Greco-Christian stream·Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae (Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas)·Summa Theologiae·Secunda Secundae·Q72. Reviling
Source context
- Theme
- reviling as a moral and spiritual harm — its nature, species, and gravity
- Soul-faculty
- Consciousness Soul
Steiner
- GA 70b, 1916-01-08Steiner holds that reviling the truth rebounds upon the reviler himself, indicating a karmic-moral structure in which injurious speech returns to its source.
- GA 70b, 1916-01-10Steiner distinguishes reviling from substantive opposition to truth, noting that verbal attack ultimately falls back upon those who utter it rather than harming the truth itself.
- GA 123, 1910-09-09Steiner treats the Beatitude 'blessed are ye when men shall revile you for my sake' as an initiation-stage statement concerning the ego-conscious soul's capacity to bear undeserved dishonour.
Cross-tradition
- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics IV.3Aristotle treats verbal dishonour as an injury to another's reputation and connects proper response to the virtue of magnanimity, a structural parallel to Aquinas's analysis of reviling as a sin against justice and neighbour.
- Buddhist Vinaya / right speechThe Vinaya's prohibition on abusive speech (pharusa vācā) identifies harsh verbal harm to persons as a breach of right speech, showing cross-tradition congruence with Aquinas's category of reviling as a distinct sin against the honour due to persons.
Q72. Reviling
Article 1
[II-II.q.72.a.1.arg.1] It would seem that reviling does not consist in words. Reviling implies some injury inflicted on one's neighbor, since it is a kind of injustice. But words seem to inflict no injury on one's neighbor, either in his person, or in his belongings. Therefore reviling does not consist in words.
[II-II.q.72.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod confirmation non sit sacramentum. Sacramenta enim ex divina institutione efficaciam habent, sicut supra dictum est. Sed confirmation non legitur a Christo instituta. Ergo non est sacramentum.
[II-II.q.72.a.1.arg.2] Further, reviling seems to imply dishonor. But a man can be dishonored or slighted by deeds more than by words. Therefore it seems that reviling consists, not in words but in deeds.
[II-II.q.72.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, sacramenta novæ legis in veteri lege præfigurata fuerunt; unde Apostolus dicit I Corinth., x, 2, quod omnes in Moyse baptizati sunt in nube et in mari, et omnes eamdem escam spiritualem manducaverunt, omnes eumdem potum spiritualem biberunt. Sed confirmation non fuit præfigurata in veteri Testamento. Non ergo est sacramentum.
[II-II.q.72.a.1.arg.3] Further, a dishonor inflicted by words is called a railing or a taunt. But reviling seems to differ from railing or taunt. Therefore reviling does not consist in words.
[II-II.q.72.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, per omnia sacramenta Ecclesiæ homo Christo conformatur, qui est sacramentorum auctor. Sed per confirmationem non videtur homo Christo conformari, qui non legitur esse confirmatus.
[II-II.q.72.a.1.sc] Nothing, save words, is perceived by the hearing. Now reviling is perceived by the hearing according to Jeremiah 20:10, "I heard reviling [Douay: 'contumelies'] on every side." Therefore reviling consists in words.
[II-II.q.72.a.1.sc] Sed contra est quod Melchiades Papa scribit Hispaniarum episcopis, Decr., cap. 3 In septem cod. quos consuluimus deest objectio tertia, licet adsit responsio ad hanc objectionem. Unde necesse fuit e textu objectionem retrahere quæ sic habet: « Præterea, sacramenta ordinantur ad hominum salutem. Sed sine confirmatione potest esse salus; nam pueri baptizati, sine confirmatione decedentes, salvantur. Ergo confirmation non est sacramentum. » De consecrat., dist. v, col. 1856: « De his super quibus rogastis nos vos informari, utrum majus sit sacramentum manus impositio episcoporum, an baptismus, scitote utrumque magnum esse sacramentum. »
[II-II.q.72.a.1.co] Reviling denotes the dishonoring of a person, and this happens in two ways: for since honor results from excellence, one person dishonors another, first, by depriving him of the excellence for which he is honored. This is done by sins of deed, whereof we have spoken above (64, seqq.). Secondly, when a man publishes something against another's honor, thus bringing it to the knowledge of the latter and of other men. This reviling properly so called, and is done I some kind of signs. Now, according to Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. ii, 3), "compared with words all other signs are very few, for words have obtained the chief place among men for the purpose of expressing whatever the mind conceives." Hence reviling, properly speaking consists in words: wherefore, Isidore says (Etym. x) that a reviler [contumeliosus] "is hasty and bursts out [tumet] in injurious words." Since, however, things are also signified by deeds, which on this account have the same significance as words, it follows that reviling in a wider sense extends also to deeds. Wherefore a gloss on Romans 1:30, "contumelious, proud," says: "The contumelious are those who by word or deed revile and shame others."
[II-II.q.72.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod sacramenta novæ legis ordinantur ad speciales gratiae effectus. Et ideo ubi occurrit aliquis specialis effectus gratiae, ibi ordinatur speciale sacramentum. Quia vero sensibilia et corporalia gerunt spiritualium et intelligibilium similitudinem, ex his quæ in vita corporali aguntur, percipere possumus quid in spirituali vita speciale existat. Manifestum autem est quod in vita corporali specialis quædam perfectio est quod homo ad perfectam ætatem perveniat, et perfectas actiones hominis agere possit; unde et Apostolus dicit I Corinth., *Quando.* xiii, 41: Cum*autem factus sum vir, evacuavi quæ erant parvuli; et inde est etiam quod præter motum generationis, quo aliquis recipit vitam corporalem, est motus augmenti, quo aliquis perducitur ad perfectam ætatem. Sic igitur et vitam spiritualem homo accipit per baptismum, qui est spiritualis regeneratio; in confirmatione autem homo accipit quasi quamdam perfectam ætatem spiritualis vitæ. Unde Melchiades Papa dicit, ubi supr., c. ii: « Spiritus sanctus, qui super aquas baptismi salutifero descendit illapsu, in fonte plenitudinem tribuit ad innocentiam, in confirmatione augmentum præstat ad gratiam; in baptismo regeneramur ad vitam, post baptismum confirmamur ad pugnam; in baptismo abluimur, post baptismum roboramur. » Et ideo manifestum est quod confirmatio est speciale sacramentum.
[II-II.q.72.a.1.ad.1] Our words, if we consider them in their essence, i.e. as audible sound injure no man, except perhaps by jarring of the ear, as when a person speaks too loud. But, considered as signs conveying something to the knowledge of others, they may do many kinds of harm. Such is the harm done to a man to the detriment of his honor, or of the respect due to him from others. Hence the reviling is greater if one man reproach another in the presence of many: and yet there may still be reviling if he reproach him by himself. in so far as the speaker acts unjustly against the respect due to the hearer.
[II-II.q.72.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod circa institutionem hujus sacramenti est duplex opinio. Quidam enim dixerunt quod hoc sacramentum non fuit institutum nec a Christo, nec ab apostolis, sed postea processu temporis in quodam concilio; alii vero dixerunt quod fuit institutum ab apostolis. Sed hoc non potest esse, quia instituere novum sacramentum pertinet ad potestatem excellentiæ, quæ competit soli Christo. Et ideo dicendum est quod Christus instituit hoc sacramentum, non exhibendo, sed promittendo, secundum illud Joan., xvi, 7: Si non abiero, Paracletus non veniet ad vos; si autem abiero, mittam eum ad vos. Et hoc ideo quia in hoc sacramento datur plenitudo Spiritus sancti, quæ non erat danda ante Christi resurrectionem et ascensionem, secundum illud Joan., vii, 39: Nondum erat Spiritus datus, quia Jesus nondum erat glorificatus.
[II-II.q.72.a.1.ad.2] One man slights another by deeds in so far as such deeds cause or signify that which is against that other man's honor. On the former case it is not a matter of reviling but of some other kind of injustice, of which we have spoken above (Q64,65,66): where as in the latter case there is reviling, in so far as deeds have the significant force of words.
[II-II.q.72.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod, confirmatio est sacramentum plenitudinis gratiae; et ideo non potuit habere aliquid sibi respondens in veteri Testamento, quia nihil ad perfectum adduxit lex, ut dicitur Hebr., vii, 19.
[II-II.q.72.a.1.ad.3] Railing and taunts consist in words, even as reviling, because by all of them a man's faults are exposed to the detriment of his honor. Such faults are of three kinds. First, there is the fault of guilt, which is exposed by "reviling" words. Secondly, there is the fault of both guilt and punishment, which is exposed by "taunts" [convicium], because "vice" is commonly spoken of in connection with not only the soul but also the body. Hence if one man says spitefully to another that he is blind, he taunts but does not revile him: whereas if one man calls another a thief, he not only taunts but also reviles him. Thirdly, a man reproaches another for his inferiority or indigence, so as to lessen the honor due to him for any kind of excellence. This is done by "upbraiding" words, and properly speaking, occurs when one spitefully reminds a man that one has succored him when he was in need. Hence it is written (Sirach 20:15): "He will give a few things and upbraid much." Nevertheless these terms are sometimes employed one for the other.
[II-II.q.72.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod, sicut supra dictum est, omnia sacramenta sunt aliquiter necessaria ad salutem; sed quædam sunt sine quibus non est salus; quædam vero sunt quæ cooperantur ad perfectionem salutis. Et hoc modo confirmatio est de necessitate salutis, quamvis sine ea possit esse salus, dum tamen non prætermittatur ex contemptu sacramenti.
Article 2
[II-II.q.72.a.2.arg.1] It would seem that reviling or railing is not a mortal sin. For no mortal sin is an act of virtue. Now railing is the act of a virtue, viz. of wittiness eutrapelia [Cf. I-II, 60, 5] to which it pertains to rail well, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 8). Therefore railing or reviling is not a mortal sin.
[II-II.q.72.a.2.arg.1] Ad secundum sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod contumelia, vel convicium, non sit peccatum mortale. Nullum enim peccatum mortale est actus alicujus virtutis. Sed conviciari est actus alicujus virtutis, scilicet eutrapeliæ, ad quam pertinet bene conviciari, secundum Philosophum in IV Ethic., cap. vIII. Ergo convicium sive contumelia non est peccatum mortale. 2. Praeterea, peccatum mortale non inventur in viris perfectis; qui tamen convicia vel contumelias aliquando dicunt, sicut patet de Apostolo, qui ad Galatas, III, 4, dixit: O insensati Galatæ; et Dominus dicit Lucæ, ult., 25: O stulti et tardi corde ad credendum. Ergo convicium sive contumelia non est peccatum mortale. 3. Praeterea, quamvis illud quod est peccatum veniale ex genere possit fieri mortale, non tamen peccatum quod est ex genere mortale potest esse veniale, ut supra habitum est. Si ergo dicere convicium vel contumeliam esset peccatum mortale ex genere suo, sequeretur quod semper esset peccatum mortale; quod videtur esse falsum, ut patet in eo qui leviter ex surreptione vel ex levi ira dicit aliquod verbum contumeliosum. Non ergo contumelia, vel convicium, ex genere suo est peccatum mortale.
[II-II.q.72.a.2.arg.2] Further, mortal sin is not to be found in perfect men; and yet these sometimes give utterance to railing or reviling. Thus the Apostle says (Galatians 3:1): "O senseless Galatians!," and our Lord said (Luke 24:25): "O foolish and slow of heart to believe!" Therefore railing or reviling is not a mortal sin.
[II-II.q.72.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, confirmatio quodammodo perficit sacramentum baptismi, sicut supra dictum est, et ita debet ei conformari sicut perfectio perfectibili. Sed in baptismo est materia simplex elementum, scilicet aqua. Ergo hujus sacramenti non est conveniens materia chrisma, quod conficitur ex oleo et balsamo.
[II-II.q.72.a.2.arg.3] Further, although that which is a venial sin by reason of its genus may become mortal, that which is mortal by reason of its genus cannot become venial, as stated above (I-II, 88, 4,6). Hence if by reason of its genus it were a mortal sin to give utterance to railing or reviling, it would follow that it is always a mortal sin. But this is apparently untrue, as may be seen in the case of one who utters a reviling word indeliberately or through slight anger. Therefore reviling or railing is not a mortal sin, by reason of its genus.
[II-II.q.72.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, oleum assumitur in materia hujus sacramenti ad inungendum. Sed quolibet oleo potest fieri inunctio, puta oleo quod fit ex nucibus vel ex quibuscumque aliis rebus. Non ergo solum oleum olivarum debet assumi ad hujusmodi sacramentum.
[II-II.q.72.a.2.sc] Nothing but mortal sin deserves the eternal punishment of hell. Now railing or reviling deserves the punishment of hell, according to Matthew 5:22, "Whosoever shall say to his brother . . . Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Therefore railing or reviling is a mortal sin.
[II-II.q.72.a.2.sc] Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit in Registro, lib. IV, epist. ix, col. 677, t. 3: « Presbyteri baptizatos infantes signare in frontibus sacro chrismate non præsument. » Ergo chrisma est materia hujus sacramenti.
[II-II.q.72.a.2.co] As stated above (Article 1), words are injurious to other persons, not as sounds, but as signs, and this signification depends on the speaker's inward intention. Hence, in sins of word, it seems that we ought to consider with what intention the words are uttered. Since then railing or reviling essentially denotes a dishonoring, if the intention of the utterer is to dishonor the other man, this is properly and essentially to give utterance to railing or reviling: and this is a mortal sin no less than theft or robbery, since a man loves his honor no less than his possessions. If, on the other hand, a man says to another a railing or reviling word, yet with the intention, not of dishonoring him, but rather perhaps of correcting him or with some like purpose, he utters a railing or reviling not formally and essentially, but accidentally and materially, in so far to wit as he says that which might be a railing or reviling. Hence this may be sometimes a venial sin, and sometimes without any sin at all. Nevertheless there is need of discretion in such matters, and one should use such words with moderation, because the railing might be so grave that being uttered inconsiderately it might dishonor the person against whom it is uttered. On such a case a man might commit a mortal sin, even though he did not intend to dishonor the other man: just as were a man incautiously to injure grievously another by striking him in fun, he would not be without blame.
[II-II.q.72.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod chrisma est conveniens materia hujus sacramenti. Sicut enim dictum est, in hoc sacramento datur plenitudo Spiritus sancti ad robur spirituale, quod competit perfectæ aetati. Homo autem, cum ad perfectam aetatem pervenerit, incipit jam communicare actiones suas ad alios; antea vero quasi singulariter sibi ipsi vivit. Gratia vero Spiritus sancti in oleo designatur; unde Christus dicitur esse unctus oleo lætitiæ, ps. xliv, 8, propter plenitudinem Spiritus sancti quam habuit. Et ideo oleum competit materiæ hujus sacramenti. Admiscretur autem balsamum propter fragrantiam odoris, quæ redundat ad alios; unde Apostolus dicit, II Corinth., ii, 45: Christi bonus odor sumus Deo, etc. Et licet multa alia sint odorifera, tamen Dissentium theologi in assignanda essentiali sacramenti hujus materia, alii chrisma solum, alii solam manuum impositionem, alii præcipue accipitur balsamum propter hoc quod habet præcipuum odorem, et quia etiam incorruptionem præstat, unde Eccli., xxiv, 24, dicitur: Quasi balsamum non mixtum odor meus.
[II-II.q.72.a.2.ad.1] It belongs to wittiness to utter some slight mockery, not with intent to dishonor or pain the person who is the object of the mockery, but rather with intent to please and amuse: and this may be without sin, if the due circumstances be observed. on the other hand if a man does not shrink from inflicting pain on the object of his witty mockery, so long as he makes others laugh, this is sinful, as stated in the passage quoted.
[II-II.q.72.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod Christus ex potestate excellentiæ quam habet in sacramentis, contulit apostolis rem hujus sacramenti, id est, plenitudinem Spiritus sancti sine sacramento, eo quod ipsi primitias Spiritus sancti acceperunt, sicut dicitur Rom., viii. Nihilominus tamen aliquid conforme materiæ hujus sacramenti exhibitum fuit apostolis sensibiliter in collatione Spiritus sancti. Quod enim sensibiliter Spiritus sanctus super eos descendit in specie ignis, ad eamdem significationem refertur ad quam refertur oleum, nisi quod ignis habet vim activam, oleum autem habet vim passivam, in quantum est materia et fomentum ignis. Et hoc satis competebat; nam per apostolos gratia Spiritus sancti erat ad alios derivanda. Super apostolos etiam Spiritus sanctus descendit in figura linguæ, quod ad idem significandum refertur quod significat balsamum, nisi quod lingua per locutionem est communicativa ad alterum, balsamum vero per odorem, quia scilicet apostoli replebantur Spiritus sancto ut fidei doctores, alii autem fideles ut operatores eorum quæ pertinent ad ædificationem fidelium. Similiter etiam ad impositionem manus apostolorum, et etiam ad eorum prædicationem descendat plenitudo Spiritus sancti super fideles sub visibilibus signis, sicut a principio descenderat super apostolos. Unde Petrus dicit, Act., xi, 15: Cum cæpissem loqui, cecidit Spiritus sanctus super eos, sicut et in nos in initio. Et ideo non erat necessaria sensibilis materia sacramentalis, ubis sensibilia signa miraculose exhibebantur divinitus. Utebantur tamen apostoli communiter chrismate in exhibitione sacramenti, quando hujusmodi visibilia signa non exhibebantur. Dicit enim Dionysius, cap. iv Eccles. hierarch., § 1, col. 474, t. 4: « Est quædam perfectiva operatio quam duces nostri, » id est, Apostoli, « chrismatis hostiam nominant. »
[II-II.q.72.a.2.ad.2] Just as it is lawful to strike a person, or damnify him in his belongings for the purpose of correction, so too, for the purpose of correction, may one say a mocking word to a person whom one has to correct. It is thus that our Lord called the disciples "foolish," and the Apostle called the Galatians "senseless." Yet, as Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 19), "seldom and only when it is very necessary should we have recourse to invectives, and then so as to urge God's service, not our own."
[II-II.q.72.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod baptismus datur ad spiritualem vitam simplici ter consequendam; et ideo competit illi sacramento materia simplex. Sed hoc utrumque, sed alii utrumque disjunctive, et alii utrumque conjunctive assignantes; opinio ultima hodie communior evasit. sacramentum datur ad plenitudinem consequendam Spiritus sancti, cujus est multiformis operatio, secundum illud Sap., VII, 22: Est enim in illa Spiritus intelligenti sanctus, unicus, multiplex; et I Cor., XII, 4, dicitur: Divisiones gratiarum sunt, idem autem Spiritus. Et ideo convenienter hujus sacramenti est materia composita.
[II-II.q.72.a.2.ad.3] Since the sin of railing or reviling depends on the intention of the utterer, it may happen to be a venial sin, if it be a slight railing that does not inflict much dishonor on a man, and be uttered through lightness of heart or some slight anger, without the fixed purpose of dishonoring him, for instance when one intends by such a word to give but little pain.
[II-II.q.72.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod proprietates olei, quibus significatur Spiritus sanctus, magis inveniuntur in oleo olivarum quam in quocumque alio oleo; unde et ipsa oliva semper frondibus virens, viorem et misericordiam Spiritus sancti significat. Hoc etiam oleum proprie dicitur oleum, et maxime habetur in usu ubi haberi potest; quilibet autem alius liquor ex similitudine hujus oleum nominatur; nec est in usu communi, nisi in supplementum apud eos quibus deest oleum olivarum. Et ideo hoc oleum solum assumitur in usum hujus, et quorumdam aliorum sacramentorum.
Article 3
[II-II.q.72.a.3.arg.1] It would seem that one ought not to suffer oneself to be reviled. For he that suffers himself to be reviled, encourages the reviler. But one ought not to do this. Therefore one ought not to suffer oneself to be reviled, but rather reply to the reviler.
[II-II.q.72.a.3.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod non sit de necessitate hujus sacramenti quod chrisma, quod est materia hujus sacramenti, fuerit prius per episcopum consecratum. Baptismus enim, in quo fit plena remissio peccatorum, non est minoris efficaciæ quam hoc sacramentum. Sed, licet quædam sanctificatio adhibeatur aquæ baptismali ante baptismum, non tamen est de necessitate sacramenti, quia in articulo necessitatis præteriri potest. Ergo non est de necessitate hujus sacramenti quod chrisma fuerit per episcopum consecratum.
[II-II.q.72.a.3.arg.2] Further, one ought to love oneself more than another. Now one ought not to suffer another to be reviled, wherefore it is written (Proverbs 26:10): "He that putteth a fool to silence appeaseth anger." Therefore neither should one suffer oneself to be reviled.
[II-II.q.72.a.3.arg.2] 2. Præterea, idem non debet bis consecrari. Sed materia sacramenti sanctificatur in ipsa collatione sacramenti per formam verborum qua confertur sacramentum; unde et Augustinus dicit Super Joan., tract. Lxxx, § 3, col. 1840, t. 3: « Accedit verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum. » Non ergo debet prius chrisma consecrari quam hoc sacramentum tradatur.
[II-II.q.72.a.3.arg.3] Further, a man is not allowed to revenge himself, for it is said: "Vengeance belongeth to Me, I will repay" [Hebrews 10:30. Now by submitting to be reviled a man revenges himself, according to Chrysostom (Hom. xxii, in Ep. ad Rom.): "If thou wilt be revenged, be silent; thou hast dealt him a fatal blow." Therefore one ought not by silence to submit to reviling words, but rather answer back.
[II-II.q.72.a.3.arg.3] 3. Præterea, omnis consecratio quæ fit in sacramentis, ad consecutionem gratiae ordinatur. Sed materia sensibilis confecta ex oleo et balsamo non est capax gratiae. Ergo non debet ei aliqua consecratio adhiberi.
[II-II.q.72.a.3.sc] It is written (Psalm 37:13): "They that sought evils to me spoke vain things," and afterwards (Psalm 37:14) he says: "But I as a deaf man, heard not; and as a dumb man not opening his mouth."
[II-II.q.72.a.3.sc] Sed contra est quod Innocentius I Papa dicit, Decr., dist. IV, De consecrat., c. cxix, col. 1838: « Presbyteris, cum baptizant, chrismate baptizatos ungere liceat, quod ab episcopo fuerit consecratum; non tamen frontem ex eodem oleo signare, quod solum debetur episcopis, cum tradunt Paracletum; » quod quidem fit in hoc sacramento. Ergo ad hoc sacramentum requiritur quod materia hujus sacramenti prius per episcopum consecretur.
[II-II.q.72.a.3.co] Just as we need patience in things done against us, so do we need it in those said against us. Now the precepts of patience in those things done against us refer to the preparedness of the mind, according to Augustine's (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 19) exposition on our Lord's precept, "If one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other" The words as quoted by St. Thomas are a blending of Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29: that is to say, a man ought to be prepared to do so if necessary. But he is not always bound to do this actually: since not even did our Lord do so, for when He received a blow, He said: "Why strikest thou Me?" (John 18:23). Consequently the same applies to the reviling words that are said against us. For we are bound to hold our minds prepared to submit to be reviled, if it should be expedient. Nevertheless it sometimes behooves us to withstand against being reviled, and this chiefly for two reasons. First, for the good of the reviler; namely, that his daring may be checked, and that he may not repeat the attempt, according to Proverbs 26:5, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he imagine himself to be wise." Secondly, for the good of many who would be prevented from progressing in virtue on account of our being reviled. Hence Gregory says (Hom. ix, Super Ezech.): "Those who are so placed that their life should be an example to others, ought, if possible, to silence their detractors, lest their preaching be not heard by those who could have heard it, and they continue their evil conduct through contempt of a good life."
[II-II.q.72.a.3.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod tota sacramentorum sanctificatio a Christo derivatur, ut supra dictum est. Est autem considerandum quod quibusdam sacramentis habentibus materiam corpoream Christus est usus, scilicet baptismo et etiam Eucharistia. Et ideo ex ipso usu Christi materiae horum sacramentorum aptitudinem acceperunt ad perfectionem sacramenti. Unde Chrysostomus 5 dicit, Decr., cap. « Nunquam, » De consecrat., dist. IV, col. 1795, quod « nunquam aquæ baptismi purgare peccata credentium possent, nisi tactu dominici corporis sanctificata fuissent. » Et similiter ipse Dominus accipiens panem benedixit; similiter autem et calicem, ut habetur Matth., xxvi et Luc., xxii. Et propter hoc non est de necessitate horum sacramentorum quod materia prius benedicatur, quia sufficit benedictio Christi. Si qua vero benedictio adhibeatur, pertinet ad solemnitatem sacramenti, non autem ad necessitatem. Unctionibus autem visibilibus Christus non est usus, ne fieret injuria invisibili unctioni, qua est unctus præ consortibus, apud quem non legitur, et cui substituendus videtur Chromatius. suis, psal. xliv. Et ideo tam chrisma quam oleum sanctum et oleum infirmorum prius benedicuntur quam adhibeantur ad usum sacramenti. Ad primum ergo patet responsio ex dictis.
[II-II.q.72.a.3.ad.1] The daring of the railing reviler should be checked with moderation, i.e. as a duty of charity, and not through lust for one's own honor. Hence it is written (Proverbs 26:4): "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be like him."
[II-II.q.72.a.3.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod audaciam conviciantis contumeliosi debet aliquis moderate reprimere, scilicet propter officium charitatis, non propter cupiditatem privati honoris. Unde dicitur Prov., xxvi, 4: Ne respondeas stulto juxta stultitiam suam, ne efficiaris ei similis.
[II-II.q.72.a.3.ad.2] When one man prevents another from being reviled there is not the danger of lust for one's own honor as there is when a man defends himself from being reviled: indeed rather would it seem to proceed from a sense of charity.
[II-II.q.72.a.3.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod utraque consecratio chrismatis non refertur ad idem. Sicut enim instrumentum virtutem instrumentalem acquirit dupliciter, scilicet quando accipit formam instrumenti et quando movetur a principali agente; ita etiam materia sacramenti duplici sanctificatione indiget, per quarum unam fit propria materia sacramenti, per aliam vero applicatur ad effectum.
[II-II.q.72.a.3.ad.3] It would be an act of revenge to keep silence with the intention of provoking the reviler to anger, but it would be praiseworthy to be silent, in order to give place to anger. Hence it is written (Sirach 8:4): "Strive not with a man that is full of tongue, and heap not wood upon his fire."
[II-II.q.72.a.3.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod materia corporalis non est capax gratiae quasi gratiae subjectum, sed solum sicut gratiae instrumentum, ut supra dictum est, et ad hoc materia sacramenti consecratur vel ab ipso Christo, vel ab episcopo, qui gerit in Ecclesia personam Christi.
Article 4
[II-II.q.72.a.4.arg.1] It would seem that reviling does not arise from anger. For it is written (Proverbs 11:2): "Where pride is, there shall also be reviling [Douay: 'reproach']." But anger is a vice distinct from pride. Therefore reviling does not arise from anger.
[II-II.q.72.a.4.arg.1] Ad quartum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod hæc non sit conveniens forma hujus sacramenti: « Consigno te signo crucis, et confirmo te chrismate salutis, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti, amen. » Usus enim sacramentorum a Christo et ab apostolis derivatur. Sed neque Christus hanc formam instituit, nec apostoli ea usi leguntur. Ergo hæc non est conveniens forma hujus sacramenti.
[II-II.q.72.a.4.arg.2] Further, it is written (Proverbs 20:3): "All fools are meddling with revilings [Douay: 'reproaches']." Now folly is a vice opposed to wisdom, as stated above (Question 46, Article 1); whereas anger is opposed to meekness. Therefore reviling does not arise from anger.
[II-II.q.72.a.4.arg.2] 2. Præterea, sicut sacramentum est idem apud omnes, ita et forma debet esse eadem, quia quælibet res habet unitatem, sicut et esse a sua forma. Sed hac forma non omnes utuntur; quidam enim dicunt: « Confirmo te chrismate sanctificationis. » 1 In Requiritur, saltem de jure ordinario, benedictio chrismatis per episcopum: sic communiter theologi contra Juenin qui vult benedictionem per simplicem presbyterum factam esse validam, quamvis illicitam. Accedente dispensatione papali, valeret ne benedictio presbyteralis? Id Thomistæ, negant, concedunt vero Scotistæ Ergo hæc non est conveniens forma hujus sacramenti.
[II-II.q.72.a.4.arg.3] Further, no sin is diminished by its cause. But the sin of reviling is diminished if one gives vent to it through anger: for it is a more grievous sin to revile out of hatred than out of anger. Therefore reviling does not arise from anger.
[II-II.q.72.a.4.arg.3] 3. Præterea, sacramentum hoc debet conformari baptismo, sicut perfectio perfectibili, ut supra dictum est. Sed in forma baptismi non fit mentio de consignatione characteris, nec etiam de cruce Christi, cum tamen per baptismum homo Christo commoriatur, ut Apostolus dicit Rom., vi; nec etiam fit mentio de effectu salutis, cum tamen baptismus sit de necessitate salutis: in forma etiam baptismi ponitur unus actus tantum et exprimitur persona baptizantis cum dicitur: « Ego te baptizo, » cujus contrarium apparet in forma prædicta. Non ergo est conveniens forma hujus sacramenti.
[II-II.q.72.a.4.sc] Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 45) that "anger gives rise to revilings."
[II-II.q.72.a.4.sc] Sed contra est auctoritas Ecclesiæ, quæ hac forma communiter utitur.
[II-II.q.72.a.4.co] While one sin may arise from various causes, it is nevertheless said to have its source chiefly in that one from which it is wont to arise most frequently, through being closely connected with its end. Now reviling is closely connected with anger's end, which is revenge: since the easiest way for the angry man to take revenge on another is to revile him. Therefore reviling arises chiefly from anger.
[II-II.q.72.a.4.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod prædicta forma est conveniens huic sacramento. Sicut enim forma rei naturalis dat ei speciem, ita forma sacramenti continere debet quiquid pertinet ad speciem sacramenti. Sicut autem ex supra dictis patet, in hoc sacramento datur Spiritus sanctus ad robur spiritualis pugnæ. Et ideo in hoc sacramento tria sunt necessaria, quæ continentur in forma prædicta: quorum primum est causa conferens plenitudinem roboris spiritualis, quæ est sancta Trinitas, quæ exprimitur cum dicitur: « In nomine Patris, etc. » Secundum est ipsum robur spirituale quod homini confertur per sacramentum materiæ visibilis ad salutem, quod quidem tangitur cum dicitur: « Confirmo te chrismatæ salutis. » Tertium est signum quod pugnatori datur, sicut et in pugna corporali milites insigniis ducum insigniuntur; et quantum ad hoc dicitur: « Consigno te signo crucis, » in quo scilicet Rex noter triumphavit, ut dicitur Colos., ii.
[II-II.q.72.a.4.ad.1] Reviling is not directed to the end of pride which is excellency. Hence reviling does not arise directly from pride. Nevertheless pride disposes a man to revile, in so far as those who think themselves to excel, are more prone to despise others and inflict injuries on them, because they are more easily angered, through deeming it an affront to themselves whenever anything is done against their will.
[II-II.q.72.a.4.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod, sicut supra dictum est, per ministerium apostolorum quando dabatur effectus hujus sacramenti, scilicet plenitudo Spiritus sancti, quibusdam visibilibus signis miraculose a Deo effectis qui potest effectum sacramenti sine sacramento conferre; et cum aliis pluribus inter quos Cajetanus, Soto et Suarez. Forma Græcorum est: « Signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti. » — Cæterum variæ sunt opiniones circa confirmationis formam. Alii hanc esse volunt orationem: « Omnipotens sempiere Deus...; » alii orationem eamdem cum his verbis: « Signo te signo crucis...; » alii hæc ultima verba solum. tunc non erat necessaria nec materia nec forma hujus sacramenti. Quandoque autem tamquam ministri sacramentorum, hoc sacramentum præbebant, et tunc sicut materia, ita et forma ex mandato Christi utebantur. Multa enim servabant apostoli in sacramentorum collatione, quæ in Scripturis communiter propositis non sunt tradita. Unde Dionysius dicit infine Eccles. hierarch., cap. VII, § 10, part. III, col. 566, t. 4: « Consummativas invocationes, » id est, verba quibus perficiuntur sacramenta, « non est justum Scripturas interpretantibus, neque mysticum earum, aut in ipsis operatas ex Deo virtutes ex occulto ad commune adducere; sed nostra sacra traditio sine pompa, » id est occulte, « eas edocet. » Unde et Apostolus dicit, loquens de celebratione Eucharistiæ, I Corinth., xi, 34: Cætera cum veniam* disponam.
[II-II.q.72.a.4.ad.2] According to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 6) "anger listens imperfectly to reason": wherefore an angry man suffers a defect of reason, and in this he is like the foolish man. Hence reviling arises from folly on account of the latter's kinship with anger.
[II-II.q.72.a.4.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod sanctitas est salutis causa. Et ideo in idem redit quod dicitur « chrismate salutis » et « sanctificationis. »
[II-II.q.72.a.4.ad.3] According to the Philosopher (Rhet. ii, 4) "an angry man seeks an open offense, but he who hates does not worry about this." Hence reviling which denotes a manifest injury belongs to anger rather than to hatred.
The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas AquinasSecond and Revised Edition, 1920Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican ProvinceOnline Edition Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.APPROBATIO ORDINISNihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis AngliæMARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ
[II-II.q.72.a.4.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod baptismus est regeneratio in spiritualem vitam qua homo vivit in seipso, et ideo non ponitur in forma baptisminisi ipse actus ad ipsum hominem sanctificandum pertinens. Sed hoc sacramentum non solum ordinatur ad hoc quod homo sanctificetur in seipso, sed exponitur cuidam pugnæ exteriori; et ideo non solum fit mentio de interiori sanctificatione, cum dicitur: « Confirmo te chrismate salutis, » sed etiam consignatur homo exterius quasi vexillo crucis ad pugnam exteriorem spiritualem, quod significatur cum dicitur: « Consigno te signo crucis. » In ipso autem verbo baptizandi, quod ablutionem significat, potest intelligi et materia, quæ est aqua abluens, et effectus salutis, quæ non intelliguntur in verbo confirmandi; et ideo oportuit hæc ponere. Dictum est autem supra, quod hoc quod dicitur « Ego, » non est de necessitate formæ baptismalis, quia intelligitur in verbo primæ personæ; aponitur tamen ad exprimendam intentionem; quod non est ita necessarium in confirmatione, quæ non exhibeturnisi ab excellenti ministro, ut infra dicetur.
JSON: /api/sources/opera-omnia-aquinas/summa-theologiae/secunda-secundae/q072.json