Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It seems that a character is not a spiritual power. For "character" seems to be the same thing as "figure"; hence (Heb. 1:3), where we read "figure of His substance, "for "figure" the Greek has {charakter}. Now "figure" is in the fourth species of quality, and thus differs from power which is in the second species. Therefore character is not a spiritual power.

Objection 2: Further, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii): "The Divine Beatitude admits him that seeks happiness to a share in Itself, and grants this share to him by conferring on him Its light as a kind of seal." Consequently, it seems that a character is a kind of light. Now light belongs rather to the third species of quality. Therefore a character is not a power, since this seems to belong to the second species.

Objection 3: Further, character is defined by some thus: "A character is a holy sign of the communion of faith and of the holy ordination conferred by a hierarch." Now a sign is in the genus of "relation," not of "power." Therefore a character is not a spiritual power.

Objection 4: Further, a power is in the nature of a cause and principle (Metaph. v). But a "sign" which is set down in the definition of a character is rather in the nature of an effect. Therefore a character is not a spiritual power.

On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii): "There are three things in the soul, power, habit, and passion." Now a character is not a passion: since a passion passes quickly, whereas a character is indelible, as will be made clear further on (Article 5). In like manner it is not a habit: because no habit is indifferent to acting well or ill: whereas a character is indifferent to either, since some use it well, some ill. Now this cannot occur with a habit: because no one abuses a habit of virtue, or uses well an evil habit. It remains, therefore, that a character is a power.

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), the sacraments of the New Law produce a character, in so far as by them we are deputed to the worship of God according to the rite of the Christian religion. Wherefore Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. ii), after saying that God "by a kind of sign grants a share of Himself to those that approach Him," adds "by making them Godlike and communicators of Divine gifts." Now the worship of God consists either in receiving Divine gifts, or in bestowing them on others. And for both these purposes some power is needed; for to bestow something on others, active power is necessary; and in order to receive, we need a passive power. Consequently, a character signifies a certain spiritual power ordained unto things pertaining to the Divine worship.

But it must be observed that this spiritual power is instrumental: as we have stated above (Question 62, Article 4) of the virtue which is in the sacraments. For to have a sacramental character belongs to God's ministers: and a minister is a kind of instrument, as the Philosopher says (Polit. i). Consequently, just as the virtue which is in the sacraments is not of itself in a genus, but is reducible to a genus, for the reason that it is of a transitory and incomplete nature: so also a character is not properly in a genus or species, but is reducible to the second species of quality.

Reply to Objection 1: Configuration is a certain boundary of quantity. Wherefore, properly speaking, it is only in corporeal things; and of spiritual things is said metaphorically. Now that which decides the genus or species of a thing must needs be predicated of it properly. Consequently, a character cannot be in the fourth species of quality, although some have held this to be the case.

Reply to Objection 2: The third species of quality contains only sensible passions or sensible qualities. Now a character is not a sensible light. Consequently, it is not in the third species of quality as some have maintained.

Reply to Objection 3: The relation signified by the word "sign" must needs have some foundation. Now the relation signified by this sign which is a character, cannot be founded immediately on the essence of the soul: because then it would belong to every soul naturally. Consequently, there must be something in the soul on which such a relation is founded. And it is in this that a character essentially consists. Therefore it need not be in the genus "relation" as some have held.

Reply to Objection 4: A character is in the nature of a sign in comparison to the sensible sacrament by which it is imprinted. But considered in itself, it is in the nature of a principle, in the way already explained.

Articulus 2

Argumentum 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod character non sit spiritualis potestas. Character enim idem videtur esse quod figura, unde ad Heb. I, ubi dicitur, figura substantiae eius, in Graeco habetur loco figurae character.

Sed figura est in quarta specie qualitatis, et ita differt a potestate, quae est in secunda specie qualitatis.

Character ergo non est spiritualis potestas.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, dionysius dicit, II cap. Eccles. Hier., quod divina beatitudo accedentem ad beatitudinem in sui participationem recipit, et proprio lumine, quasi quodam signo, ipsi tradit suam participationem.

Et sic videtur quod character sit quoddam lumen. Sed lumen pertinet magis ad tertiam speciem qualitatis. Non ergo character est potestas, quae videtur ad secundam speciem qualitatis pertinere.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, a quibusdam character sic definitur, character est signum sanctum communionis fidei et sanctae ordinationis, datum a hierarcha.

Signum autem est in genere relationis, non autem in genere potestatis. Non ergo character est spiritualis potestas.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, potestas habet rationem causae et principii, ut patet in V metaphys..

Sed signum, quod ponitur in definitione characteris, magis pertinet ad rationem effectus.

Character ergo non est spiritualis potestas.

Sed Contra

Sed contra, philosophus dicit, in II ethic., tria sunt in anima, potentia, habitus et passio.

Sed character non est passio, quia passio cito transit, character autem indelebilis est, ut infra dicetur.

Similiter etiam non est habitus. Quia nullus habitus est qui se possit ad bene et male habere. Character autem ad utrumque se habet, utuntur enim eo quidam bene, alii vero male. Quod in habitibus non contingit, nam habitu virtutis nullus utitur male, habitu malitiae nullus bene.

Ergo relinquitur quod character sit potentia.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, sacramenta novae legis characterem imprimunt inquantum per ea deputamur ad cultum dei secundum ritum christianae religionis.

Unde dionysius, in II cap. Eccles. Hier., cum dixisset quod deus quodam signo tradit sui participationem accedenti, subiungit, perficiens eum divinum et communicatorem divinorum.

Divinus autem cultus consistit vel in recipiendo aliqua divina, vel in tradendo aliis. Ad utrumque autem horum requiritur quaedam potentia, nam ad tradendum aliquid aliis, requiritur potentia activa; ad recipiendum autem requiritur potentia passiva. Et ideo character importat quandam potentiam spiritualem ordinatam ad ea quae sunt divini cultus.

Sciendum tamen quod haec spiritualis potentia est instrumentalis, sicut supra dictum est de virtute quae est in sacramentis.

Habere enim sacramenti characterem competit ministris dei, minister autem habet se per modum instrumenti, ut philosophus dicit, in I polit..

Et ideo, sicut virtus quae est in sacramentis, non est in genere per se, sed per reductionem, eo quod est quiddam fluens et incompletum; ita etiam character non proprie est in genere vel specie, sed reducitur ad secundam speciem qualitatis.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod figuratio est quaedam terminatio quantitatis. Unde, proprie loquendo, non est nisi in rebus corporeis, in spiritualibus autem dicitur metaphorice. Non autem ponitur aliquid in genere vel specie nisi per id quod de eo proprie praedicatur. Et ideo character non potest esse in quarta specie qualitatis, licet hoc quidam posuerint.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod in tertia specie qualitatis non sunt nisi sensibiles passiones, vel sensibiles qualitates.

Character autem non est lumen sensibile. Et ita non est in tertia specie qualitatis, ut quidam dixerunt.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod relatio quae importatur in nomine signi, oportet quod super aliquid fundetur. Non autem relatio huius signi quod est character, potest fundari immediate super essentiam animae, quia sic conveniret omni animae naturaliter. Et ideo oportet aliquid poni in anima super quod fundetur talis relatio. Et hoc est essentia characteris. Unde non oportebit quod sit in genere relationis, sicut quidam posuerunt.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod character habet rationem signi per comparationem ad sacramentum sensibile a quo imprimitur. Sed secundum se consideratus, habet rationem principii, per modum iam dictum.