But forgiveness of sins is an inward sacramental effect. Therefore it seems that Christ as man produces the inward sacramental effect.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, institutio sacramentorum pertinet ad eum qui tanquam principale agens operatur ad interiorem sacramenti effectum. Manifestum est autem quod Christus sacramenta instituit. Ergo ipse est qui interius operatur sacramentorum effectum.

Further, the institution of the sacraments belongs to him who acts as principal agent in producing the inward sacramental effect. Now it is clear that Christ instituted the sacraments. Therefore it is He that produces the inward sacramental effect.

Arg. 4 Objection 4

Praeterea, nullus potest sine sacramento effectum sacramenti conferre, nisi propria virtute sacramenti effectum operetur. Sed Christus sine sacramento contulit sacramenti effectum, ut patet in Magdalena, cui dixit, dimittuntur tibi peccata. Ergo videtur quod Christus, secundum quod homo, operetur interiorem sacramenti effectum.

Further, no one can confer the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament, except he produce the sacramental effect by his own power. But Christ conferred the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament; as in the case of Magdalen to whom He said: "Thy sins are forgiven Thee" (Luke 7:48). Therefore it seems that Christ, as man, produces the inward sacramental effect.

Arg. 5 Objection 5

Praeterea, illud in cuius virtute sacramentum operatur, est principale agens ad interiorem effectum. Sed sacramenta habent virtutem ex passione Christi et invocatione nominis eius, secundum illud I Cor. I, nunquid Paulus pro vobis crucifixus est? Aut in nomine Pauli baptizati estis? Ergo Christus, inquantum homo, operatur interiorem sacramenti effectum.

Further, the principal agent in causing the inward effect is that in virtue of which the sacrament operates. But the sacraments derive their power from Christ's Passion and through the invocation of His Name; according to 1 Cor. 1:13: "Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" Therefore Christ, as man, produces the inward sacramental effect.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in sacramentis divina virtus secretius operatur salutem. Divina autem virtus est Christi secundum quod est Deus, non autem secundum quod est homo. Ergo Christus non operatur interiorem sacramenti effectum secundum quod est homo, sed secundum quod est Deus.

On the contrary, Augustine (Isidore, Etym. vi) says: "The Divine power in the sacraments works inwardly in producing their salutary effect." Now the Divine power is Christ's as God, not as man. Therefore Christ produces the inward sacramental effect, not as man but as God.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod interiorem sacramentorum effectum operatur Christus et secundum quod est Deus, et secundum quod est homo, aliter tamen et aliter. Nam secundum quod est Deus, operatur in sacramentis per auctoritatem. Secundum autem quod est homo, operatur ad interiores effectus sacramentorum meritorie, et efficienter, sed instrumentaliter. Dictum est enim quod passio Christi, quae competit ei secundum humanam naturam, causa est nostrae iustificationis et meritorie, et effective, non quidem per modum principalis agentis, sive per auctoritatem, sed per modum instrumenti, inquantum humanitas est instrumentum divinitatis eius, ut supra dictum est. Sed tamen, quia est instrumentum coniunctum divinitati in persona, habet quandam principalitatem et causalitatem respectu instrumentorum extrinsecorum, qui sunt ministri Ecclesiae et ipsa sacramenta, ut ex supra dictis patet. Et ideo, sicut Christus, inquantum Deus, habet potestatem auctoritatis in sacramentis, ita, inquantum homo, habet potestatem ministerii principalis, sive potestatem excellentiae. Quae quidem consistit in quatuor. Primo quidem, in hoc quod meritum et virtus passionis eius operatur in sacramentis, ut supra dictum est. Et quia virtus passionis copulatur nobis per fidem, secundum illud Rom. III, quem proposuit Deus propitiatorem per fidem in sanguine eius, quam fidem per invocationem nominis Christi protestamur, ideo, secundo, ad potestatem excellentiae quam Christus habet in sacramentis, pertinet quod in eius nomine sacramenta sanctificantur. Et quia ex institutione sacramenta virtutem obtinent, inde est quod, tertio, ad excellentiam potestatis Christi pertinet quod ipse, qui dedit virtutem sacramentis, potuit instituere sacramenta. Et quia causa non dependet ab effectu, sed potius e converso, quarto, ad excellentiam potestatis Christi pertinet quod ipse potuit effectum sacramentorum sine exteriori sacramento conferre.

I answer that, Christ produces the inward sacramental effect, both as God and as man, but not in the same way. For, as God, He works in the sacraments by authority: but, as man, His operation conduces to the inward sacramental effects meritoriously and efficiently, but instrumentally. For it has been stated (Q. 48, AA. 1, 6; Q. 49, A. 1) that Christ's Passion which belongs to Him in respect of His human nature, is the cause of justification, both meritoriously and efficiently, not as the principal cause thereof, or by His own authority, but as an instrument, in so far as His humanity is the instrument of His Godhead, as stated above (Q. 13, AA. 2, 3; Q. 19, A. 1).

Nevertheless, since it is an instrument united to the Godhead in unity of Person, it has a certain headship and efficiency in regard to extrinsic instruments, which are the ministers of the Church and the sacraments themselves, as has been explained above (A. 1). Consequently, just as Christ, as God, has power of authority over the sacraments, so, as man, He has the power of ministry in chief, or power of excellence. And this consists in four things. First in this, that the merit and power of His Passion operates in the sacraments, as stated above (Q. 62, A. 5). And because the power of the Passion is communicated to us by faith, according to Rom. 3:25: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith in His blood," which faith we proclaim by calling on the name of Christ: therefore, secondly, Christ's power of excellence over the sacraments consists in this, that they are sanctified by the invocation of His name. And because the sacraments derive their power from their institution, hence, thirdly, the excellence of Christ's power consists in this, that He, Who gave them their power, could institute the sacraments. And since cause does not depend on effect, but rather conversely, it belongs to the excellence of Christ's power, that He could bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the exterior sacrament. Thus it is clear how to solve the objections; for the arguments on either side are true to a certain extent, as explained above.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta, utraque enim pars obiectionum vera est, ut dictum est, secundum aliquid.

—

Articulus IV

Whether Christ Could Communicate to Ministers the Power Which He Had in the Sacraments?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus potestatem suam quam habuit in sacramentis, non potuerit ministris communicare. Ut enim argumentatur Augustinus, contra Maximinum, si potuit et non voluit, invidus fuit. Sed invidia longe fuit a Christo, in quo fuit summa plenitudo caritatis. Ergo, cum Christus non communicaverit suam potestatem ministris, videtur quod non potuerit communicare.

It seems that Christ could not communicate to ministers the power which He had in the sacraments. For as Augustine argues against Maximin, "if He could, but would not, He was jealous of His power." But jealousy was far from Christ Who had the fulness of charity. Since, therefore, Christ did not communicate His power to ministers, it seems that He could not.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, super illud Ioan. XIV, maiora horum faciet, dicit Augustinus, prorsus maius hoc esse dixerim, scilicet ut ex impio iustus fiat, quam creare caelum et terram. Sed Christus non potuit communicare suis discipulis quod crearent caelum et terram. Ergo neque quod iustificent impium. Cum igitur iustificatio impii fiat per potestatem Christi quam habet in sacramentis, videtur quod potestatem suam quam habet in sacramentis, non potuerit ministris communicare.

Further, on John 14:12: "Greater than these shall he do," Augustine says (Tract. lxxii): "I affirm this to be altogether greater," namely, for a man from being ungodly to be made righteous, "than to create heaven and earth." But Christ could not communicate to His disciples the power of creating heaven and earth: neither, therefore, could He give them the power of making the ungodly to be righteous. Since, therefore, the justification of the ungodly is effected by the power that Christ has in the sacraments, it seems that He could not communicate that power to ministers.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, Christo inquantum est caput Ecclesiae, competit ut ab ipso gratia derivetur ad alios, secundum illud Ioan. I, de plenitudine eius omnes accepimus. Sed hoc non fuit aliis communicabile, quia sic Ecclesia esset monstruosa, multa capita habens. Ergo videtur quod Christus suam potestatem non potuerit ministris communicare.

Further, it belongs to Christ as Head of the Church that grace should flow from Him to others, according to John 1:16: "Of His fulness we all have received." But this could not be communicated to others; since then the Church would be deformed, having many heads. Therefore it seems that Christ could not communicate His power to ministers.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod, super illud Ioan. I, ego nesciebam eum, dicit Augustinus quod non noverat potestatem Baptismi ipsum dominum habiturum et sibi retenturum. Hoc autem non ignorasset Ioannes si talis potestas communicabilis non esset. Potuit ergo potestatem suam Christus ministris communicare.

On the contrary, on John 1:31: "I knew Him not," Augustine says (Tract. v) that "he did not know that our Lord having the authority of baptizing . . . would keep it to Himself." But John would not have been in ignorance of this, if such a power were incommunicable. Therefore Christ could communicate His power to ministers.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, Christus in sacramentis habuit duplicem potestatem. Unam auctoritatis, quae competit ei secundum quod Deus. Et talis potestas nulli creaturae potuit communicari, sicut nec divina essentia. Aliam potestatem habuit excellentiae, quae competit ei secundum quod homo. Et talem potestatem potuit ministris communicare, dando scilicet eis tantam gratiae plenitudinem ut eorum meritum operaretur ad sacramentorum effectus; ut ad invocationem nominum ipsorum sanctificarentur sacramenta; et ut ipsi possent sacramenta instituere; et sine ritu sacramentorum effectum conferre solo imperio. Potest enim instrumentum coniunctum, quanto fuerit fortius, tanto magis virtutem suam instrumento separato tribuere, sicut manus baculo.

I answer that, As stated above (A. 3), Christ had a twofold power in the sacraments. One was the power of authority, which belongs to Him as God: and this power He could not communicate to any creature; just as neither could He communicate the Divine Essence. The other was the power of excellence, which belongs to Him as man. This power He could communicate to ministers; namely, by giving them such a fulness of grace—that their merits would conduce to the sacramental effect—that by the invocation of their names, the sacraments would be sanctified—and that they themselves might institute sacraments, and by their mere will confer the sacramental effect without observing the sacramental rite. For a united instrument, the more powerful it is, is all the more able to lend its power to the separated instrument; as the hand can to a stick.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christus non ex invidia praetermisit potestatem excellentiae ministris communicare, sed propter fidelium utilitatem, ne in homine spem ponerent, et essent diversa sacramenta, ex quibus divisio in Ecclesia oriretur; sicut apud illos qui dicebant, ego sum Pauli, ego autem Apollo, ego vero Cephae, ut dicitur I Cor. I.

It was not through jealousy that Christ refrained from communicating to ministers His power of excellence, but for the good of the faithful; lest they should put their trust in men, and lest there should be various kinds of sacraments, giving rise to division in the Church; as may be seen in those who said: "I am of Paul, I am of Apollo, and I of Cephas" (1 Cor. 1:12).

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de potestate auctoritatis, quae convenit Christo secundum quod est Deus. Licet et potestas excellentiae possit auctoritas nominari per comparationem ad alios ministros. Unde super illud I Cor. I, divisus est Christus? Dicit Glossa quod potuit eis dare auctoritatem Baptismi, quibus contulit ministerium.

This objection is true of the power of authority, which belongs to Christ as God. At the same time the power of excellence can be called authority in comparison to other ministers. Whence on 1 Cor. 1:13: "Is Christ divided?" the gloss says that "He could give power of authority in baptizing, to those to whom He gave the power of administering it."

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod ad hoc inconveniens evitandum, ne scilicet multa capita in Ecclesia essent, Christus noluit potestatem suae excellentiae ministris communicare. Si tamen communicasset, ipse esset caput principaliter, alii vero secundario.

It was in order to avoid the incongruity of many heads in the Church, that Christ was unwilling to communicate to ministers His power of excellence. If, however, He had done so, He would have been Head in chief; the others in subjection to Him.

Articulus V

Whether the Sacraments Can Be Conferred by Evil Ministers?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod per malos ministros sacramenta conferri non possint. Sacramenta enim novae legis ordinantur ad emundationem culpae et collationem gratiae. Sed mali, cum sint immundi, non possunt alios a peccato mundare, secundum illud Eccli. XXXIV, ab immundo quis mundabitur? Et etiam, cum gratiam non habeant, non videtur quod gratiam conferre possint, quia nullus dat quod non habet. Non ergo videtur quod per malos sacramenta conferri possint.

It seems that the sacraments cannot be conferred by evil ministers. For the sacraments of the New Law are ordained for the purpose of cleansing from sin and for the bestowal of grace. Now evil men, being themselves unclean, cannot cleanse others from sin, according to Ecclus. 34:4: "Who [Vulg.: 'What'] can be made clean by the unclean?" Moreover, since they have not grace, it seems that they cannot give grace, for "no one gives what he has not." It seems, therefore, that the sacraments cannot be conferred by wicked men.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, tota virtus sacramentorum derivatur a Christo, ut dictum est. Sed mali sunt praecisi a Christo, quia non habent caritatem, per quam membra capiti uniuntur, secundum illud I Ioan. IV, qui manet in caritate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo. Ergo videtur quod per malos sacramenta conferri non possint.

Further, all the power of the sacraments is derived from Christ, as stated above (A. 3; Q. 62, A. 5). But evil men are cut off from Christ: because they have not charity, by which the members are united to their Head, according to 1 John 4:16: "He that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him." Therefore it seems that the sacraments cannot be conferred by evil men.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, si desit aliquid horum quae debitum est esse in sacramentis, non perficitur sacramentum, sicut si desit debita forma vel materia. Sed debitus minister sacramenti est ille qui caret macula peccati, secundum illud Levit. XXI, homo de semine tuo per familias qui habuit maculam, non offeret panes Deo tuo, nec accedet ad ministerium eius. Ergo videtur quod, si minister sit malus, nihil efficiatur in sacramento.

Further, if anything is wanting that is required for the sacraments, the sacrament is invalid; for instance, if the required matter or form be wanting. But the minister required for a sacrament is one who is without the stain of sin, according to Lev. 21:17, 18: "Whosoever of thy seed throughout their families, hath a blemish, he shall not offer bread to his God, neither shall he approach to minister to Him." Therefore it seems that if the minister be wicked, the sacrament has no effect.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, super illud Ioan. I, super quem videris spiritum etc., quod non noverat Ioannes potestatem Baptismi ipsum dominum habiturum et sibi retenturum, sed ministerium plane transiturum in bonos et malos. Quid tibi facit malus minister, ubi bonus est dominus?

On the contrary, Augustine says on John 1:33: "He upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit," etc. (Tract. v in Joan.), that "John did not know that our Lord, having the authority of baptizing, would keep it to Himself, but that the ministry would certainly pass to both good and evil men . . . What is a bad minister to thee, where the Lord is good?"

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, ministri Ecclesiae instrumentaliter operantur in sacramentis, eo quod quodammodo eadem est ratio ministri et instrumenti. Sicut autem supra dictum est, instrumentum non agit secundum propriam formam, sed secundum virtutem eius a quo movetur. Et ideo accidit instrumento, inquantum est instrumentum, qualemcumque formam vel virtutem habeat, praeter id quod exigitur ad rationem instrumenti, sicut quod corpus medici, quod est instrumentum animae habentis artem, sit sanum vel infirmum; et sicut quod fistula per quam transit aqua, sit argentea vel plumbea. Unde ministri Ecclesiae possunt sacramenta conferre etiam si sint mali.

I answer that, As stated above (A. 1), the ministers of the Church work instrumentally in the sacraments, because, in a way, a minister is of the nature of an instrument. But, as stated above (Q. 62, AA. 1, 4), an instrument acts not by reason of its own form, but by the power of the one who moves it. Consequently, whatever form or power an instrument has in addition to that which it has as an instrument, is accidental to it: for instance, that a physician's body, which is the instrument of his soul, wherein is his medical art, be healthy or sickly; or that a pipe, through which water passes, be of silver or lead. Therefore the ministers of the Church can confer the sacraments, though they be wicked.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ministri Ecclesiae neque a peccatis mundant homines ad sacramenta accedentes, neque gratiam conferunt, sua virtute, sed hoc facit Christus sua potestate per eos sicut per quaedam instrumenta. Et ideo effectus consequitur in suscipientibus sacramenta non secundum similitudinem ministrorum, sed secundum configurationem ad Christum.

The ministers of the Church do not by their own power cleanse from sin those who approach the sacraments, nor do they confer grace on them: it is Christ Who does this by His own power while He employs them as instruments. Consequently, those who approach the sacraments receive an effect whereby they are enlikened not to the ministers but to Christ.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod per caritatem membra Christi uniuntur suo capiti ut ab eo vitam recipiant, quia, ut dicitur I Ioan. III, qui non diligit, manet in morte. Potest autem aliquis operari per instrumentum carens vita, et a se separatum quantum ad corporis unionem, dummodo sit coniunctum per quandam motionem, aliter enim operatur artifex per manum, et aliter per securim. Sic igitur Christus operatur in sacramentis et per malos, tanquam per instrumenta carentia vita; et per bonos, tanquam per membra viventia.

Christ's members are united to their Head by charity, so that they may receive life from Him; for as it is written (1 John 3:14): "He that loveth not abideth in death." Now it is possible for a man to work with a lifeless instrument, and separated from him as to bodily union, provided it be united to him by some sort of motion: for a workman works in one way with his hand, in another with his axe. Consequently, it is thus that Christ works in the sacraments, both by wicked men as lifeless instruments, and by good men as living instruments.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod aliquid est debitum esse in sacramento dupliciter. Uno modo, sicut existens de necessitate sacramenti. Quod quidem si desit, non perficitur sacramentum, sicut si desit debita forma vel debita materia. Alio modo est aliquid debitum esse in sacramento secundum quandam decentiam. Et hoc modo debitum est ut ministri sacramentorum sint boni.

A thing is required in a sacrament in two ways. First, as being essential to it: and if this be wanting, the sacrament is invalid; for instance, if the due form or matter be wanting. Secondly, a thing is required for a sacrament, by reason of a certain fitness. And in this way good ministers are required for a sacrament.

Articulus VI

Whether Wicked Men Sin in Administering the Sacraments?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod mali ministrantes sacramenta non peccent. Sicut enim ministratur Deo in sacramentis, ita per opera caritatis, unde dicitur Heb. ult., beneficentiae et communionis nolite oblivisci, talibus enim hostiis promeretur Deus. Sed mali non peccant si ministrent Deo in operibus caritatis, quinimmo hoc est consulendum, secundum illud Dan. IV, consilium meum regi placeat, peccata tua eleemosynis redime. Ergo videtur quod mali non peccent in sacramentis ministrando.

It seems that wicked men do not sin in administering the sacraments. For just as men serve God in the sacraments, so do they serve Him in works of charity; whence it is written (Heb. 13:16): "Do not forget to do good and to impart, for by such sacrifices God's favor is obtained." But the wicked do not sin in serving God by works of charity: indeed, they should be persuaded to do so, according to Dan. 4:24: "Let my counsel be acceptable" to the king; "Redeem thou thy sins with alms." Therefore it seems that wicked men do not sin in administering the sacraments.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, quicumque communicat alicui in peccato, etiam ipse est reus peccati, secundum illud Rom. I, dignus est morte non solum qui peccatum agit, sed etiam qui consentit facientibus. Sed si mali ministri peccent sacramenta ministrando, illi qui ab eis sacramenta recipiunt, eis in peccato communicant. Ergo etiam ipsi peccarent. Quod videtur inconveniens.

Further, whoever co-operates with another in his sin, is also guilty of sin, according to Rom. 1:32: "He is [Vulg.: 'They are'] worthy of death; not only he that commits the sin, but also he who consents to them that do them." But if wicked ministers sin in administering sacraments, those who receive sacraments from them, co-operate in their sin. Therefore they would sin also; which seems unreasonable.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, nullus videtur esse perplexus, quia sic homo cogeretur desperare, quasi non posset peccatum evadere. Sed si mali peccarent sacramenta tradendo, essent perplexi, quia etiam quandoque peccarent si sacramenta non traderent, puta cum eis ex officio incumbit necessitas; dicitur enim I Cor. IX, vae mihi est si non evangelizavero, necessitas enim mihi incumbit. Quandoque etiam propter periculum, sicut si puer, in periculo mortis existens, offeratur alicui peccatori baptizandus. Ergo videtur quod mali non peccent sacramenta ministrando.

Further, it seems that no one should act when in doubt, for thus man would be driven to despair, as being unable to avoid sin. But if the wicked were to sin in administering sacraments, they would be in a state of perplexity: since sometimes they would sin also if they did not administer sacraments; for instance, when by reason of their office it is their bounden duty to do so; for it is written (1 Cor. 9:16): "For a necessity lieth upon me: Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel." Sometimes also on account of some danger; for instance, if a child in danger of death be brought to a sinner for baptism. Therefore it seems that the wicked do not sin in administering the sacraments.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit, I cap. Eccles. Hier., quod malis non est fas neque tangere symbola, idest sacramentalia signa. Et in epistola ad Demophilum dicit, talis, scilicet peccator, audax videtur sacerdotalibus manum imponens; et non timet neque verecundatur, divina praeter dignitatem exequens, et Deum putans ignorare quod ipse in seipso cognovit; et decipere existimat falso nomine patrem ab ipso appellatum; et audet immundas infamias non dicam orationes, super divina signa Christiformiter enuntiare.

On the contrary, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. i) that "it is wrong for the wicked even to touch the symbols," i.e. the sacramental signs. And he says in the epistle to Demophilus: "It seems presumptuous for such a man," i.e. a sinner, "to lay hands on priestly things; he is neither afraid nor ashamed, all unworthy that he is, to take part in Divine things, with the thought that God does not see what he sees in himself: he thinks, by false pretenses, to cheat Him Whom he calls his Father; he dares to utter, in the person of Christ, words polluted by his infamy, I will not call them prayers, over the Divine symbols."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod aliquis in agendo peccat ex hoc quod operatur non secundum quod oportet, ut patet per philosophum, in libro Ethicorum. Dictum est autem conveniens esse ut sacramentorum ministri sint iusti, quia ministri debent domino conformari, secundum illud Levit. XIX, sancti eritis, quoniam ego sanctus sum; et Eccli. X, secundum iudicem populi, sic et ministri eius. Et ideo non est dubium quin mali exhibentes se ministros Dei et Ecclesiae in dispensatione sacramentorum, peccent. Et quia hoc peccatum pertinet ad irreverentiam Dei et contaminationem sanctorum, quantum est ex parte ipsius hominis peccatoris, licet sancta secundum seipsa incontaminabilia sint, consequens est quod tale peccatum ex genere suo est mortale.

I answer that, A sinful action consists in this, that a man "fails to act as he ought to," as the Philosopher explains (Ethic. ii). Now it has been said (A. 5, ad 3) that it is fitting for the ministers of sacraments to be righteous; because ministers should be like unto their Lord, according to Lev. 19:2: "Be ye holy, because I . . . am holy"; and Ecclus. 10:2: "As the judge of the people is himself, so also are his ministers." Consequently, there can be no doubt that the wicked sin by exercising the ministry of God and the Church, by conferring the sacraments. And since this sin pertains to irreverence towards God and the contamination of holy things, as far as the man who sins is concerned, although holy things in themselves cannot be contaminated; it follows that such a sin is mortal in its genus.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod opera caritatis non sunt aliqua consecratione sanctificata, sed ipsa pertinent ad iustitiae sanctitatem sicut quaedam iustitiae partes. Et ideo homo qui se exhibet Deo ministrum in operibus caritatis, si sit iustus, amplius sanctificabitur, si vero sit peccator, per hoc ad sanctitatem disponitur. Sed sacramenta in seipsis sanctificationem quandam habent per mysticam consecrationem. Et ideo praeexigitur in ministro sanctitas iustitiae, ut congruat suo ministerio. Et ideo incongrue agit et peccat, si in peccato existens ad tale ministerium accedat.

Works of charity are not made holy by some process of consecration, but they belong to the holiness of righteousness, as being in a way parts of righteousness. Consequently, when a man shows himself as a minister of God, by doing works of charity, if he be righteous, he will be made yet holier; but if he be a sinner, he is thereby disposed to holiness. On the other hand, the sacraments are holy in themselves owing to their mystical consecration. Wherefore the holiness of righteousness is required in the minister, that he may be suitable for his ministry: for which reason he acts unbecomingly and sins, if while in a state of sin he attempts to fulfil that ministry.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod ille qui ad sacramenta accedit, suscipit quidem sacramentum a ministro Ecclesiae, non inquantum est talis persona, sed inquantum est Ecclesiae minister. Et ideo, quandiu ab Ecclesia toleratur in ministerio, ille qui ab eo suscipit sacramentum, non communicat peccato eius, sed communicat Ecclesiae, quae eum tanquam ministrum exhibet. Si vero ab Ecclesia non toleretur, puta cum degradatur vel excommunicatur vel suspenditur, peccat qui ab eo accipit sacramentum, quia communicat peccato ipsius.

He who approaches a sacrament, receives it from a minister of the Church, not because he is such and such a man, but because he is a minister of the Church. Consequently, as long as the latter is tolerated in the ministry, he that receives a sacrament from him, does not communicate in his sin, but communicates with the Church from whom he has his ministry. But if the Church, by degrading, excommunicating, or suspending him, does not tolerate him in the ministry, he that receives a sacrament from him sins, because he communicates in his sin.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod ille qui est in peccato mortali, non est perplexus simpliciter, si ex officio ei incumbat sacramenta dispensare, quia potest poenitere de peccato et licite ministrare. Non est autem inconveniens quod sit perplexus supposito quodam, scilicet quod velit remanere in peccato. In articulo tamen necessitatis non peccaret baptizando in casu in quo etiam posset laicus dispensare. Sic enim patet quod non exhibet se ministrum Ecclesiae, sed subvenit necessitatem patienti. Secus autem est in aliis sacramentis, quae non sunt tantae necessitatis sicut Baptismus, ut infra patebit.

A man who is in mortal sin is not perplexed simply, if by reason of his office it be his bounden duty to minister sacraments; because he can repent of his sin and so minister lawfully. But there is nothing unreasonable in his being perplexed, if we suppose that he wishes to remain in sin.

However, in a case of necessity when even a lay person might baptize, he would not sin in baptizing. For it is clear that then he does not exercise the ministry of the Church, but comes to the aid of one who is in need of his services. It is not so with the other sacraments, which are not so necessary as baptism, as we shall show further on (Q. 65, AA. 3, 4; Q. 62, A. 3).

Articulus VII

Whether Angels Can Administer Sacraments?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli possent sacramenta ministrare. Quidquid enim potest minister inferior, potest et superior, sicut quidquid potest diaconus, potest et sacerdos, sed non convertitur. Sed Angeli sunt superiores ministri in ordine hierarchico quam etiam quicumque homines, ut patet per Dionysium, in libro Cael. Hier. Ergo, cum homines possint ministrare in sacramentis, videtur quod multo magis Angeli.

It seems that angels can administer sacraments. Because a higher minister can do whatever the lower can; thus a priest can do whatever a deacon can: but not conversely. But angels are higher ministers in the hierarchical order than any men whatsoever, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. ix). Therefore, since men can be ministers of sacraments, it seems that much more can angels be.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, homines sancti assimilantur Angelis in caelo, ut dicitur Matth. XXII. Sed aliqui sancti in caelo existentes possunt ministrare in sacramentis, quia character sacramentalis est indelebilis, ut dictum est. Ergo videtur quod etiam Angeli in sacris possint ministrare.

Further, in heaven holy men are likened to the angels (Matt. 22:30). But some holy men, when in heaven, can be ministers of the sacraments; since the sacramental character is indelible, as stated above (Q. 63, A. 5). Therefore it seems that angels too can be ministers of sacraments.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, sicut supra dictum est, Diabolus est caput malorum, et mali sunt membra eius. Sed per malos possunt dispensari sacramenta. Ergo videtur quod etiam per Daemones.

Further, as stated above (Q. 8, A. 7), the devil is head of the wicked, and the wicked are his members. But sacraments can be administered by the wicked. Therefore it seems that they can be administered even by demons.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur Heb. V, omnis pontifex, ex hominibus assumptus, pro hominibus constituitur in his quae sunt ad Deum. Sed Angeli boni vel mali non sunt ex hominibus. Ergo ipsi non constituuntur ministri in his quae sunt ad Deum, idest in sacramentis.

On the contrary, It is written (Heb. 5:1): "Every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God." But angels whether good or bad are not taken from among men. Therefore they are not ordained ministers in the things that appertain to God, i.e. in the sacraments.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, tota virtus sacramentorum a passione Christi derivatur, quae est Christi secundum quod homo. Cui in natura conformantur homines, non autem Angeli, sed potius secundum passionem dicitur modico ab Angelis minoratus, ut patet Heb. II. Et ideo ad homines pertinet dispensare sacramenta et in eis ministrare, non autem ad Angelos. Sciendum tamen quod, sicut Deus virtutem suam non alligavit sacramentis quin possit sine sacramentis effectum sacramentorum conferre, ita etiam virtutem suam non alligavit Ecclesiae ministris, quin etiam Angelis possit virtutem tribuere ministrandi in sacramentis. Et quia boni Angeli sunt nuntii veritatis, si aliquod sacramentale ministerium a bonis Angelis perficeretur, esset ratum habendum, quia deberet constare hoc fieri voluntate divina, sicut quaedam templa dicuntur angelico ministerio consecrata. Si vero Daemones, qui sunt spiritus mendacii, aliquod sacramentale ministerium exhiberent, non esset ratum habendum.

I answer that, As stated above (A. 3; Q. 62, A. 5), the whole power of the sacraments flows from Christ's Passion, which belongs to Him as man. And Him in their very nature men, not angels, resemble; indeed, in respect of His Passion, He is described as being "a little lower than the angels" (Heb. 2:9). Consequently, it belongs to men, but not to angels, to dispense the sacraments and to take part in their administration.

But it must be observed that as God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament; so neither did He bind His power to the ministers of the Church so as to be unable to give angels power to administer the sacraments. And since good angels are messengers of truth; if any sacramental rite were performed by good angels, it should be considered valid, because it ought to be evident that this is being done by the will of God: for instance, certain churches are said to have been consecrated by the ministry of the angels [See Acta S.S., September 29]. But if demons, who are "lying spirits," were to perform a sacramental rite, it should be pronounced as invalid.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illud quod faciunt homines inferiori modo, scilicet per sacramenta sensibilia, quae sunt proportionata naturae ipsorum, faciunt Angeli, tanquam superiores ministri, superiori modo, scilicet invisibiliter purgando, illuminando et perficiendo.

What men do in a less perfect manner, i.e. by sensible sacraments, which are proportionate to their nature, angels also do, as ministers of a higher degree, in a more perfect manner, i.e. invisibly—by cleansing, enlightening, and perfecting.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod sancti qui sunt in caelo, sunt similes Angelis quantum ad participationem gloriae, non autem quantum ad conditionem naturae. Et per consequens neque quantum ad sacramenta.

The saints in heaven resemble the angels as to their share of glory, but not as to the conditions of their nature: and consequently not in regard to the sacraments.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod mali homines non habent quod possint ministrare in sacramentis ex hoc quod per malitiam sunt membra Diaboli. Et ideo non sequitur quod Diabolus, qui est eorum caput, magis hoc possit.

Wicked men do not owe their power of conferring sacraments to their being members of the devil. Consequently, it does not follow that a fortiori the devil, their head, can do so.

Articulus VIII

Whether the Minister's Intention Is Required for the Validity of a Sacrament?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod intentio ministri non requiratur ad perfectionem sacramenti. Minister enim in sacramento instrumentaliter operatur. Sed actio non perficitur secundum intentionem instrumenti, sed secundum intentionem principalis agentis. Ergo intentio ministri non requiritur ad perfectionem sacramenti.

It seems that the minister's intention is not required for the validity of a sacrament. For the minister of a sacrament works instrumentally. But the perfection of an action does not depend on the intention of the instrument, but on that of the principal agent. Therefore the minister's intention is not necessary for the perfecting of a sacrament.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, non potest homini esse nota intentio alterius. Si igitur intentio ministri requiratur ad perfectionem sacramenti, non posset homini ad sacramentum accedenti esse notum quod sacramentum suscepisset. Et ita non posset habere certitudinem salutis, praecipue cum quaedam sacramenta sint de necessitate salutis, ut infra dicetur.

Further, one man's intention cannot be known to another. Therefore if the minister's intention were required for the validity of a sacrament, he who approaches a sacrament could not know whether he has received the sacrament. Consequently he could have no certainty in regard to salvation; the more that some sacraments are necessary for salvation, as we shall state further on (Q. 65, A. 4).

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, intentio hominis non potest esse ad id circa quod non est attentus. Sed aliquando illi qui in sacramentis ministrant, non attendunt ad ea quae dicunt vel faciunt, alia cogitantes. Ergo, secundum hoc, non perficitur sacramentum, propter intentionis defectum.

Further, a man's intention cannot bear on that to which he does not attend. But sometimes ministers of sacraments do not attend to what they say or do, through thinking of something else. Therefore in this respect the sacrament would be invalid through want of intention.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod ea quae sunt praeter intentionem, sunt casualia. Quod non est dicendum de operatione sacramentorum. Ergo sacramenta requirunt intentionem ministri.

On the contrary, What is unintentional happens by chance. But this cannot be said of the sacramental operation. Therefore the sacraments require the intention of the minister.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, quando aliquid se habet ad multa, oportet quod per aliquid determinetur ad unum, si illud effici debeat. Ea vero quae in sacramentis aguntur, possunt diversimode agi, sicut ablutio aquae, quae fit in Baptismo, potest ordinari et ad munditiam corporalem, et ad sanitatem corporalem, et ad ludum et ad multa alia huiusmodi. Et ideo oportet quod determinetur ad unum, idest ad sacramentalem effectum, per intentionem abluentis. Et haec intentio exprimitur per verba quae in sacramentis dicuntur, puta cum dicit, ego te baptizo in nomine patris, et cetera.

I answer that, When a thing is indifferent to many uses, it must needs be determined to one, if that one has to be effected. Now those things which are done in the sacraments, can be done with various intent; for instance, washing with water, which is done in baptism, may be ordained to bodily cleanliness, to the health of the body, to amusement, and many other similar things. Consequently, it needs to be determined to one purpose, i.e. the sacramental effect, by the intention of him who washes. And this intention is expressed by the words which are pronounced in the sacraments; for instance the words, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father," etc.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod instrumentum inanimatum non habet aliquam intentionem respectu effectus, sed loco intentionis est motus quo movetur a principali agente. Sed instrumentum animatum, sicut est minister, non solum movetur, sed etiam quodammodo movet seipsum, inquantum sua voluntate movet membra ad operandum. Et ideo requiritur eius intentio, qua se subiiciat principali agenti, ut scilicet intendat facere quod facit Christus et Ecclesia.

An inanimate instrument has no intention regarding the effect; but instead of the intention there is the motion whereby it is moved by the principal agent. But an animate instrument, such as a minister, is not only moved, but in a sense moves itself, in so far as by his will he moves his bodily members to act. Consequently, his intention is required, whereby he subjects himself to the principal agent; that is, it is necessary that he intend to do that which Christ and the Church do.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod circa hoc est duplex opinio. Quidam enim dicunt quod requiritur mentalis intentio in ministro, quae si desit, non perficitur sacramentum. Sed hunc defectum in pueris, qui non habent intentionem accedendi ad sacramentum, supplet Christus, qui interius baptizat. In adultis autem, quia intendunt sacramenta suscipere, supplet illum defectum fides et devotio. Sed hoc satis posset dici quantum ad ultimum effectum, qui est iustificatio a peccatis, sed quantum ad effectum qui est res et sacramentum, scilicet quantum ad characterem, non videtur quod per devotionem accedentis possit suppleri; quia character nunquam imprimitur nisi per sacramentum. Et ideo alii melius dicunt quod minister sacramenti agit in persona totius Ecclesiae, cuius est minister; in verbis autem quae proferuntur, exprimitur intentio Ecclesiae; quae sufficit ad perfectionem sacramenti, nisi contrarium exterius exprimatur ex parte ministri et recipientis sacramentum.

On this point there are two opinions. For some hold that the mental intention of the minister is necessary; in the absence of which the sacrament is invalid: and that this defect in the case of children who have not the intention of approaching the sacrament, is made good by Christ, Who baptizes inwardly: whereas in adults, who have that intention, this defect is made good by their faith and devotion.

This might be true enough of the ultimate effect, i.e. justification from sins; but as to that effect which is both real and sacramental, viz. the character, it does not appear possible for it to be made good by the devotion of the recipient, since a character is never imprinted save by a sacrament.

Consequently, others with better reason hold that the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the sacrament.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet ille qui aliud cogitat, non habeat actualem intentionem, habet tamen habitualem, quae sufficit ad perfectionem sacramenti, puta si, cum sacerdos accedit ad baptizandum, intendit facere circa baptizandum quod facit Ecclesia. Unde, si postea in ipso exercitio actus cogitatio eius ad alia rapiatur, ex virtute primae intentionis perficitur sacramentum. Quamvis studiose curare debeat sacramenti minister ut etiam actualem intentionem adhibeat. Sed hoc non totaliter est positum in hominis potestate, quia praeter intentionem, cum homo vult multum intendere, incipit alia cogitare; secundum illud Psalmi, cor meum dereliquit me.

Although he who thinks of something else, has no actual intention, yet he has habitual intention, which suffices for the validity of the sacrament; for instance if, when a priest goes to baptize someone, he intends to do to him what the Church does. Wherefore if subsequently during the exercise of the act his mind be distracted by other matters, the sacrament is valid in virtue of his original intention. Nevertheless, the minister of a sacrament should take great care to have actual intention. But this is not entirely in man's power, because when a man wishes to be very intent on something, he begins unintentionally to think of other things, according to Ps. 39:18: "My heart hath forsaken me."

Articulus IX

Whether Faith Is Required of Necessity in the Minister of a Sacrament?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fides ministri sit de necessitate sacramenti. Sicut enim dictum est, intentio ministri est necessaria ad sacramenti perfectionem. Sed fides intentionem dirigit, ut Augustinus dicit, contra Iulianum. Ergo, si desit vera fides in ministro, non perficitur sacramentum.

It seems that faith is required of necessity in the minister of a sacrament. For, as stated above (A. 8), the intention of the minister is necessary for the validity of a sacrament. But "faith directs in intention" as Augustine says against Julian (In Psalm xxxi, cf. Contra Julian iv). Therefore, if the minister is without the true faith, the sacrament is invalid.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, si minister Ecclesiae veram fidem non habeat, videtur esse haereticus. Sed haeretici, ut videtur, non possunt sacramenta conferre. Dicit enim Cyprianus, in epistola contra haereticos, omnia quaecumque faciunt haeretici, carnalia sunt et inania et falsa, ita ut nihil eorum quae illi gesserint, a nobis debeat probari. Et Leo Papa dicit, in epistola ad Leonem Augustum, manifestum est per crudelissimam et insanissimam vesaniam in Alexandrina sede omnium caelestium sacramentorum lumen extinctum. Intercepta est sacrificii oblatio, defecit chrismatis sanctificatio, et paricidalibus manibus impiorum omnia sese subtraxere mysteria. Ergo vera fides ministri est de necessitate sacramenti.

Further, if a minister of the Church has not the true faith, it seems that he is a heretic. But heretics, seemingly, cannot confer sacraments. For Cyprian says in an epistle against heretics (lxxiii): "Everything whatsoever heretics do, is carnal, void and counterfeit, so that nothing that they do should receive our approval." And Pope Leo says in his epistle to Leo Augustus (clvi): "It is a matter of notoriety that the light of all the heavenly sacraments is extinguished in the see of Alexandria, by an act of dire and senseless cruelty. The sacrifice is no longer offered, the chrism is no longer consecrated, all the mysteries of religion have fled at the touch of the parricide hands of ungodly men." Therefore a sacrament requires of necessity that the minister should have the true faith.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, illi qui non habent veram fidem, videntur esse per excommunicationem ab Ecclesia separati, dicitur enim in secunda canonica Ioannis, si quis venit ad vos et hanc doctrinam non affert, nolite recipere eum in domum, nec ave dixeritis ei; et Tit. III, haereticum hominem, post primam et secundam correctionem, devita. Sed excommunicatus non videtur conferre posse Ecclesiae sacramentum, cum sit ab Ecclesia separatus, ad cuius ministerium pertinet sacramentorum dispensatio. Ergo videtur quod vera fides ministri sit de necessitate sacramenti.

Further, those who have not the true faith seem to be separated from the Church by excommunication: for it is written in the second canonical epistle of John (10): "If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house, nor say to him; God speed you": and (Titus 3:10): "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition avoid." But it seems that an excommunicate cannot confer a sacrament of the Church: since he is separated from the Church, to whose ministry the dispensation of the sacraments belongs. Therefore a sacrament requires of necessity that the minister should have the true faith.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, contra Petilianum Donatistam, mementote sacramentis Dei nihil obesse mores malorum hominum, quod illa vel non sint, vel minus sancta sint.

On the contrary, Augustine says against the Donatist Petilian: "Remember that the evil lives of wicked men are not prejudicial to God's sacraments, by rendering them either invalid or less holy."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, quia minister in sacramentis instrumentaliter operatur, non agit in virtute propria, sed in virtute Christi. Sicut autem pertinet ad propriam virtutem hominis caritas, ita et fides. Unde, sicut non requiritur ad perfectionem sacramenti quod minister sit in caritate, sed possunt etiam peccatores sacramenta conferre, ut supra dictum est; ita non requiritur fides eius, sed infidelis potest verum sacramentum praebere, dummodo cetera adsint quae sunt de necessitate sacramenti.

I answer that, As stated above (A. 5), since the minister works instrumentally in the sacraments, he acts not by his own but by Christ's power. Now just as charity belongs to a man's own power so also does faith. Wherefore, just as the validity of a sacrament does not require that the minister should have charity, and even sinners can confer sacraments, as stated above (A. 5); so neither is it necessary that he should have faith, and even an unbeliever can confer a true sacrament, provided that the other essentials be there.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod potest contingere quod aliquis patiatur defectum fidei circa aliquid aliud, et non circa veritatem sacramenti quod exhibet, puta si aliquis credat iuramentum esse in omni casu illicitum, et tamen credat Baptismum efficaciam habere ad salutem. Et sic talis infidelitas non impedit intentionem conferendi sacramentum. Si vero patiatur fidei defectum circa ipsum sacramentum quod exhibet, licet credat per id quod agitur exterius nullum sequi interiorem effectum, non tamen ignorat quod Ecclesia Catholica intendit per huiusmodi quae exterius aguntur, sacramentum praebere. Unde, non obstante infidelitate, potest intendere facere id quod facit Ecclesia, licet existimet id nihil esse. Et talis intentio sufficit ad sacramentum, quia, sicut supra dictum est, minister sacramenti agit in persona totius Ecclesiae, ex cuius fide suppletur id quod deest fidei ministro.

It may happen that a man's faith is defective in regard to something else, and not in regard to the reality of the sacrament which he confers: for instance, he may believe that it is unlawful to swear in any case whatever, and yet he may believe that baptism is an efficient cause of salvation. And thus such unbelief does not hinder the intention of conferring the sacrament. But if his faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for a sacrament: because as stated above (A. 8, ad 2) the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith any defect in the minister's faith is made good.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod haereticorum quidam in collatione sacramentorum formam Ecclesiae non servant. Et tales neque sacramentum conferunt, neque rem sacramenti. Quidam vero servant Ecclesiae formam. Et tales conferunt quidem sacramentum, sed non conferunt rem sacramenti. Et hoc dico, si sunt manifeste ab Ecclesia praecisi. Quia ex hoc ipso quod aliquis accipit sacramenta ab eis, peccat, et per hoc impeditur ne effectum sacramenti consequatur. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de fide ad Petrum, firmissime tene, et nullatenus dubites, extra Ecclesiam baptizatis, si ad Ecclesiam non redierint, Baptismo cumulari perniciem. Et per hunc modum dicit Leo Papa in sede Alexandrina sacramentorum lumen esse extinctum, scilicet, quantum ad rem sacramenti, non autem quantum ad ipsum sacramentum. Cyprianus autem nec sacramentum conferre haereticos credebat, sed in hoc eius sententia non tenetur. Unde Augustinus dicit, martyrem Cyprianum, qui apud haereticos vel schismaticos datum Baptismum nolebat cognoscere, tanta merita, usque ad triumphum martyrii, secuta sunt, ut caritatis qua excellebat luce obumbratio illa fugaretur, et, si quid purgandum erat, passionis falce tolleretur.

Some heretics in conferring sacraments do not observe the form prescribed by the Church: and these confer neither the sacrament nor the reality of the sacrament. But some do observe the form prescribed by the Church: and these confer indeed the sacrament but not the reality. I say this in the supposition that they are outwardly cut off from the Church; because from the very fact that anyone receives the sacraments from them, he sins; and consequently is hindered from receiving the effect of the sacrament. Wherefore Augustine (Fulgentius, De Fide ad Pet.) says: "Be well assured and have no doubt whatever that those who are baptized outside the Church, unless they come back to the Church, will reap disaster from their Baptism." In this sense Pope Leo says that "the light of the sacraments was extinguished in the Church of Alexandria"; viz. in regard to the reality of the sacrament, not as to the sacrament itself.

Cyprian, however, thought that heretics do not confer even the sacrament: but in this respect we do not follow his opinion. Hence Augustine says (De unico Baptismo xiii): "Though the martyr Cyprian refused to recognize Baptism conferred by heretics or schismatics, yet so great are his merits, culminating in the crown of martyrdom, that the light of his charity dispels the darkness of his fault, and if anything needed pruning, the sickle of his passion cut it off."

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod potestas ministrandi sacramenta pertinet ad spiritualem characterem, qui indelebilis est, ut ex supra dictis patet. Et ideo per hoc quod aliquis ab Ecclesia suspenditur vel excommunicatur, vel etiam degradatur, non amittit potestatem conferendi sacramentum, sed licentiam utendi hac potestate. Et ideo sacramentum quidem confert, sed tamen peccat conferendo. Et similiter ille qui ab eo accipit sacramentum, et sic non percipit rem sacramenti, nisi forte per ignorantiam excusetur.

The power of administering the sacraments belongs to the spiritual character which is indelible, as explained above (Q. 63, A. 3). Consequently, if a man be suspended by the Church, or excommunicated or degraded, he does not lose the power of conferring sacraments, but the permission to use this power. Wherefore he does indeed confer the sacrament, but he sins in so doing. He also sins that receives a sacrament from such a man: so that he does not receive the reality of the sacrament, unless ignorance excuses him.

Articulus X

Whether the Validity of a Sacrament Requires a Good Intention in the Minister?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad decimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod intentio recta ministri requiratur ad perfectionem sacramenti. Intentio enim ministri debet conformari intentioni Ecclesiae, ut ex dictis patet. Sed intentio Ecclesiae semper est recta. Ergo de necessitate ad sacramenti perfectionem requiritur intentio recta ministri.

It seems that the validity of a sacrament requires a good intention in the minister. For the minister's intention should be in conformity with the Church's intention, as explained above (A. 8, ad 1). But the intention of the Church is always good. Therefore the validity of a sacrament requires of necessity a good intention in the minister.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, perversa intentio deterior esse videtur quam intentio iocosa. Sed intentio iocosa tollit sacramentum, puta si aliquis non serio, sed ludo aliquem baptizaret. Ergo multo magis perversa intentio aufert sacramentum, puta si aliquis aliquem baptizaret ut postmodum eum occideret.

Further, a perverse intention seems worse than a playful one. But a playful intention destroys a sacrament: for instance, if someone were to baptize anybody not seriously but in fun. Much more, therefore, does a perverse intention destroy a sacrament: for instance, if somebody were to baptize a man in order to kill him afterwards.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, perversa intentio facit totum opus vitiosum, secundum illud Luc. XI, si oculus tuus fuerit nequam, totum corpus tuum tenebrosum erit. Sed sacramenta Christi non possunt inquinari per malos homines, sicut Augustinus dicit, contra Petilianum. Ergo videtur quod, si sit perversa intentio ministri, non sit ibi verum sacramentum.

Further, a perverse intention vitiates the whole work, according to Luke 11:34: "If thy eye be evil, thy" whole "body will be darksome." But the sacraments of Christ cannot be contaminated by evil men; as Augustine says against Petilian (Cont. Litt. Petil ii). Therefore it seems that, if the minister's intention is perverse, the sacrament is invalid.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod perversa intentio pertinet ad malitiam ministri. Sed malitia ministri non tollit sacramentum. Ergo nec perversa intentio.

On the contrary, A perverse intention belongs to the wickedness of the minister. But the wickedness of the minister does not annul the sacrament: neither, therefore, does his perverse intention.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod intentio ministri potest perverti dupliciter. Uno modo, respectu ipsius sacramenti, puta cum aliquis non intendit sacramentum conferre, sed delusorie aliquid agere. Et talis perversitas tollit veritatem sacramenti, praecipue quando suam intentionem exterius manifestat. Alio modo potest perverti intentio ministri quantum ad id quod sequitur sacramentum, puta si sacerdos intendat aliquam feminam baptizare ut abutatur ea; vel si intendat conficere corpus Christi ut eo ad veneficia utatur. Et quia prius non dependet a posteriori, inde est quod talis intentionis perversitas veritatem sacramenti non tollit, sed ipse minister ex tali intentione graviter peccat.

I answer that, The minister's intention may be perverted in two ways. First in regard to the sacrament: for instance, when a man does not intend to confer a sacrament, but to make a mockery of it. Such a perverse intention takes away the truth of the sacrament, especially if it be manifested outwardly.

Secondly, the minister's intention may be perverted as to something that follows the sacrament: for instance, a priest may intend to baptize a woman so as to be able to abuse her; or to consecrate the Body of Christ, so as to use it for sorcery. And because that which comes first does not depend on that which follows, consequently such a perverse intention does not annul the sacrament; but the minister himself sins grievously in having such an intention.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Ecclesiae intentio recta est et quantum ad sacramenti perfectionem, et quantum ad sacramenti usum, sed prima rectitudo perficit sacramentum, secunda operatur ad meritum. Et ideo minister qui conformat intentionem suam Ecclesiae quantum ad primam rectitudinem, non autem quantum ad secundam, perficit quidem sacramentum, sed non est sibi ad meritum.

The Church has a good intention both as to the validity of the sacrament and as to the use thereof: but it is the former intention that perfects the sacrament, while the latter conduces to the meritorious effect. Consequently, the minister who conforms his intention to the Church as to the former rectitude, but not as to the latter, perfects the sacrament indeed, but gains no merit for himself.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod intentio ludicra vel iocosa excludit primam rectitudinem intentionis, per quam perficitur sacramentum. Et ideo non est similis ratio.

The intention of mimicry or fun excludes the first kind of right intention, necessary for the validity of a sacrament. Consequently, there is no comparison.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod perversa intentio pervertit opus intendentis, non autem opus alterius. Et ideo ex perversa intentione ministri pervertitur id quod agit in sacramentis inquantum est opus eius, non inquantum est opus Christi, cuius est minister. Et est simile si minister alicuius hominis prava intentione deferret pauperibus eleemosynam, quam dominus recta intentione mandaret.

A perverse intention perverts the action of the one who has such an intention, not the action of another. Consequently, the perverse intention of the minister perverts the sacrament in so far as it is his action: not in so far as it is the action of Christ, Whose minister he is. It is just as if the servant [minister] of some man were to carry alms to the poor with a wicked intention, whereas his master had commanded him with a good intention to do so.

Showing Thomas's answers only.