This was far too long for a Twitter thread, so I decided to post it here. If you appreciate the work I am doing, please consider becoming a Patron at Patreon.com/Militantthomist or send in a tip through PayPal to MilitantThomist@gmail.com
Apologies in advance for all the Latin (most of it is simple enough to get a general idea or just look up the references on Aquinas.cc)...I have been quite busy and have more work to do.
Introduction
In my last paper, I generally covered what St. Thomas taught concerning the rites of the Old Covenant, their efficacy in relation to the rites of the New Covenant. Yet, there is a more complicated issue that arises when we consider circumcision. While St. Thomas denied the sacramental efficacy as actively ex opere operato concerning these rites of the Mosaic covenant, he affirms that "in circumcisione conferebatur gratia quantum ad omnes gratiae effectus." (ST.III.Q70.A4.C.4)
Yet, it is my position that St. Thomas does not contradict his former position, but is in line with it, affirming that St. Thomas affirms a moral causality to circumcision, that circumcision works passively ex opere operato in relation to children by their parent's faith in the future passion of Christ and ex opere operantis in relation to adults by their own faith in the future passion of Christ, denying an efficient causality, yet affirming a final causality in relation to the passion of Christ.
Terms Defined
In order to properly explain and defend this thesis, we will need to investigate, 1. The distinction between causality ex opere operato and ex opere operantis, 2. Between ex opere operato actively and passively wrought, and 3. The distinction between moral causality and physical causality.
The first distinction to be explained is between causality ex opere operato and ex opere operantis. A sacrament which is ex opere operato works apart from any positive disposition present in the minister or recipient. A sacrament which is ex opere operantis requires a positive disposition present in the recipient (or minister).
The second distinction to be explained is between ex opere operato actively and passively wrought. In the former, the virtue is intrinsic to the sacrament. In the latter, the virtue is not intrinsic, as Fr. Woodbury explains "the sacramental sign being posited [rather than, through the sacramental signs working], God alone infused grace" without a view to one's own moral disposition. (Woodbury, Sacraments in General, 104)
The third distinction is between physical and moral causality. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains, "A physical cause really and immediately produces its effects, either as the principal agent or as the instrument used, as when a sculptor uses a chisel to carve a statue. A moral cause is one which moves or entreats a physical cause to act." (Daniel Kennedy, Sacraments)
Aquinas' Position Stated
First, those positions that Aquinas denied. The first position that St. Thomas denies is that, in circumcision, no grace was given, but only the remission of sins. The second position that St. Thomas denies is that, in circumcision, grace was given, but only the negative effects of grace (i.e., the remission of sin).The third position that St. Thomas denies (one which he held in his Sentences commentary, yet it is important to note that he denies his teaching on the effect of the sacrament, not the manner of causality, therefore we may use his teaching on that matter positively) is that, in circumcision, grace was given, with the negative effects and some of the positive effects (yet, "non sufficiebat reprimere concupiscentiam fomitis, nec etiam ad implendum mandata legis").
Thus, St. Thomas denies any position that denies that grace was given in circumcision in its full effects. Yet, disagreement comes in over the manner in which grace was communicated.
Second, that position which Aquinas espoused. To begin with, Aquinas admits that "in circumcisione originale peccatum remittebatur" (ibid., C.1) and affirms that "in circumcisione conferebatur gratia quantum ad omnes gratiae effectus." (ibid., C.4) Yet, he denied that it was in the same mode as grace is conferred in Baptism. In this, St. Thomas, first sets out the specific mode of the communication of grace in baptism, and, second, contrasts that to the proper mode of the communication of grace in circumcision.
First, in setting out the specific mode of the communication of grace in baptism, he sets forth two propositions. First, in Baptism, grace is conferred "ex virtute ipsius Baptismi," (ibid.) i.e., there is some intrinsic virtue whereby Baptism communicates grace. This describes the physical causality of the sacrament. Second, Baptism has this virtue as the "instrumentum passionis Christi," (ibid.) i.e., the manner in which the passion of Christ relates to the conferral of grace is that of an efficient cause. This describes the sacrament as actively ex opere operato in its relationship to the passion of Christ, i.e., as working the passion of Christ in us (c.f., Romans 6:3)
Second, in contrasting circumcision with baptism, he sets forth two propositions.
First, Circumcision bestowed grace as a "signum fidei passionis Christi futurae," (ibid.) i.e., the manner in which the passion of Christ relates to the conferral of grace is that of a final cause (as it has not yet occured and therefore could not operate as an efficient cause). Further, it is said to relate to Christ's passion thus in another place: "in circumcisione conferebatur gratia inquantum erat signum passionis Christi futurae." (ST.III.Q62.A6.Rep3.4)
Second, in Circumcision, grace was not conferred "ex virtute ipsius Baptismi," but "ex fide erat significata, non ex circumcisione significante" (ST.III.Q70.A4.C.4) i.e., not actively ex opere operato. He confirms this in another place when he states that "ex ipso opere operato non habebat virtutem effectivam." (Rom.C4.L2.n349.6). This describes the moral causality of the sacrament. Further, justice was said to be "per fidem passionis Christi"(ST.III.Q70.A4.Rep1) and circumcision a "signum fidei iustificantis" (ST.III.Q62.A6.Rep3.4) and "erat solum iustitiae signum" (Rom.C4.L2.n349.6) rather than an instrument.
Yet, St. Thomas further distinguishes in its relationship with adults and with children. For, both grace was effected by a profession of faith.
For children, the effect was wrought by a profession of faith made for them:"alius pro parvulis." (ST.III.Q70.A4.C.4) This may be described as the sacrament working PASSIVELY ex opere operato. Yet, a difficulty arises here. For, St. Thomas, in an earlier quote denies that "ex ipso opere operato non habebat virtutem effectivam." This is easily solved by distinguishing working ex opere operato in a passive and active manner. For, ex opere operato merely signifies the working of the sacrament as apart from an active disposition in the subject. This is the case in circumcision when it comes to infants and thus it is rightly described as ex opere operato. Yet, the manner of causality distinguishes (whether physically or morally) distinguishes whether it is active or passive. In infants, the disposition is of another subject, i.e., the parents, and on this basis was grace given (thus, working morally). Others may wish to emphasize the the activity on the part of another subject (i.e., the parents) and wish to describe circumcision as "by the working of another" (within the genus of ex opere operantis). Either description is in line with the mind of St. Thomas, yet described from different perspectives.
For adults, the effect was wrought by a profession of faith made by themselves: "adultus pro se." (ibid.) This may be described as the sacrament working ex opere operantis, for, it depends upon a positive moral disposition on the part of the recipient.