Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 67 [<< | >>]
| Deinde considerandum est de ministris per quos traditur sacramentum Baptismi. Et circa hoc quaeruntur octo. | We have now to consider the ministers by whom the sacrament of Baptism is conferred. And concerning this there are eight points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum ad diaconum pertineat baptizare. | (1) Whether it belongs to a deacon to baptize? |
| Secundo, utrum pertineat ad presbyterum, vel solum ad episcopum. | (2) Whether this belongs to a priest, or to a bishop only? |
| Tertio, utrum laicus possit sacramentum Baptismi conferre. | (3) Whether a layman can confer the sacrament of Baptism? |
| Quarto, utrum hoc possit facere mulier. | (4) Whether a woman can do this? |
| Quinto, utrum non baptizatus possit baptizare. | (5) Whether an unbaptized person can baptize? |
| Sexto, utrum plures possint simul baptizare unum et eundem. | (6) Whether several can at the same time baptize one and the same person? |
| Septimo, utrum necesse sit esse aliquem qui baptizatum de sacro fonte recipiat. | (7) Whether it is essential that someone should raise the person baptized from the sacred font? |
| Octavo, utrum suscipiens aliquem de sacro fonte obligetur ad eius instructionem. | (8) Whether he who raises someone from the sacred font is bound to instruct him? |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 67 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ad officium diaconi pertineat baptizare. Simul enim iniungitur a domino officium praedicandi et baptizandi, secundum illud Matth. ult., euntes, docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos, et cetera. Sed ad officium diaconi pertinet evangelizare. Ergo videtur quod etiam ad officium diaconi pertineat baptizare. | Objection 1: It seems that it is part of a deacon's duty to baptize. Because the duties of preaching and of baptizing were enjoined by our Lord at the same time, according to Mt. 28:19: "Going . . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them," etc. But it is part of a deacon's duty to preach the gospel. Therefore it seems that it is also part of a deacon's duty to baptize. |
| Praeterea, secundum Dionysium, V cap. Eccl. Hier., purgare pertinet ad officium diaconi. Sed purgatio a peccatis maxime fit per Baptismum, secundum illud Ephes. V, mundans eam lavacro aquae in verbo vitae. Ergo videtur quod baptizare pertineat ad diaconem. | Objection 2: Further, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) to "cleanse" is part of the deacon's duty. But cleansing from sins is effected specially by Baptism, according to Eph. 5:26: "Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life." Therefore it seems that it belongs to a deacon to baptize. |
| Praeterea, de beato Laurentio legitur quod, cum ipse esset diaconus, plurimos baptizabat. Ergo videtur quod ad diacones pertinet baptizare. | Objection 3: Further, it is told of Blessed Laurence, who was a deacon, that he baptized many. Therefore it seems that it belongs to deacons to baptize. |
| Sed contra est quod Gelasius Papa dicit, et habetur in decretis, XCIII dist., diacones propriam constituimus observare mensuram. Et infra, absque episcopo vel presbytero baptizare non audeant, nisi, praedictis ordinibus longius constitutis, necessitas extrema compellat. | On the contrary, Pope Gelasius I says (the passage is to be found in the Decrees, dist. 93): "We order the deacons to keep within their own province"; and further on: "Without bishop or priest they must not dare to baptize, except in cases of extreme urgency, when the aforesaid are a long way off." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut caelestium ordinum proprietates et eorum officia ex eorum nominibus accipiuntur, ut dicit Dionysius, VII cap. Cael. Hier.; ita etiam ex nominibus ecclesiasticorum ordinum accipi potest quid ad unumquemque pertineat ordinem. Dicuntur autem diacones quasi ministri, quia videlicet ad diacones non pertinet aliquod sacramentum principaliter et quasi ex proprio officio praebere, sed ministerium adhibere aliis maioribus in sacramentorum exhibitione. Et sic ad diaconem non pertinet quasi ex proprio officio tradere sacramentum Baptismi, sed in collatione huius sacramenti et aliorum assistere et ministrare maioribus. Unde Isidorus dicit, ad diaconum pertinet assistere et ministrare sacerdotibus in omnibus quae aguntur in sacramentis Christi, in Baptismo scilicet, in chrismate, in patena et calice. | I answer that, Just as the properties and duties of the heavenly orders are gathered from their names, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vi), so can we gather, from the names of the ecclesiastical orders, what belongs to each order. Now "deacons" are so called from being "ministers"; because, to wit, it is not in the deacon's province to be the chief and official celebrant in conferring a sacrament, but to minister to others, his elders, in the sacramental dispensations. And so it does not belong to a deacon to confer the sacrament of Baptism officially as it were; but to assist and serve his elders in the bestowal of this and other sacraments. Hence Isidore says (Epist. ad Ludifred.): "It is a deacon's duty to assist and serve the priests, in all the rites of Christ's sacraments, viz. those of Baptism, of the Chrism, of the Paten and Chalice." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ad diaconum pertinet recitare Evangelium in Ecclesia, et praedicare ipsum per modum catechizantis, unde et Dionysius dicit quod diaconi habent officium super immundos, inter quos ponit catechumenos. Sed docere, id est exponere Evangelium, pertinet proprie ad episcopum, cuius actus est perficere, secundum Dionysium, V cap. Eccl. Hier.; perficere autem idem est quod docere. Unde non sequitur quod ad diacones pertineat officium baptizandi. | Reply to Objection 1: It is the deacon's duty to read the Gospel in church, and to preach it as one catechizing; hence Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v) that a deacon's office involves power over the unclean among whom he includes the catechumens. But to teach, i.e. to expound the Gospel, is the proper office of a bishop, whose action is "to perfect," as Dionysius teaches (Eccl. Hier. v); and "to perfect" is the same as "to teach." Consequently, it does not follow that the office of baptizing belongs to deacons. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Dionysius dicit, II cap. Eccl. Hier., Baptismus non solum habet vim purgativam, sed etiam illuminativam virtutem. Et ideo excedit officium diaconi, ad quem pertinet solum purgare, scilicet vel repellendo immundos, vel disponendo eos ad sacramenti susceptionem. | Reply to Objection 2: As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii), Baptism has a power not only of "cleansing" but also of "enlightening." Consequently, it is outside the province of the deacon whose duty it is to cleanse only: viz. either by driving away the unclean, or by preparing them for the reception of a sacrament. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, quia Baptismus est sacramentum necessitatis, permittitur diaconibus, necessitate urgente in absentia maiorum, baptizare, sicut patet ex auctoritate Gelasii super inducta. Et hoc modo beatus Laurentius, diaconus existens, baptizavit. | Reply to Objection 3: Because Baptism is a necessary sacrament, deacons are allowed to baptize in cases of urgency when their elders are not at hand; as appears from the authority of Gelasius quoted above. And it was thus that Blessed Laurence, being but a deacon, baptized. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 67 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod baptizare non pertineat ad officium presbyterorum, sed solum episcoporum. Quia, sicut dictum est, sub eodem praecepto iniungitur, Matth. ult., officium docendi et baptizandi. Sed docere, quod est perficere, pertinet ad officium episcopi, ut patet per Dionysium, V et VI cap. Eccl. Hier. Ergo et baptizare pertinet tantum ad officium episcopi. | Objection 1: It seems that to baptize is not part of the priestly office, but proper to that of bishops. Because, as stated above (Article [1], Objection [1]), the duties of teaching and baptizing are enjoined in the same precept (Mt. 28:19). But to teach, which is "to perfect," belongs to the office of bishop, as Dionysius declares (Eccl. Hier. v, vi). Therefore to baptize also belongs to the episcopal office. |
| Praeterea, per Baptismum annumeratur aliquis populo Christiano, quod quidem videtur ad officium solius principis pertinere. Sed principatum in Ecclesia tenent episcopi, ut dicitur in Glossa Luc. X, qui etiam tenent locum apostolorum, de quibus dicitur in Psalmo, constitues eos principes super omnem terram. Ergo videtur quod baptizare pertineat solum ad officium episcopi. | Objection 2: Further, by Baptism a man is admitted to the body of the Christian people: and to do this seems consistent with no other than the princely office. Now the bishops hold the position of princes in the Church, as the gloss observes on Lk. 10:1: indeed, they even take the place of the apostles, of whom it is written (Ps. 44:17): "Thou shalt make them princes over all the earth." Therefore it seems that to baptize belongs exclusively to the office of bishops. |
| Praeterea, Isidorus dicit quod ad episcopum pertinet basilicarum consecratio, unctio altaris, et confectio chrismatis, ipse ordines ecclesiasticos distribuit, et sacras virgines benedicit. Sed his omnibus maius est sacramentum Baptismi. Ergo videtur quod multo magis ad officium solius episcopi pertinet baptizare. | Objection 3: Further, Isidore says (Epist. ad Ludifred.) that "it belongs to the bishop to consecrate churches, to anoint altars, to consecrate [conficere] the chrism; he it is that confers the ecclesiastical orders, and blesses the consecrated virgins." But the sacrament of Baptism is greater than all these. Therefore much more reason is there why to baptize should belong exclusively to the episcopal office. |
| Sed contra est quod Isidorus dicit, in libro de officiis, constat Baptisma solis sacerdotibus esse traditum. | On the contrary, Isidore says (De Officiis. ii): "It is certain that Baptism was entrusted to priests alone." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod sacerdotes ad hoc consecrantur ut sacramentum corporis Christi conficiant, sicut supra dictum est. Illud autem est sacramentum ecclesiasticae unitatis, secundum illud apostoli, I Cor. X, unus panis et unum corpus multi sumus, omnes qui de uno pane et de uno calice participamus. Per Baptismum autem aliquis fit particeps ecclesiasticae unitatis, unde et accipit ius accedendi ad mensam domini. Et ideo, sicut ad sacerdotem pertinet consecrare Eucharistiam, ad quod principaliter ordinatur sacerdotium, ita ad proprium officium sacerdotis pertinet baptizare, eiusdem enim videtur esse operari totum, et partem in toto disponere. | I answer that, Priests are consecrated for the purpose of celebrating the sacrament of Christ's Body, as stated above (Question [65], Article [3]). Now that is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, according to the Apostle (1 Cor. 10:17): "We, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread and one chalice." Moreover, by Baptism a man becomes a participator in ecclesiastical unity, wherefore also he receives the right to approach our Lord's Table. Consequently, just as it belongs to a priest to consecrate the Eucharist, which is the principal purpose of the priesthood, so it is the proper office of a priest to baptize: since it seems to belong to one and the same, to produce the whole and to dispose the part in the whole. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod utrumque officium, scilicet docendi et baptizandi, dominus apostolis iniunxit, quorum vicem gerunt episcopi, aliter tamen et aliter. Nam officium docendi commisit eis Christus ut ipsi per se illud exercerent, tanquam principalissimum, unde et ipsi apostoli dixerunt, Act. VI, non est aequum nos relinquere verbum Dei et ministrare mensis. Officium autem baptizandi commisit apostolis ut per alios exercendum, unde et apostolus dicit, I Cor. I, non misit me Christus baptizare, sed evangelizare. Et hoc ideo quia in baptizando nihil operatur meritum et sapientia ministri, sicut in docendo, ut patet ex supra dictis. In cuius etiam signum, nec ipse dominus baptizavit, sed discipuli eius, ut dicitur Ioan. IV. Nec tamen per hoc excluditur quin episcopi possint baptizare, quia quod potest potestas inferior, potest et superior. Unde et apostolus ibidem dicit se quosdam baptizasse. | Reply to Objection 1: Our Lord enjoined on the apostles, whose place is taken by the bishops, both duties, namely, of teaching and of baptizing, but in different ways. Because Christ committed to them the duty of teaching, that they might exercise it themselves as being the most important duty of all: wherefore the apostles themselves said (Acts 6:2): "It is not reason that we should leave the word of God and serve tables." On the other hand, He entrusted the apostles with the office of baptizing, to be exercised vicariously; wherefore the Apostle says (1 Cor. 1:17): "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." And the reason for this was that the merit and wisdom of the minister have no bearing on the baptismal effect, as they have in teaching, as may be seen from what we have stated above (Question [64], Article [1], ad 2; Articles [5],9). A proof of this is found also in the fact that our Lord Himself did not baptize, but His disciples, as John relates (4:2). Nor does it follow from this that bishops cannot baptize; since what a lower power can do, that can also a higher power. Wherefore also the Apostle says (1 Cor. 1:14,16) that he had baptized some. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod in qualibet republica ea quae sunt minora, pertinent ad minora officia, maiora vero maioribus reservantur, secundum illud Exod. XVIII, quidquid maius fuerit, referent ad te, et ipsi tantummodo minora iudicent. Et ideo ad minores principes civitatis pertinet disponere de infimo populo, ad summos autem pertinet disponere ea quae pertinent ad maiores civitatis. Per Baptismum autem non adipiscitur aliquis nisi infimum gradum in populo Christiano. Et ideo baptizare pertinet ad minores principes Ecclesiae, idest presbyteros, qui tenent locum septuaginta duorum discipulorum Christi, ut dicit Glossa Luc. X. | Reply to Objection 2: In every commonwealth minor affairs are entrusted to lower officials, while greater affairs are restricted to higher officials; according to Ex. 18:22: "When any great matter soever shall fall out, let them refer it to thee, and let them judge the lesser matters only." Consequently it belongs to the lower officials of the state to decide matters concerning the lower orders; while to the highest it belongs to set in order those matters that regard the higher orders of the state. Now by Baptism a man attains only to the lowest rank among the Christian people: and consequently it belongs to the lesser officials of the Church to baptize, namely, the priests, who hold the place of the seventy-two disciples of Christ, as the gloss says in the passage quoted from Luke 10. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, sacramentum Baptismi est potissimum necessitate, sed quantum ad perfectionem, sunt quaedam alia potiora, quae episcopis reservantur. | Reply to Objection 3: As stated above (Question [65], Article [3]), the sacrament of Baptism holds the first place in the order of necessity; but in the order of perfection there are other greater sacraments which are reserved to bishops. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 67 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod laicus baptizare non possit. Baptizare enim, sicut dictum est, proprie pertinet ad ordinem sacerdotalem. Sed ea quae sunt ordinis, non possunt committi non habenti ordinem. Ergo videtur quod laicus, qui non habet ordinem, baptizare non possit. | Objection 1: It seems that a layman cannot baptize. Because, as stated above (Article [2]), to baptize belongs properly to the priestly order. But those things which belong to an order cannot be entrusted to one that is not ordained. Therefore it seems that a layman, who has no orders, cannot baptize. |
| Praeterea, maius est baptizare quam alia sacramentalia Baptismi perficere, sicut catechizare et exorcizare et aquam baptismalem benedicere. Sed haec non possunt fieri a laicis, sed solum a sacerdotibus. Ergo videtur quod multo minus laici possint baptizare. | Objection 2: Further, it is a greater thing to baptize, than to perform the other sacramental rites of Baptism, such as to catechize, to exorcize, and to bless the baptismal water. But these things cannot be done by laymen, but only by priests. Therefore it seems that much less can laymen baptize. |
| Praeterea, sicut Baptismus est sacramentum necessitatis, ita et poenitentia. Sed laicus non potest absolvere in foro poenitentiali. Ergo neque potest baptizare. | Objection 3: Further, just as Baptism is a necessary sacrament, so is Penance. But a layman cannot absolve in the tribunal of Penance. Neither, therefore, can he baptize. |
| Sed contra est quod Gelasius Papa et Isidorus dicunt, quod baptizare, necessitate imminente, laicis Christianis plerumque conceditur. | On the contrary, Pope Gelasius I and Isidore say that "it is often permissible for Christian laymen to baptize, in cases of urgent necessity." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod ad misericordiam eius qui vult omnes homines salvos fieri, pertinet ut in his quae sunt de necessitate salutis, homo de facili remedium inveniat. Inter omnia autem alia sacramenta maximae necessitatis est Baptismus, qui est regeneratio hominis in vitam spiritualem, quia pueris aliter subveniri non potest; et adulti non possunt aliter quam per Baptismum plenam remissionem consequi et quantum ad culpam et quantum ad poenam. Et ideo, ut homo circa remedium tam necessarium defectum pati non possit, institutum est ut et materia Baptismi sit communis, scilicet aqua, quae a quolibet haberi potest; et minister Baptismi etiam sit quicumque, etiam non ordinatus; ne propter defectum Baptismi homo salutis suae dispendium patiatur. | I answer that, It is due to the mercy of Him "Who will have all men to be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4) that in those things which are necessary for salvation, man can easily find the remedy. Now the most necessary among all the sacraments is Baptism, which is man's regeneration unto spiritual life: since for children there is no substitute, while adults cannot otherwise than by Baptism receive a full remission both of guilt and of its punishment. Consequently, lest man should have to go without so necessary a remedy, it was ordained, both that the matter of Baptism should be something common that is easily obtainable by all, i.e. water; and that the minister of Baptism should be anyone, even not in orders, lest from lack of being baptized, man should suffer loss of his salvation. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod baptizare pertinet ad ordinem sacerdotalem secundum quandam convenientiam et solemnitatem, non autem hoc est de necessitate sacramenti. Unde etiam si extra necessitatis articulum laicus baptizet, peccat quidem, tamen sacramentum Baptismi confert, nec est rebaptizandus ille qui sic est baptizatus. | Reply to Objection 1: To baptize belongs to the priestly order by reason of a certain appropriateness and solemnity; but this is not essential to the sacrament. Consequently, if a layman were to baptize even outside a case of urgency; he would sin, yet he would confer the sacrament; nor would the person thus baptized have to be baptized again. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod illa sacramentalia Baptismi pertinent ad solemnitatem, non autem ad necessitatem Baptismi. Et ideo fieri non debent nec possunt a laico, sed solum a sacerdote, cuius est solemniter baptizare. | Reply to Objection 2: These sacramental rites of Baptism belong to the solemnity of, and are not essential to, Baptism. And therefore they neither should nor can be done by a layman, but only by a priest, whose office it is to baptize solemnly. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, poenitentia non est tantae necessitatis sicut Baptismus, potest enim per contritionem suppleri defectus sacerdotalis absolutionis quae non liberat a tota poena, nec etiam pueris adhibetur. Et ideo non est simile de Baptismo, cuius effectus per nihil aliud suppleri potest. | Reply to Objection 3: As stated above (Question [65], Articles [3],4), Penance is not so necessary as Baptism; since contrition can supply the defect of the priestly absolution which does not free from the whole punishment, nor again is it given to children. Therefore the comparison with Baptism does not stand, because its effect cannot be supplied by anything else. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 67 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod mulier non possit baptizare. Legitur enim in Carthaginensi Concilio, mulier, quamvis docta et sancta, viros in conventu docere, vel alios baptizare non praesumat. Sed nullo modo licet mulieri docere in conventu, secundum illud I Cor. XIV, turpe est mulieri in Ecclesia loqui. Ergo videtur quod nec etiam aliquo modo liceat mulieri baptizare. | Objection 1: It seems that a woman cannot baptize. For we read in the acts of the Council of Carthage (iv): "However learned and holy a woman may be, she must not presume to teach men in the church, or to baptize." But in no case is a woman allowed to teach in church, according to 1 Cor. 14:35: "It is a shame for a woman to speak in the church." Therefore it seems that neither is a woman in any circumstances permitted to baptize. |
| Praeterea, baptizare pertinet ad officium praelationis, unde a sacerdotibus habentibus curam animarum debet accipi Baptismus. Sed hoc non potest competere feminae, secundum illud I Tim. II, docere mulieri non permitto, nec dominari in viros, sed subditam esse. Ergo mulier baptizare non potest. | Objection 2: Further, to baptize belongs to those having authority. wherefore baptism should be conferred by priests having charge of souls. But women are not qualified for this; according to 1 Tim. 2:12: "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over man, but to be subject to him [Vulg.: 'but to be in silence']." Therefore a woman cannot baptize. |
| Praeterea, in spirituali regeneratione videtur aqua habere locum materni uteri, ut Augustinus dicit, super illud Ioan. III, nunquid homo potest in ventrem matris suae iterato introire et renasci? Ille autem qui baptizat, videtur magis habere patris officium. Sed hoc non competit mulieri. Ergo mulier baptizare non potest. | Objection 3: Further, in the spiritual regeneration water seems to hold the place of the mother's womb, as Augustine says on Jn. 3:4, "Can" a man "enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again?" While he who baptizes seems to hold rather the position of father. But this is unfitting for a woman. Therefore a woman cannot baptize. |
| Sed contra est quod Urbanus Papa dicit, et habetur in decretis, XXX, qu. III, super quibus consuluit nos tua dilectio, hoc videtur nobis hac sententia respondendum, ut Baptismus sit si, necessitate instante, femina puerum in nomine Trinitatis baptizaverit. | On the contrary, Pope Urban II says (Decreta xxx): "In reply to the questions asked by your beatitude, we consider that the following answer should be given: that the baptism is valid when, in cases of necessity, a woman baptizes a child in the name of the Trinity." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod Christus est qui principaliter baptizat, secundum illud Ioan. I, super quem videris spiritum descendentem et manentem, hic est qui baptizat. Dicitur autem Coloss. III quod in Christo non est masculus neque femina. Et ideo, sicut masculus laicus potest baptizare, quasi minister Christi, ita etiam et femina. | I answer that, Christ is the chief Baptizer, according to Jn. 1:33: "He upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is that baptizeth." For it is written in Col. 3 (cf. Gal. 3:28), that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Consequently, just as a layman can baptize, as Christ's minister, so can a woman. |
| Quia tamen caput mulieris est vir, et caput viri Christus, ut dicitur I Cor. XI; non debet mulier baptizare si adsit copia viri. Sicut nec laicus praesente clerico, nec clericus praesente sacerdote. Qui tamen potest baptizare praesente episcopo, eo quod hoc pertinet ad officium sacerdotis. | But since "the head of the woman is the man," and "the head of . . . man, is Christ" (1 Cor. 11:3), a woman should not baptize if a man be available for the purpose; just as neither should a layman in the presence of a cleric, nor a cleric in the presence of a priest. The last, however, can baptize in the presence of a bishop, because it is part of the priestly office. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut mulieri non permittitur publice docere, potest tamen privata doctrina vel monitione aliquem instruere; ita non permittitur publice et solemniter baptizare, sed tamen potest baptizare in necessitatis articulo. | Reply to Objection 1: Just as a woman is not suffered to teach in public, but is allowed to instruct and admonish privately; so she is not permitted to baptize publicly and solemnly, and yet she can baptize in a case of urgency. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, quando Baptismus solemniter et ordinate celebratur, debet aliquis sacramentum Baptismi suscipere a presbytero curam animarum habente, vel ab aliquo vice eius. Hoc tamen non requiritur in articulo necessitatis, in quo potest mulier baptizare. | Reply to Objection 2: When Baptism is celebrated solemnly and with due form, it should be conferred by a priest having charge of souls, or by one representing him. But this is not required in cases of urgency, when a woman may baptize. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod in generatione carnali masculus et femina operantur secundum virtutem propriae naturae, et ideo femina non potest esse principium generationis activum, sed passivum tantum. Sed in generatione spirituali neuter operatur virtute propria, sed instrumentaliter tantum per virtutem Christi. Et ideo eodem modo potest et vir et mulier in casu necessitatis baptizare. | Reply to Objection 3: In carnal generation male and female co-operate according to the power of their proper nature; wherefore the female cannot be the active, but only the passive, principle of generation. But in spiritual generation they do not act, either of them, by their proper power, but only instrumentally by the power of Christ. Consequently, on the same grounds either man or woman can baptize in a case of urgency. |
| Si tamen mulier extra casum necessitatis baptizaret, non esset rebaptizandus, sicut et de laico dictum est. Peccaret tamen ipsa baptizans, et alii qui ad hoc cooperarentur, vel Baptismum ab ea suscipiendo, vel ei baptizandum aliquem offerendo. | If, however, a woman were to baptize without any urgency for so doing. there would be no need of rebaptism: as we have said in regard to laymen (Article [3], ad 1). But the baptizer herself would sin, as also those who took part with her therein, either by receiving Baptism from her, or by bringing someone to her to be baptized. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 67 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ille qui non est baptizatus, non possit sacramentum Baptismi conferre. Nullus enim dat quod non habet. Sed nonbaptizatus non habet sacramentum Baptismi. Ergo non potest ipsum conferre. | Objection 1: It seems that one that is not baptized cannot confer the sacrament of Baptism. For "none gives what he has not." But a non-baptized person has not the sacrament of Baptism. Therefore he cannot give it. |
| Praeterea, sacramentum Baptismi confert aliquis inquantum est minister Ecclesiae. Sed ille qui non est baptizatus, nullo modo pertinet ad Ecclesiam, scilicet nec re nec sacramento. Ergo non potest sacramentum Baptismi conferre. | Objection 2: Further, a man confers the sacrament of Baptism inasmuch as he is a minister of the Church. But one that is not baptized, belongs nowise to the Church, i.e. neither really nor sacramentally. Therefore he cannot confer the sacrament of Baptism. |
| Praeterea, maius est sacramentum conferre quam suscipere. Sed nonbaptizatus non potest alia sacramenta suscipere. Ergo multo minus potest aliquod sacramentum conferre. | Objection 3: Further, it is more to confer a sacrament than to receive it. But one that is not baptized, cannot receive the other sacraments. Much less, therefore, can he confer any sacrament. |
| Sed contra est quod Isidorus dicit, Romanus pontifex non hominem iudicat qui baptizat, sed spiritum Dei subministrare gratiam Baptismi, licet Paganus sit qui baptizat. Sed ille qui est baptizatus, non dicitur Paganus. Ergo non baptizatus potest conferre sacramentum Baptismi. | On the contrary, Isidore says: "The Roman Pontiff does not consider it to be the man who baptizes, but that the Holy Ghost confers the grace of Baptism, though he that baptizes be a pagan." But he who is baptized, is not called a pagan. Therefore he who is not baptized can confer the sacrament of Baptism. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod hanc quaestionem Augustinus indeterminatam reliquit. Dicit enim, in II contra epistolam Parmeniani, haec quidem alia quaestio est, utrum et ab his qui nunquam fuerunt Christiani, possit Baptismus dari, nec aliquid hinc temere affirmandum est, sine auctoritate tanti sacri Concilii quantum tantae rei sufficit. Postmodum vero per Ecclesiam determinatum est quod nonbaptizati, sive sint Iudaei sive Pagani, possunt sacramentum Baptismi conferre, dummodo in forma Ecclesiae baptizent. Unde Nicolaus Papa respondet ad consulta Bulgarorum, a quodam nescitis Christiano an Pagano, multos in patria vestra baptizatos asseritis. Hi si in nomine Trinitatis baptizati sunt, rebaptizari non debent. Si autem forma Ecclesiae non fuerit observata, sacramentum Baptismi non confertur. Et sic intelligendum est quod Gregorius II scribit Bonifacio episcopo, quos a Paganis baptizatos asseruisti, scilicet Ecclesiae forma non servata, ut de novo baptizes in nomine Trinitatis, mandamus. Et huius ratio est quia, sicut ex parte materiae, quantum ad necessitatem sacramenti, sufficit quaecumque aqua, ita etiam sufficit ex parte ministri quicumque homo. Et ideo etiam nonbaptizatus in articulo necessitatis baptizare potest. Ut sic duo nonbaptizati se invicem baptizent, dum prius unus baptizaret alium, et postea baptizaretur ab eodem, et consequeretur uterque non solum sacramentum, sed etiam rem sacramenti. Si vero extra articulum necessitatis hoc fieret, uterque graviter peccaret, scilicet baptizans et baptizatus, et per hoc impediretur Baptismi effectus, licet non tolleretur ipsum sacramentum. | I answer that, Augustine left this question without deciding it. For he says (Contra Ep. Parmen. ii): "This is indeed another question, whether even those can baptize who were never Christians; nor should anything be rashly asserted hereupon, without the authority of a sacred council such as suffices for so great a matter." But afterwards it was decided by the Church that the unbaptized, whether Jews or pagans, can confer the sacrament of Baptism, provided they baptize in the form of the Church. Wherefore Pope Nicolas I replies to the questions propounded by the Bulgars: "You say that many in your country have been baptized by someone, whether Christian or pagan you know not. If these were baptized in the name of the Trinity, they must not be rebaptized." But if the form of the Church be not observed, the sacrament of Baptism is not conferred. And thus is to be explained what Gregory II [*Gregory III] writes to Bishop Boniface: "Those whom you assert to have been baptized by pagans," namely, with a form not recognized by the Church, "we command you to rebaptize in the name of the Trinity." And the reason of this is that, just as on the part of the matter, as far as the essentials of the sacrament are concerned, any water will suffice, so, on the part of the minister, any man is competent. Consequently, an unbaptized person can baptize in a case of urgency. So that two unbaptized persons may baptize one another, one baptizing the other and being afterwards baptized by him: and each would receive not only the sacrament but also the reality of the sacrament. But if this were done outside a case of urgency, each would sin grievously, both the baptizer and the baptized, and thus the baptismal effect would be frustrated, although the sacrament itself would not be invalidated. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod homo baptizans adhibet tantum exterius ministerium, sed Christus est qui interius baptizat, qui potest uti omnibus hominibus ad quodcumque voluerit. Et ideo nonbaptizati possunt baptizare, quia, ut Nicolaus Papa dicit, Baptismus non est illorum, scilicet baptizantium, sed eius, scilicet Christi. | Reply to Objection 1: The man who baptizes offers but his outward ministration; whereas Christ it is Who baptizes inwardly, Who can use all men to whatever purpose He wills. Consequently, the unbaptized can baptize: because, as Pope Nicolas I says, "the Baptism is not theirs," i.e. the baptizers', "but His," i.e. Christ's. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod ille qui non est baptizatus, quamvis non pertineat ad Ecclesiam re vel sacramento, potest tamen ad eam pertinere intentione et similitudine actus, inquantum scilicet intendit facere quod facit Ecclesia, et formam Ecclesiae servat in baptizando, et sic operatur ut minister Christi, qui virtutem suam non alligavit baptizatis, sicut nec etiam sacramentis. | Reply to Objection 2: He who is not baptized, though he belongs not to the Church either in reality or sacramentally, can nevertheless belong to her in intention and by similarity of action, namely, in so far as he intends to do what the Church does, and in baptizing observes the Church's form, and thus acts as the minister of Christ, Who did not confine His power to those that are baptized, as neither did He to the sacraments. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod alia sacramenta non sunt tantae necessitatis sicut Baptismus. Et ideo magis conceditur quod nonbaptizatus possit baptizare, quam quod possit alia sacramenta suscipere. | Reply to Objection 3: The other sacraments are not so necessary as Baptism. And therefore it is allowable that an unbaptized person should baptize rather than that he should receive other sacraments. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 67 [<< | >>]
Article: 6 [<< | >>]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod plures possint simul baptizare. In multitudine enim continetur unum, sed non convertitur. Unde videtur quod quidquid potest facere unus, possint facere multi, et non e converso, sicut multi trahunt navem quam unus trahere non posset. Sed unus homo potest baptizare. Ergo et plures possunt simul unum baptizare. | Objection 1: It seems that several can baptize at the same time. For unity is contained in multitude, but not "vice versa." Wherefore it seems that many can do whatever one can but not "vice versa": thus many draw a ship which one could draw. But one man can baptize. Therefore several, too, can baptize one at the same time. |
| Praeterea, difficilius est quod unum agens agat in plura quam quod plures agentes agant simul in unum. Sed unus homo potest simul baptizare plures. Ergo multo magis plures possunt simul unum baptizare. | Objection 2: Further, it is more difficult for one agent to act on many things, than for many to act at the same time on one. But one man can baptize several at the same time. Much more, therefore, can many baptize one at the same time. |
| Praeterea, Baptismus est sacramentum maximae necessitatis. Sed in aliquo casu videtur esse necessarium quod plures simul unum baptizarent, puta si aliquis parvulus esset in articulo mortis, et adessent duo quorum alter esset mutus, et alter manibus et brachiis careret; tunc enim oporteret quod mutilatus verba proferret, et mutus Baptismum exerceret. Ergo videtur quod plures possint simul unum baptizare. | Objection 3: Further, Baptism is a sacrament of the greatest necessity. Now in certain cases it seems necessary for several to baptize one at the same time; for instance, suppose a child to be in danger of death, and two persons present, one of whom is dumb, and the other without hands or arms; for then the mutilated person would have to pronounce the words, and the dumb person would have to perform the act of baptizing. Therefore it seems that several can baptize one at the same time. |
| Sed contra est quod unius agentis una est actio. Si ergo plures unum baptizarent, videretur sequi quod essent plures Baptismi. Quod est contra id quod dicitur Ephes. IV, una fides, unum Baptisma. | On the contrary, Where there is one agent there is one action. If, therefore, several were to baptize one, it seems to follow that there would be several baptisms: and this is contrary to Eph. 4:5: "one Faith, one Baptism." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod sacramentum Baptismi praecipue habet virtutem ex forma, quam apostolus nominat verbum vitae, Ephes. V. Et ideo considerare oportet, si plures unum simul baptizarent, qua forma uterentur. Si enim dicerent, nos te baptizamus in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti, dicunt quidam quod non conferretur sacramentum Baptismi eo quod non servaretur forma Ecclesiae, quae sic habet, ego te baptizo in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti. Sed hoc excluditur per formam baptizandi qua utitur Ecclesia Graecorum. Possent enim dicere, baptizatur servus Christi n. in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti, sub qua forma Graeci Baptismum suscipiunt, quae tamen forma multo magis dissimilis est formae qua nos utimur, quam si diceretur, nos te baptizamus. | I answer that, The Sacrament of Baptism derives its power principally from its form, which the Apostle calls "the word of life" (Eph. 5:26). Consequently, if several were to baptize one at the same time, we must consider what form they would use. For were they to say: "We baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," some maintain that the sacrament of Baptism would not be conferred, because the form of the Church would not be observed, i.e. "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." But this reasoning is disproved by the form observed in the Greek Church. For they might say: "The servant of God, N . . ., is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," under which form the Greeks receive the sacrament of Baptism: and yet this form differs far more from the form that we use, than does this: "We baptize thee." |
| Sed considerandum est quod ex tali forma, nos te baptizamus, exprimitur talis intentio quod plures conveniunt ad unum Baptismum conferendum. Quod quidem videtur esse contra rationem ministerii, homo enim non baptizat nisi ut minister Christi et vicem eius gerens; unde, sicut unus est Christus, ita oportet esse unum ministrum qui Christum repraesentet. Propter quod signanter apostolus dicit, Ephes. IV, unus dominus, una fides, unum Baptisma. Et ideo contraria intentio videtur excludere Baptismi sacramentum. | The point to be observed, however, is this, that by this form, "We baptize thee," the intention expressed is that several concur in conferring one Baptism: and this seems contrary to the notion of a minister; for a man does not baptize save as a minister of Christ, and as standing in His place; wherefore just as there is one Christ, so should there be one minister to represent Christ. Hence the Apostle says pointedly (Eph. 4:5): "one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism." Consequently, an intention which is in opposition to this seems to annul the sacrament of Baptism. |
| Si vero uterque diceret, ego te baptizo in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti, uterque exprimeret suam intentionem quasi ipse singulariter Baptismum conferret. Quod posset contingere in eo casu in quo contentiose uterque aliquem baptizare conaretur. Et tunc manifestum est quod ille qui prius verba proferret, daret Baptismi sacramentum. Alius vero, quantumcumque ius baptizandi haberet, etsi verba pronuntiare praesumeret, esset puniendus tanquam rebaptizator. Si autem omnino simul verba proferrent et hominem immergerent aut aspergerent, essent puniendi de inordinato modo baptizandi, et non de iteratione Baptismi, quia uterque intenderet nonbaptizatum baptizare, et uterque, quantum est in se, baptizaret. Nec traderent aliud et aliud sacramentum, sed Christus, qui est unus interius baptizans, unum sacramentum per utrumque conferret. | On the other hand, if each were to say: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," each would signify his intention as though he were conferring Baptism independently of the other. This might occur in the case where both were striving to baptize someone; and then it is clear that whichever pronounced the words first would confer the sacrament of Baptism; while the other, however great his right to baptize, if he presume to utter the words, would be liable to be punished as a rebaptizer. If, however, they were to pronounce the words absolutely at the same time, and dipped or sprinkled the man together, they should be punished for baptizing in an improper manner, but not for rebaptizing: because each would intend to baptize an unbaptized person, and each, so far as he is concerned, would baptize. Nor would they confer several sacraments: but the one Christ baptizing inwardly would confer one sacrament by means of both together. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa locum habet in his quae agunt propria virtute. Sed homines non baptizant propria virtute, sed virtute Christi, qui, cum sit unus, per unum ministrum perficit suum opus. | Reply to Objection 1: This argument avails in those agents that act by their own power. But men do not baptize by their own, but by Christ's power, Who, since He is one, perfects His work by means of one minister. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod in casu necessitatis unus posset simul plures baptizare sub hac forma, ego vos baptizo, puta si immineret ruina aut gladius aut aliquid huiusmodi, quod moram omnino non pateretur, si singillatim omnes baptizarentur. Nec per hoc diversificaretur forma Ecclesiae, quia plurale non est nisi singulare geminatum, praesertim cum pluraliter dicatur, Matth. ult., baptizantes eos, et cetera. Nec est simile de baptizante et baptizato. Quia Christus, qui principaliter baptizat, est unus, sed multi per Baptismum efficiuntur unum in Christo. | Reply to Objection 2: In a case of necessity one could baptize several at the same time under this form: "I baptize ye": for instance, if they were threatened by a falling house, or by the sword or something of the kind, so as not to allow of the delay involved by baptizing them singly. Nor would this cause a change in the Church's form, since the plural is nothing but the singular doubled: especially as we find the plural expressed in Mt. 28:19: "Baptizing them," etc. Nor is there parity between the baptizer and the baptized; since Christ, the baptizer in chief, is one: while many are made one in Christ by Baptism. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, integritas Baptismi consistit in forma verborum et in usu materiae. Et ideo neque ille qui tantum verba profert baptizat, neque ille qui immergit. Et ideo, si unus verba proferat et alius immergit, nulla forma verborum poterit esse conveniens. Neque enim poterit dici, ego te baptizo, cum ipse non immergat, et per consequens non baptizet. Neque etiam poterit dicere, nos te baptizamus, cum neuter baptizet. Si enim duo sint quorum unus unam partem libri scribat et alius aliam, non est propria locutio, nos scripsimus librum istum, sed synecdochica, inquantum totum ponitur pro parte. | Reply to Objection 3: As stated above (Question [66], Article [1]), the integrity of Baptism consists in the form of words and the use of the matter. Consequently, neither he who only pronounces the words, baptizes, nor he who dips. Where fore if one pronounces the words and the other dips, no form of words can be fitting. For neither could he say: "I baptize thee": since he dips not, and therefore baptizes not. Nor could they say: "We baptize thee": since neither baptizes. For if of two men, one write one part of a book, and the other write the other, it would not be a proper form of speech to say: "We wrote this book," but the figure of synecdoche in which the whole is put for the part. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 67 [<< | >>]
Article: 7 [<< | >>]
| Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Baptismo non requiratur aliquis qui baptizatum de sacro fonte levet. Baptismus enim noster per Baptismum Christi consecratur, et ei conformatur. Sed Christus baptizatus non est ab aliquo de fonte susceptus, sed, sicut dicitur Matth. III, baptizatus Iesus confestim ascendit de aqua. Ergo videtur quod nec in aliorum Baptismo requiratur aliquis qui baptizatum de sacro fonte suscipiat. | Objection 1: It seems that in Baptism it is not necessary for someone to raise the baptized from the sacred font. For our Baptism is consecrated by Christ's Baptism and is conformed thereto. But Christ when baptized was not raised by anyone from the font, but according to Mt. 3:16, "Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water." Therefore it seems that neither when others are baptized should anyone raise the baptized from the sacred font. |
| Praeterea, Baptismus est spiritualis regeneratio, ut supra dictum est. Sed in carnali generatione non requiritur nisi principium activum, quod est pater, et principium passivum, quod est mater. Cum igitur in Baptismo locum patris obtineat ille qui baptizat, locum autem matris ipsa aqua Baptismi, ut Augustinus dicit, in quodam sermone Epiphaniae; videtur quod non requiratur aliquis alius qui baptizatum de sacro fonte levet. | Objection 2: Further, Baptism is a spiritual regeneration, as stated above (Article [3]). But in carnal generation nothing else is required but the active principle, i.e. the father, and the passive principle, i.e. the mother. Since, then, in Baptism he that baptizes takes the place of the father, while the very water of Baptism takes the place of the mother, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cxxxv); it seems that there is no further need for someone to raise the baptized from the sacred font. |
| Praeterea, in sacramentis Ecclesiae nihil derisorium fieri debet. Sed hoc derisorium videtur, quod adulti baptizati, qui seipsos sustentare possunt et de sacro fonte exire, ab alio suscipiantur. Ergo videtur quod non requiratur aliquis, praecipue in Baptismo adultorum, qui baptizatum de sacro fonte levet. | Objection 3: Further, nothing ridiculous should be observed in the sacraments of the Church. But it seems ridiculous that after being baptized, adults who can stand up of themselves and leave the sacred font, should be held up by another. Therefore there seems no need for anyone, especially in the Baptism of adults, to raise the baptized from the sacred font. |
| Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit, II cap. Eccl. Hier., quod sacerdotes, assumentes baptizatum, tradunt adductionis susceptori et duci. | On the contrary, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii) that "the priests taking the baptized hand him over to his sponsor and guide." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod spiritualis regeneratio, quae fit per Baptismum, assimilatur quodammodo generationi carnali, unde dicitur I Pet. II, sicut modo geniti infantes rationabiles sine dolo lac concupiscite. In generatione autem carnali parvulus nuper natus indiget nutrice et paedagogo. Unde et in spirituali generatione Baptismi requiritur aliquis qui fungatur vice nutricis et paedagogi, informando et instruendo eum qui est novitius in fide, de his quae pertinent ad fidem et ad vitam Christianam, ad quod praelati Ecclesiae vacare non possunt, circa communem curam populi occupati, parvuli enim et novitii indigent speciali cura praeter communem. Et ideo requiritur quod aliquis suscipiat baptizatum de sacro fonte quasi in suam instructionem et tutelam. Et hoc est quod Dionysius dicit, ult. cap. Eccl. Hier., divinis nostris ducibus, idest apostolis, ad mentem venit et visum est suscipere infantes secundum istum modum quod parentes pueri traderent puerum cuidam docto in divinis paedagogo, et reliquum sub ipso puer ageret, sicut sub divino patre et salvationis sanctae susceptore. | I answer that, The spiritual regeneration, which takes place in Baptism, is in a certain manner likened to carnal generation: wherefore it is written (1 Pt. 2:2): "As new-born babes, endowed with reason desire milk [Vulg.: 'desire reasonable milk'] without guile." Now, in carnal generation the new-born child needs nourishment and guidance: wherefore, in spiritual generation also, someone is needed to undertake the office of nurse and tutor by forming and instructing one who is yet a novice in the Faith, concerning things pertaining to Christian faith and mode of life, which the clergy have not the leisure to do through being busy with watching over the people generally: because little children and novices need more than ordinary care. Consequently someone is needed to receive the baptized from the sacred font as though for the purpose of instructing and guiding them. It is to this that Dionysius refers (Eccl. Hier. xi) saying: "It occurred to our heavenly guides," i.e. the Apostles, "and they decided, that infants should be taken charge of thus: that the parents of the child should hand it over to some instructor versed in holy things, who would thenceforth take charge of the child, and be to it a spiritual father and a guide in the road of salvation." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christus non est baptizatus ut ipse regeneraretur, sed ut alios regeneraret. Et ideo ipse post Baptismum non indiguit paedagogo tanquam parvulus. | Reply to Objection 1: Christ was baptized not that He might be regenerated, but that He might regenerate others: wherefore after His Baptism He needed no tutor like other children. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod in generatione carnali non requiritur ex necessitate nisi pater et mater, sed ad facilem partum, et educationem pueri convenientem, requiritur obstetrix et nutrix et paedagogus. Quorum vicem implet in Baptismo ille qui puerum de sacro fonte levat. Unde non est de necessitate sacramenti, sed unus solus potest in aqua baptizare, necessitate imminente. | Reply to Objection 2: In carnal generation nothing is essential besides a father and a mother: yet to ease the latter in her travail, there is need for a midwife; and for the child to be suitably brought up there is need for a nurse and a tutor: while their place is taken in Baptism by him who raises the child from the sacred font. Consequently this is not essential to the sacrament, and in a case of necessity one alone can baptize with water. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod baptizatus non suscipitur a patrino de sacro fonte propter imbecillitatem corporalem, sed propter imbecillitatem spiritualem, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 3: It is not on account of bodily weakness that the baptized is raised from the sacred font by the godparent, but on account of spiritual weakness, as stated above. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 67 [<< | >>]
Article: 8 [<< | >>]
| Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ille qui suscipit aliquem de sacro fonte, non obligetur ad eius instructionem. Quia nullus potest instruere nisi instructus. Sed etiam quidam non instructi sed simplices admittuntur ad aliquem de sacro fonte suscipiendum. Ergo ille qui suscipit baptizatum, non obligatur ad eius instructionem. | Objection 1: It seems that he who raises anyone from the sacred font is not bound to instruct him. For none but those who are themselves instructed can give instruction. But even the uneducated and ill-instructed are allowed to raise people from the sacred font. Therefore he who raises a baptized person from the font is not bound to instruct him. |
| Praeterea, filius magis a patre instruitur quam ab alio extraneo, nam filius habet a patre, esse et nutrimentum et disciplinam, ut philosophus dicit, VIII Ethic. Si ergo ille qui suscipit baptizatum, tenetur eum instruere, magis esset conveniens quod pater carnalis filium suum de Baptismo suscipiat quam alius. Quod tamen videtur esse prohibitum, ut habetur in decretis, XXX, qu. I, cap. pervenit et dictum est. | Objection 2: Further, a son is instructed by his father better than by a stranger: for, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii), a son receives from his father, "being, food, and education." If, therefore, godparents are bound to instruct their godchildren, it would be fitting for the carnal father, rather than another, to be the godparent of his own child. And yet this seems to be forbidden, as may be seen in the Decretals (xxx, qu. 1, Cap. Pervenit and Dictum est). |
| Praeterea, plures magis possunt instruere quam unus solus. Si ergo ille qui suscipit aliquem baptizatum, teneretur eum instruere, magis deberent plures suscipere quam unus solus. Cuius contrarium habetur in decreto Leonis Papae, non plures, inquit, ad suscipiendum de Baptismo infantem quam unus accedant, sive vir sive mulier. | Objection 3: Further, it is better for several to instruct than for one only. If, therefore, godparents are bound to instruct their godchildren, it would be better to have several godparents than only one. Yet this is forbidden in a decree of Pope Leo, who says: "A child should not have more than one godparent, be this a man or a woman." |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in quodam sermone paschali, vos ante omnia, tam viros quam mulieres, qui filios in Baptismate suscepistis, moneo ut vos cognoscatis fideiussores apud Deum exstitisse pro illis quos visi estis de sacro fonte suscipere. | On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon for Easter (clxviii): "In the first place I admonish you, both men and women, who have raised children in Baptism, that ye stand before God as sureties for those whom you have been seen to raise from the sacred font." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod unusquisque obligatur ad exequendum officium quod accipit. Dictum est autem quod ille qui suscipit aliquem de sacro fonte, assumit sibi officium paedagogi. Et ideo obligatur ad habendam curam de ipso, si necessitas immineret, sicut eo tempore et loco in quo baptizati inter infideles nutriuntur. Sed ubi nutriuntur inter Catholicos Christianos, satis possunt ab hac cura excusari, praesumendo quod a suis parentibus diligenter instruantur. Si tamen quocumque modo sentirent contrarium, tenerentur secundum suum modum saluti spiritualium filiorum curam impendere. | I answer that, Every man is bound to fulfil those duties which he has undertaken to perform. Now it has been stated above (Article [7]) that godparents take upon themselves the duties of a tutor. Consequently they are bound to watch over their godchildren when there is need for them to do so: for instance when and where children are brought up among unbelievers. But if they are brought up among Catholic Christians, the godparents may well be excused from this responsibility, since it may be presumed that the children will be carefully instructed by their parents. If, however, they perceive in any way that the contrary is the case, they would be bound, as far as they are able, to see to the spiritual welfare of their godchildren. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, ubi immineret periculum, oporteret esse aliquem doctum in divinis, sicut Dionysius dicit, qui baptizandum de sacro fonte susciperet. Sed ubi hoc periculum non imminet, propter hoc quod pueri nutriuntur inter Catholicos, admittuntur quicumque ad hoc officium, quia ea quae pertinent ad Christianam vitam et fidem, publice omnibus nota sunt. Et tamen ille qui non est baptizatus non potest suscipere baptizatum, ut est declaratum in Concilio Maguntino, licet nonbaptizatus possit baptizare, quia persona baptizantis est de necessitate sacramenti, non autem persona suscipientis, sicut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 1: Where the danger is imminent, the godparent, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vii), should be someone "versed in holy things." But where the danger is not imminent, by reason of the children being brought up among Catholics, anyone is admitted to this position, because the things pertaining to the Christian rule of life and faith are known openly by all. Nevertheless an unbaptized person cannot be a godparent, as was decreed in the Council of Mainz, although an unbaptized person: because the person baptizing is essential to the sacrament, wherefore as the godparent is not, as stated above (Article [7], ad 2). |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut est alia generatio spiritualis a carnali, ita etiam debet esse alia disciplina, secundum illud Heb. XII, patres quidem carnis nostrae habuimus eruditores, et reverebamur eos. Non multo magis obtemperabimus patri spirituum, et vivemus? Et ideo alius debet esse pater spiritualis a patre carnali, nisi necessitas contrarium exigat. | Reply to Objection 2: Just as spiritual generation is distinct from carnal generation, so is spiritual education distinct from that of the body; according to Heb. 12:9: "Moreover we have had fathers of our flesh for instructors, and we reverenced them: shall we not much more obey the Father of Spirits, and live?" Therefore the spiritual father should be distinct from the carnal father, unless necessity demanded otherwise. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod confusio disciplinae esset nisi esset unus principalis instructor. Et ideo in Baptismo unus debet esse principalis susceptor. Alii tamen possunt admitti quasi coadiutores. | Reply to Objection 3: Education would be full of confusion if there were more than one head instructor. Wherefore there should be one principal sponsor in Baptism: but others can be allowed as assistants. |