Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 71 [ << | >> ]
| Deinde considerandum est de praeparatoriis quae simul currunt cum Baptismo. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. | We have now to consider the preparations that accompany Baptism: concerning which there are four points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum catechismus debeat praecedere Baptismum. | (1) Whether catechism should precede Baptism? |
| Secundo, utrum Baptismum debeat praecedere exorcismus. | (2) Whether exorcism should precede Baptism? |
| Tertio, utrum ea quae aguntur in catechismo et exorcismo aliquid efficiant, vel solum significent. |
(3) Whether what is done in catechizing and exorcizing, effects anything, or is a mere sign? |
| Quarto, utrum baptizandi debeant catechizari vel exorcizari per sacerdotes. |
(4) Whether those who are to be baptized should be catechized or exorcized by priests? |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 71 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod catechismus non debeat praecedere Baptismum. Per Baptismum enim regenerantur homines ad vitam spiritualem. Sed prius accipit homo vitam quam doctrinam. Non ergo prius debet homo catechizari, idest doceri, quam baptizari. | Objection 1: It seems that catechism should not precede Baptism. For by Baptism men are regenerated unto the spiritual life. But man begins to live before being taught. Therefore man should not be catechized, i.e. taught, before being baptized. |
| Praeterea, Baptismus exhibetur non solum adultis, sed etiam pueris, qui non sunt doctrinae perceptibiles, eo quod non habent usum rationis. Ergo ridiculum est eos catechizari. | Objection 2: Further, Baptism is given not only to adults, but also to children, who are not capable of being taught, since they have not the use of reason. Therefore it is absurd to catechize them. |
| Praeterea, in catechismo confitetur catechizatus suam fidem. Confiteri autem fidem suam non potest puer, neque per seipsum, neque etiam aliquis alius pro eo, tum quia nullus potest alium ad aliquid obligare; tum quia non potest aliquis scire utrum puer, cum ad legitimam aetatem pervenerit, assentiat fidei. Non ergo debet catechismus praecedere Baptismum. | Objection 3: Further, a man, when catechized, confesses his faith. Now a child cannot confess its faith by itself, nor can anyone else in its stead; both because no one can bind another to do anything; and because one cannot know whether the child, having come to the right age, will give its assent to faith. Therefore catechism should not precede Baptism. |
| Sed contra est quod Rabanus, de institutione clericorum, dicit, ante Baptismum, catechizandi debet hominem praevenire officium, ut fidei primum catechumenus accipiat rudimentum. | On the contrary, Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i): "Before Baptism man should be prepared by catechism, in order that the catechumen may receive the rudiments of faith." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, Baptismus est fidei sacramentum, cum sit quaedam professio fidei Christianae. Ad hoc autem quod aliquis fidem accipiat, requiritur quod de fide instruatur, secundum illud Rom. X, quomodo credent quem non audierunt? Quomodo autem audient sine praedicante? Et ideo ante Baptismum convenienter praecedit catechismus. Unde et dominus, praeceptum baptizandi discipulis tradens, praemittit doctrinam Baptismo, dicens, euntes, docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos, et cetera. |
I answer that, As stated above (Question [70], Article [1]), Baptism is the Sacrament of Faith: since it is a profession of the Christian faith. Now in order that a man receive the faith, he must be instructed therein, according to Rm. 10:14: "How shall they believe Him, of Whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" And therefore it is fitting that catechism should precede Baptism. Hence when our Lord bade His disciples to baptize, He made teaching to precede Baptism, saying: "Go ye... and teach all nations, baptizing them," etc. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod vita gratiae, in qua regeneratur aliquis, praesupponit vitam naturae rationalis, in qua potest homo particeps esse doctrinae. | Reply to Objection 1: The life of grace unto which a man is regenerated, presupposes the life of the rational nature, in which man is capable of receiving instruction. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut mater Ecclesia, ut supra dictum est, accommodat pueris baptizandis aliorum pedes ut veniant, et aliorum cor ut credant, ita etiam accommodat eis aliorum aures ut audiant, et intellectum ut per alios instruantur. Et ideo eadem ratione sunt catechizandi qua sunt baptizandi. |
Reply to Objection 2: Just as Mother Church, as stated above (Question [69], Article [6], ad 3), lends children another's feet that they may come, and another's heart that they may believe, so, too, she lends them another's ears, that they may hear, and another's mind, that through others they may be taught. And therefore, as they are to be baptized, on the same grounds they are to be instructed. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ille qui pro puero baptizato respondet, credo, non praedicit puerum crediturum cum ad legitimos annos pervenerit, alioquin diceret, credet, sed profitetur fidem Ecclesiae in persona pueri, cui communicatur, cuius sacramentum ei attribuitur, et ad quam obligatur per alium. Non est enim inconveniens quod aliquis obligetur per alium in his quae sunt de necessitate salutis. Similiter etiam patrinus pro puero respondens promittit se operam daturum ad hoc quod puer credat. Quod tamen non sufficeret in adultis usum rationis habentibus. | Reply to Objection 3: He who answers in the child's stead: "I do believe," does not foretell that the child will believe when it comes to the right age, else he would say: "He will believe"; but in the child's stead he professes the Church's faith which is communicated to that child, the sacrament of which faith is bestowed on it, and to which faith he is bound by another. For there is nothing unfitting in a person being bound by another in things necessary for salvation. In like manner the sponsor, in answering for the child, promises to use his endeavors that the child may believe. This, however, would not be sufficient in the case of adults having the use of reason. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 71 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod exorcismus non debeat praecedere Baptismum. Exorcismus enim est contra energumenos, idest arreptitios, ordinatus. Sed non omnes sunt tales. Ergo exorcismus non debet praecedere Baptismum. | Objection 1: It seems that exorcism should not precede Baptism. For exorcism is ordained against energumens or those who are possessed. But not all are such like. Therefore exorcism should not precede Baptism. |
| Praeterea, quandiu homo subiacet peccato, Diabolus in eo potestatem habet, ut dicitur Ioan. VIII, qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati. Sed peccatum tollitur per Baptismum. Non ergo ante Baptismum sunt homines exorcizandi. | Objection 2: Further, so long as man is a subject of sin, the devil has power over him, according to Jn. 8:34: "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin." But sin is taken away by Baptism. Therefore men should not be exorcized before Baptism. |
| Praeterea, ad arcendum Daemonum potestatem est introducta aqua benedicta. Non ergo ad hoc oportebat aliud remedium adhiberi per exorcismos. | Objection 3: Further, Holy water was introduced in order to ward off the power of the demons. Therefore exorcism was not needed as a further remedy. |
| Sed contra est quod Caelestinus Papa dicit, sive parvuli sive iuvenes ad regenerationis veniant sacramentum, non prius fontem vitae adeant quam exorcismis et exsufflationibus clericorum spiritus immundus ab eis abiiciatur. | On the contrary, Pope Celestine says (Epist. ad Episcop. Galliae): "Whether children or young people approach the sacrament of regeneration, they should not come to the fount of life before the unclean spirit has been expelled from them by the exorcisms and breathings of the clerics." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod quicumque opus aliquod sapienter facere proponit, prius removet impedimenta sui operis, unde dicitur Ierem. IV, novate vobis novale, et nolite serere super spinas. Diabolus autem hostis est humanae salutis, quae homini per Baptismum acquiritur; et habet potestatem aliquam in homine ex hoc ipso quod subditur originali peccato, vel etiam actuali. Unde etiam convenienter ante Baptismum expelluntur Daemones per exorcismos, ne salutem hominis impediant. Quam quidem expulsionem significat exsufflatio. Benedictio autem, cum manus impositione, praecludit expulso viam ne redire possit. Sal autem in os missum, et narium et aurium sputo linitio, significat receptionem doctrinae fidei quantum ad aures, et approbationem quantum ad nares, et confessionem quantum ad os. Olei vero inunctio significat aptitudinem hominis ad pugnandum contra Daemones. |
I answer that, Whoever purposes to do a work wisely, first removes the obstacles to his work; hence it is written (Jer. 4:3): "Break up anew your fallow ground and sow not upon thorns." Now the devil is the enemy of man's salvation, which man acquires by Baptism; and he has a certain power over man from the very fact that the latter is subject to original, or even actual, sin. Consequently it is fitting that before Baptism the demons should be cast out by exorcisms, lest they impede man's salvation. Which expulsion is signified by the (priest) breathing (upon the person to be baptized); while the blessing, with the imposition of hands, bars the way against the return of him who was cast out. Then the salt which is put in the mouth, and the anointing of the nose and ears with spittle, signify the receiving of doctrine, as to the ears; consent thereto as to the nose; and confession thereof, as to the mouth. And the anointing with oil signifies man's ability to fight against the demons. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod energumeni dicuntur quasi interius laborantes extrinseca operatione Diaboli. Et quamvis non omnes accedentes ad Baptismum corporaliter ab eo vexentur, omnes tamen non baptizati potestati Daemonum subiiciuntur, saltem propter reatum originalis peccati. | Reply to Objection 1: The energumens are so-called from "laboring inwardly" under the outward operation of the devil. And though not all that approach Baptism are troubled by him in their bodies, yet all who are not baptized are subject to the power of the demons, at least on account of the guilt of original sin. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod in Baptismo per ablutionem excluditur potestas Daemonis ab homine quantum ad hoc quod impedit eum a perceptione gloriae. Sed exorcismi excludunt potestatem Daemonis inquantum impedit hominem a perceptione sacramenti. | Reply to Objection 2: The power of the devil in so far as he hinders man from obtaining glory, is expelled from man by the baptismal ablution; but in so far as he hinders man from receiving the sacrament, his power is cast out by the exorcisms. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod aqua benedicta datur contra impugnationes Daemonum quae sunt ab exteriori. Sed exorcismus ordinatur contra impugnationes Daemonum quae sunt ab interiori, unde, energumeni dicuntur, quasi interius laborantes, illi qui exorcizantur. | Reply to Objection 3: Holy water is used against the assaults of demons from without. But exorcisms are directed against those assaults of the demons which are from within. hence those who are exorcized are called energumens, as it were "laboring inwardly." |
| Vel dicendum quod, sicut remedium contra peccatum secundo datur poenitentia, quia Baptismus non iteratur; ita in remedium contra impugnationes Daemonum secundo datur aqua benedicta, quia exorcismi baptismales non iterantur. | Or we may say that just as Penance is given as a further remedy against sin, because Baptism is not repeated; so Holy Water is given as a further remedy against the assaults of demons, because the baptismal exorcisms are not given a second time. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 71 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3 [ << | >> ]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod ea quae aguntur in exorcismo non efficiant aliquid, sed solum significent. Si enim puer post exorcismos moriatur ante Baptismum, salutem non consequitur. Sed ad hoc ordinatur effectus eorum quae in sacramentis aguntur, ut homo consequatur salutem, unde et Marc. ult. dicitur, qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit. Ergo ea quae aguntur in exorcismo nihil efficiunt, sed solum significant. | Objection 1: It seems that what is done in the exorcism does not effect anything, but is a mere sign. For if a child die after the exorcisms, before being baptized, it is not saved. But the effects of what is done in the sacraments are ordained to the salvation of man; hence it is written (Mk. 16:16): "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Therefore what is done in the exorcism effects nothing, but is a mere sign. |
| Praeterea, hoc solum requiritur ad sacramentum novae legis ut sit signum et causa, sicut supra dictum est. Si ergo ea quae aguntur in exorcismo aliquid efficiant, videtur quod singula sint quaedam sacramenta. |
Objection 2: Further, nothing is required for a sacrament of the New Law, but that it should be a sign and a cause, as stated above (Question [62], Article [1]). If, therefore, the things done in the exorcism effect anything, it seems that each of them is a sacrament. |
| Praeterea, sicut exorcismus ordinatur ad Baptismum, ita, si aliquid in exorcismo efficitur, ordinatur ad effectum Baptismi. Sed dispositio ex necessitate praecedit formam perfectam, quia forma non recipitur nisi in materia disposita. Sequeretur ergo quod nullus posset consequi effectum Baptismi nisi prius exorcizatus, quod patet esse falsum. Non ergo ea quae aguntur in exorcismis aliquem effectum habent. | Objection 3: Further, just as the exorcism is ordained to Baptism, so if anything be effected in the exorcism, it is ordained to the effect of Baptism. But disposition must needs precede the perfect form: because form is not received save into matter already disposed. It would follow, therefore, that none could obtain the effect of Baptism unless he were previously exorcized; which is clearly false. Therefore what is done in the exorcisms has no effect. |
| Praeterea, sicut quaedam aguntur in exorcismo ante Baptismum, ita etiam quaedam aguntur post Baptismum, sicut quod sacerdos baptizatum ungit in vertice. Sed ea quae post Baptismum aguntur non videntur aliquid efficere, quia secundum hoc, effectus Baptismi esset imperfectus. Ergo nec ea quae ante Baptismum aguntur in exorcismo. | Objection 4: Further, just as some things are done in the exorcism before Baptism, so are some things done after Baptism; for instance, the priest anoints the baptized on the top of the head. But what is done after Baptism seems to have no effect; for, if it had, the effect of Baptism would be imperfect. Therefore neither have those things an effect, which are done in exorcism before Baptism. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de symbolo, parvuli exsufflantur et exorcizantur, ut pellatur ab eis Diaboli potestas inimica, quae decepit hominem. Nihil autem agitur frustra per Ecclesiam. Ergo per huiusmodi exsufflationes hoc agitur ut Daemonum potestas expellatur. | On the contrary, Augustine says (De Symbolo I): "Little children are breathed upon and exorcized, in order to expel from them the devil's hostile power, which deceived man." But the Church does nothing in vain. Therefore the effect of these breathings is that the power of the devils is expelled. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod quidam dicunt ea quae in exorcismo aguntur nihil efficere, sed solum significare. Sed hoc patet esse falsum, per hoc quod Ecclesia in exorcismis imperativis verbis utitur ad expellendum Daemonis potestatem, puta cum dicit, ergo, maledicte Diabole, exi ab eo, et cetera. | I answer that, Some say that the things done in the exorcism have no effect, but are mere signs. But this is clearly false; since in exorcizing, the Church uses words of command to cast out the devil's power, for instance, when she says: "Therefore, accursed devil, go out from him," etc. |
| Et ideo dicendum est quod aliquem effectum habent, differenter tamen ab ipso Baptismo. Nam per Baptismum datur homini gratia ad plenam remissionem culparum. Per ea vero quae in exorcismo aguntur, excluditur duplex impedimentum gratiae salutaris percipiendae. Quorum unum est impedimentum extrinsecum, prout Daemones salutem hominis impedire conantur. Et hoc impedimentum excluditur per exsufflationes, quibus potestas Daemonis repellitur, ut patet ex inducta auctoritate Augustini, quantum scilicet ad hoc quod non praestet impedimentum sacramento suscipiendo. Manet tamen potestas Daemonis in homine quantum ad maculam peccati et reatum poenae, quousque peccatum per Baptismum tollatur. Et secundum hoc Cyprianus dicit, scias Diaboli nequitiam posse remanere usque ad aquam salutarem, in Baptismo autem omnem nequitiam amittere. | Therefore we must say that they have some effect, but, other than that of Baptism. For Baptism gives man grace unto the full remission of sins. But those things that are done in the exorcism remove the twofold impediment against the reception of saving grace. Of these, one is the outward impediment, so far as the demons strive to hinder man's salvation. And this impediment is removed by the breathings, whereby the demon's power is cast out, as appears from the passage quoted from Augustine, i.e. as to the devil not placing obstacles against the reception of the sacrament. Nevertheless, the demon's power over man remains as to the stain of sin, and the debt of punishment, until sin be washed away by Baptism. And in this sense Cyprian says (Epist. lxxvi): "Know that the devil's evil power remains until the pouring of the saving water: but in Baptism he loses it all." |
| Aliud autem impedimentum est intrinsecum, prout scilicet homo ex infectione originalis peccati habet sensus praeclusos ad percipienda salutis mysteria. Unde Rabanus, de institutione clericorum, dicit quod per salivam typicam et sacerdotis tactum sapientia et virtus divina salutem catechumenis operatur, ut aperiantur eis nares ad recipiendum odorem notitiae Dei, ut aperiantur aures ad audiendum mandata Dei, ut aperiantur illis sensus in intimo corde ad respondendum. | The other impediment is within, forasmuch as, from having contracted original sin, man's sense is closed to the perception of the mysteries of salvation. Hence Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i) that "by means of the typifying spittle and the touch of the priest, the Divine wisdom and power brings salvation to the catechumen, that his nostrils being opened he may perceive the odor of the knowledge of God, that his ears be opened to hear the commandments of God, that his senses be opened in his inmost heart to respond." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod per ea quae aguntur in exorcismo non tollitur culpa, propter quam homo punitur post mortem, sed solum tolluntur impedimenta recipiendi remissionem culpae per sacramentum. Unde post mortem exorcismus non valet sine Baptismo. | Reply to Objection 1: What is done in the exorcism does not take away the sin for which man is punished after death; but only the impediments against his receiving the remission of sin through the sacrament. Wherefore exorcism avails a man nothing after death if he has not been baptized. |
| Praepositinus autem dicit quod pueri exorcizati, si moriantur ante Baptismum, minores tenebras patientur. Sed hoc non videtur verum, quia tenebrae illae sunt carentia divinae visionis, quae non recipit magis et minus. | Praepositivus, however, says that children who die after being exorcized but before being baptized are subjected to lesser darkness. But this does not seem to be true: because that darkness consists in privation of the vision of God, which cannot be greater or lesser. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod de ratione sacramenti est quod perficiat principalem effectum, qui est gratia remittens culpam, vel supplens aliquem hominis defectum. Quod quidem non fit per ea quae aguntur in exorcismo, sed solum huiusmodi impedimenta tolluntur. Et ideo non sunt sacramenta, sed sacramentalia quaedam. | Reply to Objection 2: It is essential to a sacrament to produce its principal effect, which is grace that remits sin, or supplies some defect in man. But those things that are done in the exorcism do not effect this; they merely remove these impediments. Consequently, they are not sacraments but sacramentals. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod dispositio sufficiens ad suscipiendam gratiam baptismalem est fides et intentio, vel propria eius qui baptizatur, si sit adultus, vel Ecclesiae, si sit parvulus. Ea vero quae aguntur in exorcismo, ordinantur ad removendum impedimenta. Et ideo sine eis potest aliquis consequi effectum Baptismi. | Reply to Objection 3: The disposition that suffices for receiving the baptismal grace is the faith and intention, either of the one baptized, if it be an adult, or of the Church, if it be a child. But these things that are done in the exorcism, are directed to the removal of the impediments. And therefore one may receive the effect of Baptism without them. |
| Non tamen sunt huiusmodi praetermittenda, nisi in necessitatis articulo. Et tunc, cessante periculo, debent suppleri, ut servetur uniformitas in Baptismo. Nec frustra supplentur post Baptismum, quia, sicut impeditur effectus Baptismi antequam percipiatur, ita potest impediri postquam fuerit perceptus. | Yet they are not to be omitted save in a case of necessity. And then, if the danger pass, they should be supplied, that uniformity in Baptism may be observed. Nor are they supplied to no purpose after Baptism: because, just as the effect of Baptism may be hindered before it is received, so can it be hindered after it has been received. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod eorum quae aguntur post Baptismum circa baptizatum, aliquid est quod non solum significat, sed efficit, puta inunctio quae fit in vertice, quae operatur conservationem gratiae baptismalis. Aliquid autem est quod nihil efficit, sed solum significat, sicut quod datur eis vestis candida, ad significandam novitatem vitae. | Reply to Objection 4: Of those things that are done after Baptism in respect of the person baptized, something is done which is not a mere sign, but produces an effect, for instance, the anointing on the top of the head, the effect of which is the preservation of baptismal grace. And there is something which has no effect, but is a mere sign, for instance, the baptized are given a white garment to signify the newness of life. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 71 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit sacerdotis catechizare et exorcizare baptizandum. Ad officium enim ministrorum pertinet habere operationem super immundos, ut Dionysius, V cap. Eccl. Hier., dicit. Sed catechumeni, qui instruuntur in catechismo, et energumeni, qui purgantur in exorcismo, computantur inter immundos, ut Dionysius ibidem dicit. Ergo catechizare et exorcizare non pertinet ad officium sacerdotis, sed potius ministrorum. | Objection 1: It seems that it does not belong to a priest to catechize and exorcize the person to be baptized. For it belongs to the office of ministers to operate on the unclean, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v). But catechumens who are instructed by catechism, and "energumens" who are cleansed by exorcism, are counted among the unclean, as Dionysius says in the same place. Therefore to catechize and to exorcize do not belong to the office of the priests, but rather to that of the ministers. |
| Praeterea, catechumeni instruuntur de fide per sacram Scripturam, quae in Ecclesia per ministros recitatur, sicut enim per lectores in Ecclesia legitur vetus testamentum, ita etiam per diacones et subdiacones legitur novum. Et sic ad ministros pertinet catechizare. Similiter etiam et exorcizare, ut videtur, ad ministros pertinet. Dicit enim Isidorus, in quadam epistola, ad exorcistam pertinet exorcismos memoriter retinere, manusque super energumenos et catechumenos in exorcismo imponere. Non ergo pertinet ad officium sacerdotis catechizare et exorcizare. | Objection 2: Further, catechumens are instructed in the Faith by the Holy Scripture which is read in the church by ministers: for just as the Old Testament is recited by the Readers, so the New Testament is read by the Deacons and Subdeacons. And thus it belongs to the ministers to catechize. In like manner it belongs, seemingly, to the ministers to exorcize. For Isidore says (Epist. ad Ludifred.): "The exorcist should know the exorcisms by heart, and impose his hands on the energumens and catechumens during the exorcism." Therefore it belongs not to the priestly office to catechize and exorcize. |
| Praeterea, catechizare idem est quod docere, et hoc idem est quod perficere. Quod ad officium episcoporum pertinet, ut dicit Dionysius, V cap. Eccl. Hier. Non ergo pertinet ad officium sacerdotis. | Objection 3: Further, "to catechize" is the same as "to teach," and this is the same as "to perfect." Now this belongs to the office of a bishop, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v). Therefore it does not belong to the priestly office. |
| Sed contra est quod Nicolaus Papa dicit, catechismi baptizandorum a sacerdotibus uniuscuiusque Ecclesiae fieri possunt. Gregorius etiam, super Ezech., dicit, sacerdotes, cum per exorcismi gratiam manum credentibus imponunt, quid aliud faciunt nisi quod Daemonia eiiciuntur. | On the contrary, Pope Nicolas I says: "The catechizing of those who are to be baptized can be undertaken by the priests attached to each church." And Gregory says (Hom. xxix super Ezech.): "When priests place their hands on believers for the grace of exorcism, what else do they but cast out the devils?" |
| Respondeo dicendum quod minister comparatur ad sacerdotem sicut secundarium et instrumentale agens ad principale, ut indicat ipsum nomen ministri. Agens autem secundarium non agit sine principali agente in operando. Quanto autem operatio est potior, tanto principale agens indiget potioribus instrumentis. Potior autem est operatio sacerdotis inquantum confert ipsum sacramentum, quam in praeparatoriis ad sacramentum. Et ideo supremi ministri, qui dicuntur diacones, cooperantur sacerdoti in ipsa collatione sacramentorum, dicit enim Isidorus quod ad diaconum pertinet assistere sacerdotibus et ministrare in omnibus quae aguntur in sacramentis Christi, in Baptismo scilicet, in chrismate, patena et calice. Inferiores autem ministri cooperantur sacerdoti in his quae sunt praeparatoria ad sacramenta, sicut lectores in catechismo, exorcistae in exorcismo. | I answer that, The minister compared to the priest, is as a secondary and instrumental agent to the principal agent: as is implied in the very word "minister." Now the secondary agent does nothing without the principal agent in operating. And the more mighty the operation, so much the mightier instruments does the principal agent require. But the operation of the priest in conferring the sacrament itself is mightier than in those things that are preparatory to the sacrament. And so the highest ministers who are called deacons co-operate with the priest in bestowing the sacraments themselves: for Isidore says (Epist. ad Ludifred.) that "it belongs to the deacons to assist the priests in all things that are done in Christ's sacraments, in Baptism, to wit, in the Chrism, in the Paten and Chalice"; while the inferior ministers assist the priest in those things which are preparatory to the sacraments: the readers, for instance, in catechizing; the exorcists in exorcizing. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod super immundos ministri habent operationem ministerialem et quasi instrumentalem, sed sacerdos principalem. | Reply to Objection 1: The minister's operation in regard to the unclean is ministerial and, as it were, instrumental, but the priest's is principal. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod lectores et exorcistae habent officium catechizandi et exorcizandi, non quidem principaliter, sed sicut in his sacerdoti ministrantes. | Reply to Objection 2: To readers and exorcists belongs the duty of catechizing and exorcizing, not, indeed, principally, but as ministers of the priest in these things. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod multiplex est instructio. Una conversiva ad fidem. Quam Dionysius attribuit episcopo, in II cap. Eccl. Hier., et potest competere cuilibet praedicatori, vel etiam cuilibet fideli. Secunda est instructio qua quis eruditur de fidei rudimentis, et qualiter se debeat habere in susceptione sacramentorum. Et haec pertinet secundario quidem ad ministros, principaliter autem ad sacerdotes. Tertia est instructio de conversatione Christianae vitae. Et haec pertinet ad patrinos. Quarta est instructio de profundis mysteriis fidei, et perfectione Christianae vitae. Et haec ex officio pertinet ad episcopos. | Reply to Objection 3: Instruction is manifold. one leads to the embracing of the Faith; and is ascribed by Dionysius to bishops (Eccl. Hier. ii) and can be undertaken by any preacher, or even by any believer. Another is that by which a man is taught the rudiments of faith, and how to comport himself in receiving the sacraments: this belongs secondarily to the ministers, primarily to the priests. A third is instruction in the mode of Christian life: and this belongs to the sponsors. A fourth is the instruction in the profound mysteries of faith, and on the perfection of Christian life: this belongs to bishops "ex officio," in virtue of their office. |