SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 60, Art. 2]

Whether Every Sign of a Holy Thing Is a Sacrament?

Objection 1: It seems that not every sign of a sacred thing is a

sacrament. For all sensible creatures are signs of sacred things;

according to Rom. 1:20: "The invisible things of God are clearly seen

being understood by the things that are made." And yet all sensible

things cannot be called sacraments. Therefore not every sign of a

sacred thing is a sacrament.

Obj. 2: Further, whatever was done under the Old Law was a figure of

Christ Who is the "Holy of Holies" (Dan. 9:24), according to 1 Cor.

10:11: "All (these) things happened to them in figure"; and Col.

2:17: "Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is

Christ's." And yet not all that was done by the Fathers of the Old

Testament, not even all the ceremonies of the Law, were sacraments,

but only in certain special cases, as stated in the Second Part

(I-II, Q. 101, A. 4). Therefore it seems that not every sign of a

sacred thing is a sacrament.

Obj. 3: Further, even in the New Testament many things are done in

sign of some sacred thing; yet they are not called sacraments; such

as sprinkling with holy water, the consecration of an altar, and such

like. Therefore not every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament.

_On the contrary,_ A definition is convertible with the thing

defined. Now some define a sacrament as being "the sign of a sacred

thing"; moreover, this is clear from the passage quoted above (A. 1)

from Augustine. Therefore it seems that every sign of a sacred thing

is a sacrament.

_I answer that,_ Signs are given to men, to whom it is proper to

discover the unknown by means of the known. Consequently a sacrament

properly so called is that which is the sign of some sacred thing

pertaining to man; so that properly speaking a sacrament, as

considered by us now, is defined as being the "sign of a holy thing

so far as it makes men holy."

Reply Obj. 1: Sensible creatures signify something holy, viz. Divine

wisdom and goodness inasmuch as these are holy in themselves; but not

inasmuch as we are made holy by them. Therefore they cannot be called

sacraments as we understand sacraments now.

Reply Obj. 2: Some things pertaining to the Old Testament signified

the holiness of Christ considered as holy in Himself. Others

signified His holiness considered as the cause of our holiness; thus

the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb signified Christ's Sacrifice

whereby we are made holy: and such like are properly styled

sacraments of the Old Law.

Reply Obj. 3: Names are given to things considered in reference to

their end and state of completeness. Now a disposition is not an end,

whereas perfection is. Consequently things that signify disposition

to holiness are not called sacraments, and with regard to these the

objection is verified: only those are called sacraments which signify

the perfection of holiness in man.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part III (Tertia Pars) From the Complete American Edition · 第 402 / 654 题