Character (in Catholic Theology)

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

Character indicates a special effect produced by three of thesacraments, viz. Baptism, Confirmation, andHoly orders. This special effect is called the sacramental character. The term implies a relation (as will be explained below) to a term used in the Epistle to the Hebrews (1:3) concerning theSon of God, who is there described as theCharaktèr tês hypostáseos autoû, or "figure [figura] of the Father's substance". InProtestanttheology, the term character is used in another sense in treatises concerning theBlessed Trinity; the phrase "hypostatic character" being employed to signify the distinctive characteristic (or whatCatholictheologians call theproprietas personalis) of each of the Three Divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Here we are concerned only with the sense of the word inCatholictheology, that is, with sacramental character.

Sacramental character means a specialsupernatural and ineffaceable mark, or seal, or distinction, impressed upon thesoul by each of theSacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, andHoly orders; and it is by reason of this ineffaceable mark that none of these threesacraments may be administered more than once to the sameperson. This is expressCatholic doctrine declared both in theCouncil of Florence (Sess. ult., Decret. Eugenii IV, §5) and in theCouncil of Trent (Sess. VII, can. ix, and Sess. XXIII, cap. iv and can. iv).

If any one shall say that in threesacraments, viz. Baptism, Confirmation, andHoly orders, there is not a character impressed upon thesoul, that is a certain spiritual and ineffaceable mark [signum] whence thesesacraments cannot be iterated, let him beanathema (Concil. Trid. Sess. ult., can. vii).

If, indeed, there be gravedoubt whether any one of thesesacraments has really been administered, or whether the manner of its administration has been valid, then it may be administered in a conditional form. But if they really have been validly administered, they cannot again, without sacrilege, be conferred upon the sameperson. The character imparted by thesesacraments is something distinct from the grace imparted by them. In common with the othersacraments, they are channels ofsanctifying grace. But these three have the special prerogative of conferring both grace and a character. In consequence of the distinction between the sacramental grace and the sacramental character, it may even happen, in the reception of thesesacraments, that the character is imparted and the grace withheld; the lack of proper dispositions which is sufficient to prevent the reception of the grace may not prevent the reception of the character. Thus, an adult who receivesbaptism without rightfaith and repentance but with a real intention of receiving thesacrament, obtains the character without the grace. The sacramental character, then, is not in itself a sanctifying gift; it is of a legal and official, rather than of a moral, nature. Nevertheless, normally, the character has a connection with grace. It is only accidentally, by reason of some faulty disposition in the recipient of thesacrament, that the association between the character and the grace is broken. In the Divine intention, and in the efficacy of thesacraments, the grace and the character go together; and the grace is proportioned to the special function which the character indicates. So that the character is sometimes called a sign, or mark, of grace.

The sacramental character, as we have said, is ineffaceable from thesoul. This means, not that the effacement of this spiritual mark is an absolute metaphysical impossibility, but that in the established order ofDivine Providence there is no cause which can destroy it in this life--neithersin, nor degradation from theecclesiastical state, nor apostasy. This is offaith; and it is atheological opinion of great probability that the character is not effaced from thesouls of the blessed inHeaven; while it is an opinion of some probability, that it is not effaced from thesouls of the lost. Theology further tells us that character is a mark, sign, or badge by which the recipient is devoted to the work of worshippingGod according to the ordinances of theChristian religion andChristian life; and that this is the reason why a character should be impressed by thesacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, andHoly orders rather than by the others. Not all of thesacraments are directly and immediatelyordained for the work of Divine worship; e.g. theSacrament of Penance only absolves fromsin, restoring the sinner to his former state, but not conferring on him any special privilege or faculty. Again, among thesacraments immediately connected with the worship ofGod, we may distinguish between thesacrament which constitutes the very act of worship (that is the Eucharist), and thosesacraments which qualify aperson to take part, as an agent or recipient, in the worship. Now these last are Baptism, Confirmation, andHoly orders. The Sacrament of Orders consecrates a man to the work of Divine worship as an agent, i.e. for the conferring of thesacraments upon otherpersons;baptism dedicates aperson to Divine worship by qualifying him to receive the othersacraments; and confirmation, which confers spiritual manhood (as distinguished from the new birth ofbaptism), qualifies the recipient for theduty of honouringGod by professing theChristian Faith before its enemies. The sacramental character is compared bytheologians to a military badge, or the insignia of anorder of knighthood.Scotus illustrates it by an argument drawn from the analogy of civilsociety, in which he names three official ranks:

Bybaptism, he says, we are enrolled in the household ofChrist; by confirmation, we are made soldiers ofChrist; byHoly orders, we are made officers. And as these ranks have their distinctive badges in civilsociety, so in the spiritualsociety, or Church, the ranks are distinguished in the sight ofGod and Hisangels by spiritual badges, marks, or sacramental characters.

Alltheologians affirm that the sacramental character is not a mere external denomination; and practically all are agreed that it is a sort of quality or state made inherent in thesoul. Those, such asScotus, who say that it is a relation (toChrist) mean that it is a relation with a realfundamentum, or ground and whether we say that it is a relation having a ground in thesoul, or a state or quality involving a relation, seems to signify quite the same thing, the difference being only in the expression. The category of quality being divided byAristotelean andScholasticphilosophers into four kinds,theologians for the most part classify the sacramental character as something akin to the genus of quality called power.Theologians also tell us that the character inheres not in the very substance of thesoul but in one of the rational faculties; but it is a question in dispute whether the faculty in which the character inheres as its subject be the will or the practical reason (theScotists holding that it is the will; theThomists, that it is the practical reason). The sacramental character or mark is the character or mark ofChrist, not of the Holy Spirit, and as the Redeemer has three prerogatives, as Prophet, Priest, and King, this mark is the mark ofChrist as Priest. It is a participation in Hispriesthood and an assimilation to it. Now, every created perfection is a shadow of some perfection of the Deity, and therefore assimilation toChrist even in Hishumannature is assimilation toGod. And as the Son is described in the Epistle to the Hebrews as "the Character of the Father'ssubstance", hence the sacramental character has been defined as "a distinction impressed by the Eternal Character [the Son] upon the created trinity [i.e. thesoul with theintellect and the will] sealing it into a likeness(secundum imaginem consignans) unto the Trinity which creates and anew-creates(Trinitati creanti et recreanti)." Fortheology distinguishes in thesoul

Thedoctrine of the sacramental character is one of those which have been developed, and its history is traceable with sufficient clearness. It is to be observed, however, that thedoctrine rests upon the authority of theCouncil of Trent, and that the history is given as history, not for the purpose of invoking the authority of the primitive Church. Though first solemnly defined by theCouncil of Trent, it had already been officially declared in theCouncil of Florence; and it was the unanimous opinion of alltheologians, long before the time ofWyclif, who questioned it. It was set forth with the utmost explicitness bySt. Augustine in the controversies of the fifth century. He points out that all who favoured rebaptism did so because they failed to distinguish between two effects of thesacrament that is between the sanctifying gift of grace and the Holy Spirit, on the one hand, and the gift, on the other hand, which was not in itself sanctifying but which was a mark dedicating the recipient (cf. Contra Ep. Parm., II, n. 28, with Ep. xcviii ad. Bonifac.). In this controversy thedoctrine of the sacramental character was but asserting itself with greater emphasis because it was (constructively) attacked. TheChurch was but bringing out into distinctness adoctrine held all along. For the Fathers of the fourth century habitually speak ofbaptism as a permanent, an everlasting, or an ineffaceable, seal; and what they say ofbaptism may be applied to confirmation, since the twosacraments were usually associated. They compare the seal, or mark, ofbaptism with the insignia of soldiers, with the mark placed by shepherds upon sheep, withcircumcision, with the marking of the doorposts of theIsraelites inEgypt. Such evidence as we have from the earlier ages all tends to prove that the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries were only thinking out more explicitly what they had received from their predecessors. ThusHippolytus contrasts the seal (or mark) ofbaptism, the mark given byChrist to his believers, with the mark of the beast (Hippolyt., De Christo et Antichristo, n. 6); the writer of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (seePOPE ST. CLEMENT I;CLEMENTINES) calls it (c. 7, 8) the "seal impressed"; the "Pastor" of Hermas (lib. III, Simil., IX, cc. 6, 16, 17, 31) speaks ofbaptism as a seal. At the end of the second century we find in the work known as "Excerpta Theodoti" (n. lxxvi), generally attributed toClement of Alexandria, historical evidence of the existence of thedoctrine. As the coin circulating inJudea inChrist's time bore the image and superscription of Cæsar, so, the writer says, does the believer obtain throughChrist the name ofGod as an inscription, and the Holy Spirit as an image, upon hissoul; as even brute animals by a mark show their owner and by a mark are distinguished, so thebelievingsoul, which has received the seal oftruth, bears the marks(stígmata) ofChrist.

In the light of this traditional teaching it is possible to see some reference to thistruth in the Apostolic writings. ThusSt. Paul says: "Now he that confirmeth us with you inChrist, and that hath anointed us, isGod: Who also hath sealed us, and given the Pledge of the Spirit in our hearts" (2 Corinthians 1:21-22). Here there is a distinction made between the "unction", i.e. grace, and the "sealing", or impressing of a mark (character), and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Again he says: "In whom [Christ] alsobelieving you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise" (Ephesians 1:13), and "grieve not theholy Spirit of God: whereby you are sealed unto the day ofredemption" (4:30). It is obvious, therefore, that thisdoctrine has been taught from the beginning, at first, indeed, without emphasis or clearness, in an obscure and only half-conscious manner, but with growing clearness; and though sometheologians in theMiddle Ages may havedoubted whether it could be proved to be contained in the deposit ofrevealedtruth, they did not at alldoubt that it wastrue, or that it was a part ofCatholic teaching.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT