 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
Sacraments are outward signs of inwardgrace, instituted byChrist for our sanctification (Catechismus concil. Trident., n. 4, exSt. Augustine,"De Catechizandis rudibus"). The subject may be treated under the following headings:
Almighty God can and does givegrace tomen in answer to their internal aspirations andprayers without the use of any external sign orceremony. This will always be possible, becauseGod,grace, and thesoul are spiritual beings.God is not restricted to the use of material, visible symbols in dealing withmen; the sacraments are notnecessary in the sense that they could not have been dispensed with. But, if it isknown thatGod has appointed external, visibleceremonies as the means by which certaingraces are to be conferred onmen, then in order to obtain thosegraces it will benecessary formen to make use of those Divinely appointed means. Thistruththeologians express by saying that the sacraments arenecessary, not absolutely but only hypothetically, i.e., in the supposition that if we wish to obtain a certainsupernatural end we must use thesupernatural means appointed for obtaining that end. In this sense theCouncil of Trent (Sess. VII, can. 4) declaredheretical those who assert that the sacraments of the New Law are superfluous and notnecessary, although all are notnecessary for eachindividual. It is the teaching of theCatholicChurch and ofChristians in general that, whilstGod was nowise bound to make use of externalceremonies as symbols of things spiritual and sacred, it has pleased Him to do so, and this is the ordinary and most suitable manner of dealing withmen. Writers on the sacraments refer to this as thenecessitas convenientiae, thenecessity of suitableness. It is not really anecessity, but the most appropriate manner of dealing with creatures that are at the same time spiritual and corporeal. In this assertion allChristians are united: it is only when we come to consider thenature of the sacramental signs thatProtestants (except someAnglicans) differ fromCatholics. "To sacraments considered merely as outward forms, pictorial representations or symbolic acts, there is generally no objection", wrote Dr. Morgan Dix ("The sacramental system", New York, 1902, p. 16). "Of sacramentaldoctrine this may be said, that it is co-extensive with historicChristianity. Of this there is no reasonabledoubt, as regards the very ancient days, of whichSt. Chrysostom's treatise on thepriesthood and St. Cyril'scatechetical lectures may be taken as characteristic documents. Nor was it otherwise with the more conservative of the reformed bodies of the sixteenth century.Martin Luther's Catechism, the Augsburg, and later the Westminster, Confessions are strongly sacramental in their tone, putting to shame the degenerate followers of those who compiled them" (ibid., p. 7, 8)
The reasons underlying a sacramental system are as follows:
(a) No sacraments in the state of innocence. According toSt. Thomas (III:61:2) andtheologians generally there were no sacraments before Adamsinned, i.e., in the state of originaljustice.Man's dignity was so great that he was raised above the naturalcondition ofhumannature. Hismind was subject toGod; his lowerfaculties were subject to the higher part of hismind; his body was subject to hissoul; it would have been against the dignity of that state had he been dependent, for the acquisition ofknowledge or ofDivine grace, on anything beneath him, i.e., corporeal things. For this reason the majority oftheologians hold that no sacraments would have been instituted even if that state had lasted for a long time.
(b) Sacraments of thelaw of nature. Apart from what was or might have been in that extraordinary state, the use of sacred symbols is universal.St. Augustine says that every religion,true orfalse, has its visiblesigns or sacraments. "In nullum nomen religionis, seu verum seu falsum, coadunari homines possunt, nisi aliquo signaculorum seu sacramentorum visibilium consortio colligantur" (Reply to Faustus XIX.11). Commentators on theScriptures andtheologians almost unanimously assert that there were sacraments under thelaw of nature and under theMosaic Law, as there are sacraments of greater dignity under the Law of Christ. Under thelaw of nature — so called not to excludesupernaturalrevelation but because at that time there existed no writtensupernaturallaw —salvation was granted throughfaith in the promised Redeemer, andmen expressed thatfaith by some externalsigns. What thosesigns should beGod did not determine, leaving this for the people, most probably to the leaders or heads offamilies, who were guided in their choice by an interior inspiration of theHoly Ghost. This is the conception ofSt. Thomas, who says that, as under thelaw of nature (when there was no writtenlaw),men were guided by interior inspiration in worshipingGod, so also they determined whatsigns should be used in the external acts of worship (III:60:5, ad 3). Afterwards, however, as it wasnecessary to give a writtenlaw: (a) because thelaw of nature had been obscured bysin, and (b) because it was time to give a more explicitknowledge of thegrace ofChrist, then also it becamenecessary to determine what externalsigns should be used as sacraments (III:60:5, ad 3;III:61:3, ad 2) This was notnecessary immediately after the Fall, by reason of the fullness offaith andknowledge imparted to Adam. But about the time ofAbraham, whenfaith had been weakened, many had fallen intoidolatry, and the light ofreason had been obscured by indulgence of thepassions, even unto the commission ofsins againstnature,God intervened and appointed as a sign offaith therite ofcircumcision (Genesis 17;Summa Theologiæ III:70:2, ad 1; seeCIRCUMCISION).
The vast majority oftheologians teach that thisceremony was a sacrament and that it was instituted as a remedy fororiginal sin; consequently that it conferredgrace, not indeed of itself (ex opere operato), but by reason of thefaith inChrist which it expressed. "In circumcisione conferebatur gratia, non ex virtute circumcisionis, sed ex virtute fidei passionis Christi futurae, cujus signum erat circumcisio — quia scilicet justitia erat ex fide significata, non ex circumcisione significante" (Summa Theologiæ III:70:4). Certainly it was at least a sign of something sacred, and it was appointed and determined byGod himself as a sign offaith and as a mark by which thefaithful were distinguished from unbelievers. It was not, however, the only sign offaith used under thelaw of nature. It is incredible, writesSt. Augustine, that beforecircumcision there was no sacrament for the relief (justification) of children, although for some good reason theScriptures do not tell us what that sacrament was (Against Julian III.11). The sacrifice ofMelchisedech, the sacrifice of the friends ofJob, the varioustithes and oblations for the service ofGod are mentioned bySt. Thomas (III:61:3, ad 3;III:65:1, ad 7) as external observances which may be considered as the sacredsigns of that time, prefiguring future sacred institutions: hence, he adds, they may be called sacraments of thelaw of nature.
(c) Sacraments of theMosaic Law. As thetime forChrist's coming drew nearer, in order that theIsraelites might be better instructedGod spoke toMoses,revealing to him in detail the sacredsigns andceremonies by which they were to manifest more explicitly theirfaith in the future Redeemer. Thosesigns andceremonies were the sacraments of theMosaic Law, "which are compared to the sacraments which were before thelaw as something determined to something undetermined, because before thelaw it had not been determined whatsignsmen should use" (Summa Theologiæ III:61:3, ad 2). With theAngelic Doctor (I-II:102:5)theologians usually divide the sacraments of this period into three classes:
The sacraments thus far considered were merelysigns of sacred things. According to the teaching of theCatholicChurch, accepted today by manyEpiscopalians, the sacraments of theChristian dispensation are not meresigns; they do not merely signifyDivine grace, but in virtue of their Divine institution, theycause thatgrace in thesouls ofmen. "Signum sacro sanctum efficax gratiae" — a sacrosanct sign producinggrace, is a good, succinct definition of a sacrament of the New Law. Sacrament, in its broadest acceptation, may be defined as an external sign of something sacred. In the twelfth centuryPeter Lombard (d. 1164), known as the Master of the Sentences, author of the manual of systematizedtheology, gave an accurate definition of a sacrament of the New Law: A sacrament is in such a manner an outward sign of inwardgrace that it bears its image (i.e. signifies or represents it) and is itscause — "Sacramentum proprie dicitur quod ita signum est gratiae Dei, ei invisibilis gratiae forma, ut ipsius imaginem gerat et causa existat" (IV Sent., d.I, n.2). This definition was adopted and perfected by themedieval Scholastics. FromSt. Thomas we have the short but very expressive definition: The sign of a sacred thing in so far as it sanctifiesmen - "Signum rei sacrae in quantum est sanctificans homines" (III.60.2).
All the creatures of theuniverse proclaim something sacred, namely, the wisdom and thegoodness ofGod, as they are sacred in themselves, not as they are sacred things sanctifyingmen, hence they cannot be called sacraments in the sense in which we speak of sacraments (III.60.2, ad 1um). TheCouncil of Trent includes thesubstance of these two definitions in the following: "Symbolum rei sacrae, et invisibilis gratiae forma visibilis, sanctificandi vim habens" — A symbol of something sacred, a visibleform of invisiblegrace, having the power of sanctifying (Sess. XIII, cap.3). The"Catechism of the Council of Trent" gives a more complete definition: Something perceptible by the senses which by Divine institution has the power both to signify and to effectsanctity andjustice (II, n.2).Catholic catechisms in English usually have the following: An outwardsign of inwardgrace, a sacred andmysterious sign orceremony,ordained by Christ, by whichgrace is conveyed to oursouls.Anglican andEpiscopalian theologies and catechisms give definitions whichCatholics could accept.
In every sacrament three things arenecessary: the outward sign; the inwardgrace; Divine institution. A sign stands for and represents something else, either naturally, as smoke represents fire, or by the choice of an intelligent being, as the red cross indicates an ambulance. Sacraments do not naturally signifygrace; they do so because they have been chosen byGod to signifymysterious effects. Yet they are not altogether arbitrary, because in some cases, if not in all, theceremonies performed have a quasi-natural connection with the effect to be produced. Thus, pouring water on the head of a child readily brings to mind the interior purification of thesoul. The word "sacrament" (sacramentum), even as used byprofane Latin writers, signified something sacred, viz., theoath by which soldiers were bound, or the money deposited by litigants in a contest. In the writings of theFathers of the Church the word was used to signify something sacred andmysterious, and where the Latins usesacramentum the Greeks usemysterion (mystery). The sacred andmysterious thing signified isDivine grace, which is the formalcause of ourjustification (seeGRACE), but with it we must associate thePassion of Christ (efficient andmeritoriouscause) and the end (finalcause) of our sanctification, viz.,eternal life. The significance of the sacraments according totheologians (e.g.Summa Theologicæ III.60.3) and theRoman Catechism (II, n. 13) extends to these three sacred things, of which one is past, one present, and one future. The three are aptly expressed inSt. Thomas's beautifulantiphon on theEucharist: "O sacrum convivium, in quo Christus sumitur, recolitur memoria passionis ejus, mens impletur gratia, et futurae gloriae nobis pignus datur — O sacred banquet, in which Christ is received, the memory of the passion is recalled, thesoul is filled withgrace, and a pledge offuture life is given to us".
Protestants generally hold that the sacraments aresigns of something sacred (grace andfaith), but deny that they reallycauseDivine grace.Episcopalians, however, andAnglicans, especially theRitualists, hold withCatholics that the sacraments are "effectualsigns" ofgrace. In article XXV of the Thirty-Nine Articles we read:
Sacramentsordained ofGod be not only badges or tokens ofChristian men's profession, but rather they becertain surewitnesses and effectualsigns ofgrace andGod's good will towards us by which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken but strengthen and confirm ourfaith in Him (cf. art. XXVII).
"TheZwinglian theory", writes Morgan Dix (op. cit., p. 73), "that sacraments are nothing but memorials of Christ and badges ofChristian profession, is one that can by no possible jugglery with the English tongue be reconciled with theformularies of our church." Mortimer adopts and explains theCatholic formula "ex opere operato" (loc. cit., p. 122).Luther and his early followers rejected this conception of the sacraments. They do notcausegrace, but are merely "signs and testimonies ofGod's good will towards us" (Augsburg Confessions); they excitefaith, andfaith (fiduciary) causesjustification.Calvinists andPresbyterians hold substantially the samedoctrine.Zwinglius lowered still further the dignity of the sacraments, making themsigns not ofGod's fidelity but of our fidelity. By receiving the sacraments we manifestfaith inChrist: they are merely the badges of our profession and the pledges of our fidelity. Fundamentally all theseerrors arise fromLuther's newly-invented theory of righteousness, i.e. thedoctrine ofjustification byfaith alone (seeGRACE). Ifman is to be sanctified not by an interior renovation throughgrace which will blot out hissins, but by an extrinsic imputation through themerits ofChrist, which will cover hissoul as a cloak, there is no place forsigns thatcausegrace, and those used can have no other purpose than to excitefaith in theSaviour.Luther's convenientdoctrine onjustification was not adopted by all his followers and it is not baldly and boldly proclaimed by allProtestants today; nevertheless they accept its consequences affecting thetrue notion of the sacraments.
Against all innovators theCouncil of Trent declared: "If anyone say that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain thegrace which they signify, or that they do not confergrace on those who place no obstacle to the same, let him beanathema" (Sess. viii, can.vi). "If anyone say thatgrace is not conferred by the sacraments ex opere operato but thatfaith inGod's promises is alone sufficient for obtaininggrace, let him beanathema" (ibid., can. viii; cf. can. iv, v, vii). The phrase "ex opere operato", for which there is no equivalent in English, probably was used for the first time byPeter of Poitiers (d. 1205), and afterwards byInnocent III (d. 1216; de myst. missae, III, v), and bySt. Thomas (d. 1274; IV Sent., dist. 1, Q.i, a.5). It was happily invented to express atruth that had always been taught and had been introduced without objection. It is not an elegant formula but, asSt. Augustine remarks (Enarration on Psalm 138): It is better that grammarians should object than that the people should not understand. "Ex opere operato", i.e. by virtue of the action, means that the efficacy of the action of the sacraments does not depend on anythinghuman, but solely on the will ofGod as expressed byChrist's institution and promise. "Ex opere operantis", i.e. by reason of the agent, would mean that the action of the sacraments depended on the worthiness either of theminister or of the recipient (see Pourrat, "Theology of the Sacraments", tr. St. Louis, 1910, 162 sqq.).Protestants cannot ingood faith object to the phrase as if it meant that the mere outwardceremony, apart fromGod's action, causesgrace. It is well known thatCatholics teach that the sacraments are only the instrumental, not the principal, causes ofgrace. Neither can it be claimed that the phrase adopted by the council does away with all dispositionsnecessary on the part of the recipient, the sacraments acting like infallible charms causinggrace in those who are ill-disposed or in grievoussin. The fathers of the council were careful to note that there must be no obstacle tograce on the part of the recipients, who must receive themrite, i.e. rightly and worthily; and they declare it acalumny to assert that they require no previous dispositions (Sess. XIV, de poenit., cap.4). Dispositions are required to prepare the subject, but they are acondition (conditio sine qua non), not the causes, of thegrace conferred. In this case the sacraments differ from thesacramentals, which maycausegraceex opere operantis, i.e. by reason of theprayers of theChurch or the good,pious sentiments of those who use them.
In examiningproofs of theCatholic doctrine it must be borne in mind that ourrule of faith is not simplyScripture, butScripture andtradition.
(a) InSacred Scripture we find expressions which clearly indicate that the sacraments are more than meresigns ofgrace andfaith: "Unless a man be born again of water and theHoly Ghost, he cannot enter into thekingdom of God" (John 3:5); "Hesaved us, by the laver ofregeneration, and renovation of theHoly Ghost" (Titus 3:5); "Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received theHoly Ghost" (Acts 8:17); "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life . . . For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55-56). These and similar expressions (see articles on each sacrament) are, to say the least, very much exaggerated if they do not mean that the sacramentalceremony is in some sense thecause of thegrace conferred.
(b)Tradition clearly indicates the sense in which they have been interpreted in theChurch. From the numerous expressions used by the Fathers we select the following: "TheHoly Ghost comes down fromheaven and hovers over the waters, sanctifying them of Himself, and thus they imbibe the power of sanctifying" (Tertullian,On Baptism 4). "Baptism is the expiation ofsins, the remission of crimes, thecause of renovation andregeneration" (St. Gregory of Nyssa,On the Baptism of Christ). "Explain to me the manner of nativity in the flesh and I will explain to you theregeneration of thesoul . . . Throughout, by Divine power and efficacy, it is incomprehensible; no reasoning, no art can explain it" (On the Baptism of Christ). "He that passes through the fountain [Baptism] shall not die but rises to new life" (St. Ambrose,On the Mysteries I.4). "Whence this great power of water", exclaimsSt. Augustine, "that it touches the body and cleanses thesoul?" (Tractate 80 on the Gospel of John). "Baptism", writes the same Father, "consists not in themerits of those by whom it is administered, nor of those to whom it is administered, but in its ownsanctity andtruth, on account of Him who instituted it" (Cont. Cres., IV). Thedoctrinesolemnlydefined by theCouncil of Trent had been announced in previous councils, notably at Constantinople (381;Symb. Fid.), atMileve (416; can.ii) in theSecond Council of Orange (529; can. xv); and in theCouncil of Florence (1439; Decr. pro. Armen., seeDenzinger-Bannwart, nn. 86, 102, 200, 695). The earlyAnglican Church held fast to thetruedoctrine: "Baptism is not only a sign of profession and a mark of difference, whereby christened men are discerned from those that be not christened, but is also a sign ofregeneration or New-Birth, whereby as by an instrument they that receiveBaptism rightly are grafted into the church" (Art. XXVII).
(c) Theological argument. — The Westminster Confession adds: "TheBaptism of children is in any wise to be retained in the church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ". IfBaptism does not confergraceex opere operato, but simply excitesfaith, then we ask: (1) Of what use would this be if the language used be not understood by the recipient, i.e. an infant or an adult that does not understand Latin? In such cases it might be more beneficial to the bystanders than to the onebaptized. (2) In what does theBaptism of Christ surpass theBaptism ofJohn, for the latter could excitefaith? Why were thosebaptized by theBaptism ofJohn rebaptized with theBaptism of Christ? (Acts 19). (3) How can it be said thatBaptism is strictlynecessary forsalvation sincefaith can be excited and expressed in many other ways? FinallyEpiscopalians andAnglicans of today would not revert to thedoctrine ofgrace ex opere operato unless they were convinced that the ancientfaith was warranted byScripture andTradition.
Scholastic writers of the thirteenth century introduced into their explanations of the sacraments terms which were derived from thephilosophy ofAristotle.William of Auxerre (d. 1223) was the first to apply to them the wordsmatter (materia) andform (forma). As in physical bodies, so also in the sacramentalrite we find two elements, one undetermined, which is called thematter, the other determining, called theform. For instance, water may be used for drinking, or for cooling or cleansing the body, but the words pronounced by theminister when he pours water on the head of the child, with theintention of doing what theChurch does, determines the meaning of theact, so that it signifies the purification of thesoul bygrace. Thematter andform (theres et verba) make up the externalrite, which has its special significance and efficacy from the institution of Christ. The words are the more important element in the composition, becausemen express their thoughts andintentions principally by words. "Verba inter homines obtinuerunt principatum significandi" (St. Augustine,Christian Doctrine II.3;Summa Theologiæ III.60.6). It must not be supposed that the things used for the acts performed, for they are included in the res, remarksSt. Thomas(Summa Theologiæ III.60.6, ad 2) have no significance. They too may be symbolical, e.g. anointing the body with oil relates to health; but their significance is clearly determined by the words. "In all the compounds ofmatter andform the determining element is theform: (Summa Theologiæ III.60.7).
The terminology was somewhat new, thedoctrine was old; the sametruth had been expressed in former times in different words. Sometimes theform of the sacrament meant the whole externalrite (St. Augustine,Of Sin and Merit I.34; Council of Mileve, De bapt.). What we call thematter andform were referred to as "mystic symbols"; "the sign and the thing invisible"; the "word and the element" (St. Augustine,Tractate 80 on the Gospel of John). The new terminology immediately found favour. It wassolemnly ratified by being used in theDecree for theArmenians, which was added to theDecrees of theCouncil of Florence, yet has not the value of aconciliardefinition (seeDenzinger-Bannwart, 695;Hurter, "Theol. dog. comp.", I, 441; Pourrat, op. cit., p. 51). TheCouncil of Trent used the wordsmatter andform (Sess. XIV, cap. ii, iii, can. iv), but did notdefine that the sacramentalrite was composed of these two elements.Leo XIII, in the"Apostolicae Curae" (13 Sept., 1896) made thescholastic theory the basis of his declaration, and pronounced ordinations performed according to theancient Anglican rite invalid, owing to a defect in theform used and a lack of thenecessaryintention on the part of theministers. The hylomorphistic theory furnishes a very apt comparison and sheds much light on our conception of the externalceremony. Nevertheless ourknowledge of the sacraments is not dependent on thisScholastic terminology, and the comparison must not be carried too far. The attempt to verify the comparison (of sacraments to a body) in all details of the sacramentalrite will lead to confusing subtilities or to singular opinions, e.g.,Melchior Cano's (De locis theol., VIII, v.3) opinion as to theminister ofMatrimony (seeMARRIAGE; cf. Pourrat, op. cit., ii).
It might now be asked: in how far was itnecessary that thematter andform of the sacraments should have been determined byChrist?
TheCouncil of Trentdefined that the seven sacraments of the New Law were instituted by Christ (Sess. VII, can.i). This settles the question of fact for allCatholics.Reason tells us that all sacraments must come originally fromGod. Since they are thesigns of sacred things in so far as by these sacred thingsmen are sanctified (Summa Theologiæ III:60:2); since the externalrite (matter andform) of itself cannot givegrace, it is evident that all sacraments properly so called must originate in Divine appointment. "Since the sanctification ofman is in the power ofGod who sanctifies", writesSt. Thomas (Summa Theologiæ III:60:2), "it is not in the competency ofman to choose the things by which he is to be sanctified, but this must be determined by Divine institution". Add to this thatgrace is, in some sense, a participation of the Divinenature (seeGRACE) and ourdoctrine becomes unassailable:God alone candecree that by exteriorceremoniesmen shall be partakers of Hisnature.
God alone is the principalcause of the sacraments. He alone authoritatively and by innate power can give to external materialrites the power to confergrace onmen. Christ asGod, equally with the Father, possessed this principal, authoritative, innate power. Asman He had another power whichSt. Thomas calls "the power of the principalministry" or "the power of excellence" (III:64:3). "Christ produced the interior effects of the sacraments bymeriting them and by effecting them. . . Thepassion of Christ is thecause of ourjustification meritoriously and effectively, not as the principal agent and authoritatively but as an instrument, inasmuch as His Humanity was the instrument of His Divinity" (III:64:3; cf.III:13:1,III:13:3). There istheologicaltruth as well aspiety in the old maxim: "From the side of Christ dying on the cross flowed the sacraments by which theChurch wassaved" (Gloss. Ord. in Rom. 5:Summa Theologiæ III:62:5). The principal efficientcause ofgrace isGod, to whom the Humanity of Christ is as a conjoined instrument, the sacraments being instruments not joined to the Divinity (byhypostatic union): therefore the saving power of the sacraments passes from the Divinity ofChrist, through His Humanity into the sacraments (Summa Theologiæ III:62:5). One who weighs well all these words will understand whyCatholics have great reverence for the sacraments.Christ's power of excellence consists in four things: (1) Sacraments have their efficacy from Hismerits and sufferings; (2) they are sanctified and they sanctify in His name; (3) He could and He did institute the sacraments; (4) He could produce the effects of the sacraments without the externalceremony (Summa Theologiæ III:64:3). Christ could have communicated this power of excellence tomen: this was not absolutely impossible (III:64:4). But, (1) had He done somen could not have possessed it with the sameperfection as Christ: "He would have remained the head of theChurch principally, others secondarily" (III:64:3). (2) Christ did not communicate this power, and this for the good of thefaithful: (a) that they might place theirhope inGod and not inmen; (b) that there might not be different sacraments, giving rise to divisions in theChurch (III:64:1). This second reason is mentioned bySt. Paul (1 Corinthians 1:12-13): "every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I ofCephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? Or were youbaptized in the name of Paul?"
TheCouncil of Trent did notdefine explicitly and formally that all the sacraments were instituted immediately byChrist. Before the council greattheologians, e.g.Peter Lombard (IV Sent., d. xxiii),Hugh of St. Victor (De sac. II, ii)Alexander of Hales (Summa, IV, Q. xxiv, 1) held that some sacraments were instituted by theApostles, using power that had been given to them byJesus Christ.Doubts were raised especially aboutConfirmation andExtreme Unction.St. Thomas rejects the opinion thatConfirmation was instituted by theApostles. It was instituted by Christ, he holds, when he promised to send theParaclete, although it was never administered whilst He was on earth, because the fullness of theHoly Ghost was not to be given until after theAscension: "Christus instituit hoc sacramentum, non exhibendo, sed promittendo" (Summa Theologiæ III.62.1, ad 1um). TheCouncil of Trentdefined that thesacrament of Extreme Unction was instituted byChrist andpromulgated bySt. James (Sess. XIV, can.i). Sometheologians, e.g. Becanus,Bellarmine,Vasquez,Gonet, etc. thought the words of the council (Sess. VII, can.i) were explicit enough to make the immediate institution of all the sacraments by Christ a matter ofdefinedfaith. They are opposed bySoto (atheologian of the council),Estius,Gotti,Tournély,Berti, and a host of others, so that now nearly alltheologians unite in saying: it is theologicallycertain, but notdefined (de fide) that Christ immediately instituted all the sacraments of the New Law. In thedecree "Lamentabili", 3 July, 1907,Pius X condemned twelve propositions of theModernists, who would attribute the origin of the sacraments to somespecies of evolution or development. The first sweeping proposition is this: "The sacraments had their origin in this that theApostles, persuaded and moved by circumstances and events, interpreted someidea andintention of Christ", (Demzinger-Bannwart, 2040). Then follow eleven propositions relating to each of the sacraments in order (ibid., 2041-51). These propositions deny that Christ immediately instituted the sacraments and some seem to deny even their mediate institution by theSaviour.
Granting that Christ immediately instituted all the sacraments, it does not necessarily follow that personally He determined all the details of the sacredceremony, prescribing minutely every iota relating to thematter and theform to be used. It is sufficient (even for immediate institution) to say: Christ determined what specialgraces were to be conferred by means of externalrites: for some sacraments (e.g.Baptism, theEucharist) He determined minutely (in specie) thematter andform: for others He determined only in a general way (in genere) that there should be an externalceremony, by which specialgraces were to be conferred, leaving to theApostles or to theChurch the power to determine whatever He had not determined, e.g. to prescribe thematter andform of the Sacraments ofConfirmation andHoly Orders. TheCouncil of Trent (Sess. XXI, cap. ii) declared that theChurch had not the power to change the "substance" of the sacraments. She would not be claiming power to alter thesubstance of the sacraments if she used her Divinely given authority to determine more precisely thematter andform in so far as they had not been determined byChrist. This theory (which is not modern) had been adopted bytheologians: by it we can solve historical difficulties relating, principally, toConfirmation andHoly Orders.
That Christ was satisfied to lay down theessential principles from which, after a more or less protracted development, would come forth the fully developed sacraments? This is an application ofNewman's theory of development, according to Pourrat (op. cit., p. 300), who proposes two other formulae; Christ instituted all the sacraments immediately, but did not himself give them all to theChurch fully constituted; orJesus instituted immediately and explicitlyBaptism andHoly Eucharist: He instituted immediately but implicitly the five other sacraments (loc. cit., p. 301). Pourrat himself thinks the latter formula too absolute.Theologians probably will consider it rather dangerous, and at least "male sonans". If it be taken to mean more than the old expression, Christ determinedin genere only thematter and theform of some sacraments, it grants too much development. If it means nothing more than the expression hitherto in use, what is gained by admitting a formula which easily might be misunderstood?
TheCouncil of Trentsolemnlydefined that there are seven sacraments of the New Law, truly and properly so called, viz.,Baptism,Confirmation,Holy Eucharist,Penance,Extreme Unction,Orders, andMatrimony. The same enumeration had been made in theDecree for theArmenians by theCouncil of Florence (1439), in the Profession of Faith of Michael Palaelogus, offered toGregory X in the Council of Lyons (1274) and in the council held atLondon, in 1237, under Otto,legate of theHoly See. According to some writers Otto of Bamberg (1139), the Apostle ofPomerania, was the first who clearly adopted the number seven (see Tanquerey, "De sacr."). Most probably thishonour belongs toPeter Lombard (d. 1164) who in his fourth Book of Sentences (d. i, n.2) defines a sacrament as a sacredsign which not only signifies but also causesgrace, and then (d.ii, n.1) enumerates the seven sacraments. It is worthy of note that, although the greatScholastics rejected many of histheological opinions (list given in app. toMigne edition, Paris, 1841), this definition and enumeration were at once universally accepted,proof positive that he did not introduce a newdoctrine, but merely expressed in a convenient and precise formula what had always been held in theChurch. Just as many doctrines werebelieved, but not always accurately expressed, until the condemnation ofheresies or the development of religiousknowledge called forth a neat and precise formula, so also the sacraments were accepted and used by theChurch for centuries beforeAristotelianphilosophy, applied to the systematic explanation ofChristian doctrine, furnished the accurate definition and enumeration ofPeter Lombard. The earlierChristians were more concerned with the use of sacredrites than with scientific formulae, being like thepious author of the"Imitation of Christ", who wrote: "I had rather feel compunction thanknow its definition" (I, i).
Thustime was required, not for the development of the sacraments - except in so far as theChurch may have determined what was left under her control byJesus Christ — but for the growth andknowledge of the sacraments. For many centuries allsigns of sacred things were called sacraments, and the enumeration of thesesigns was somewhat arbitrary. Our seven sacraments were all mentioned in theSacred Scriptures, and we find them all mentioned here and there by the Fathers (see THEOLOGY; and articles on each sacrament). After the ninth century, writers began to draw a distinction between sacraments in a general sense and sacraments properly so called. The ill-fatedAbelard ("Intro. ad Theol.", I, i, and in the "Sic et Non") andHugh of St. Victor (De sacr., I, part 9, chap. viii; cf. Pourrat, op. cit., pp.34, 35) prepared the way forPeter Lombard, who proposed the precise formula which theChurch accepted. Thenceforward until thetime of the so-calledReformation theEastern Church joined with theLatin Church in saying: by sacraments proper we understand efficacious sacredsigns, i.e.ceremonies which by Divine ordinance signify, contain and confergrace; and they are seven in number. In the history of conferences and councils held to effect the reunion of the Greek with theLatin Church, we find no record of objections made to thedoctrine of seven sacraments. On the contrary, about 1576, when theReformers ofWittenberg, anxious to draw theEastern Churches into theirerrors, sent a Greek translation of the Augsburg Confession to Jeremias,Patriarch of Constantinople, he replied: "Themysteries received in this sameCatholicChurch oforthodoxChristians, and the sacredceremonies, are seven in number — just seven and no more" (Pourrat, op. cit., p. 289). The consensus of the Greek and Latin Churches on this subject is clearly shown by Arcadius, "De con. ecc. occident. et orient. in sept. sacr. administr." (1619); Goar in his "Euchologion" by Martene in his work "De antiquis ecclesiae ritibus", byRenaudot in his "Perpetuite de la foi sur sacrements" (1711), and this agreement of the two Churches furnishes recent writers (Episcopalians) with a strong argument in support of their appeal for the acceptance of seven sacraments.
Luther's capitalerrors, viz. private interpretation of theScriptures, andjustification byfaith alone,logically led to a rejection of theCatholic doctrine on the sacraments (seeLUTHER;GRACE). Gladly would he have swept them all away, but the words ofScripture were too convincing and the Augsburg Confession retained three as "having the command ofGod and the promise of thegrace of theNew Testament". These three,Baptism, the Lord's Supper, andPenance were admitted byLuther and also by Cranmer in his "Catechism" (see Dix, "op. cit.", p. 79).Henry VIII protested againstLuther's innovations and received the title "Defender of the Faith" as a reward for publishing the "Assertio septem sacramentorum" (re-edited by Rev. Louis O'Donovan, New York, 1908). Followers ofLuther's principles surpassed their leader in opposition to the sacraments. Once granted that they were merely "signs and testimonies ofGod's good will towards us", the reason for greatreverence was gone. Some rejected all sacraments, sinceGod's good will could be manifested without these externalsigns.Confession (Penance) was soon dropped from the list of those retained. TheAnabaptists rejected infantBaptism, since theceremony could not excitefaith in children.Protestants generally retained two sacraments,Baptism and the Lord's Supper, the latter being reduced by the denial of theReal Presence to a mere commemorative service. After the first fervour of destruction there was a reaction.Lutherans retained aceremony ofConfirmation andordination. Cranmer retained three sacraments, yet we find in the Westminster Confession: "There are two Sacramentsordained ofChrist Our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say,Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called sacraments, that is to sayConfirmation,Penance,Orders,Matrimony, andExtreme Unction, are not to be counted for sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of theApostles, partly are states of life allowed in theScriptures but yet have not likenature of sacraments withBaptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visiblesigns orceremonyordained byGod (art. XXV). TheWittenbergtheologians, by way of compromise, had shown a willingness to make such a distinction, in a second letter to thePatriarch of Constantinople, but the Greeks would have no compromise (Pourrat, loc. cit., 290).
For more than two centuries theChurch of England theoretically recognized only two "sacraments of the Gospel" yet permitted, or tolerated other fiverites. In practice these five "lesser sacraments" were neglected, especiallyPenance andExtreme Unction.Anglicans of the nineteenth century would have gladly altered or abolished the twenty-fifth article. There has been a strong desire, dating chiefly from theTractarian Movement, and the days ofPusey,Newman, Lyddon, etc. to reintroduce all of the sacraments. ManyEpiscopalians andAnglicans today make heroic efforts to show that the twenty-fifth article repudiated the lesser sacraments only in so far as they had "grown of the corrupt following of theApostles, and were administered 'more Romamensium'", after the Roman fashion. Thus Morgan Dix reminded his contemporaries that the first book of Edward VI allowed "auricular and secret confession to thepriest", who could giveabsolution as well as "ghostly counsel, advice, and comfort", but did not make the practiceobligatory: therefore thesacrament of Absolution is not to be "obtruded uponmen'sconsciences as a matternecessary tosalvation" (op. cit., pp.99, 101, 102, 103). He cites authorities who state that "one cannotdoubt that a sacramental use of anointing the sick has been from the beginning", and adds, "There are not wanting, among thebishops of the AmericanChurch, some who concur in deploring the loss of this primitive ordinance and predicting its restoration among us at some propitioustime" (ibid., p. 105). At a convention ofEpiscopalians held atCincinnati, in 1910, unsuccessful effort was made to obtainapprobation for the practice of anointing the sick. High Churchpastors andcurates, especially inEngland, frequently are in conflict with theirbishops because the former use all the ancientrites. Add to this the assertion made by Mortimer (op. cit., I, 122) that all the sacramentscausegraceex opere operato, and we see that "advanced"Anglicans are returning to thedoctrine and the practices of the Old Church. Whether and in how far their position can be reconciled with the twenty-fifth article, is a question which they must settle. Assuredly their wanderings and gropings after thetruthprove thenecessity of having on earth aninfallible interpreter ofGod's word.
(a) All sacraments were instituted for the spiritual good of the recipients; but five, viz.Baptism,Confirmation,Penance, theEucharist, andExtreme Unction, primarily benefit theindividual in his privatecharacter, whilst the other two,Orders andMatrimony, primarily affectman as a social being, and sanctify him in the fulfillment of hisduties towards theChurch andsociety. ByBaptism we are born again,Confirmation makes us strong, perfectChristians and soldiers. TheEucharist furnishes our daily spiritual food.Penance heals thesoul wounded bysin.Extreme Unction removes the last remnant ofhuman frailty, and prepares thesoul foreternal life,Orders suppliesministers to theChurch of God.Matrimony gives thegracesnecessary for those who are to rear children in thelove and fear ofGod, members of theChurch militant, future citizens ofheaven. This isSt. Thomas's explanation of the fitness of the number seven (III:55:1). He gives other explanations offered by theSchoolmen, but does not bind himself to any of them. In fact the only sufficient reason for the existence of seven sacraments, and no more, is the will of Christ: there are seven because He instituted seven. The explanations and adaptations oftheologians serve only to excite our admiration and gratitude, by showing how wisely and beneficentlyGod has provided for our spiritual needs in these seven efficacious signs ofgrace.
(b)Baptism andPenance are called "sacraments of the dead", because they give life, throughsanctifying grace then called "first grace", to those who are spiritually dead by reason of original oractualsin. The other five are "sacraments of the living", because their reception presupposes, at least ordinarily, that the recipient is in the state ofgrace, and they give "second grace", i.e. increase ofsanctifying grace. Nevertheless, since the sacraments always give somegrace when there is no obstacle in the recipient, it may happen in cases explained bytheologians that "second grace" is conferred by a sacrament of the dead, e.g. when one has only venialsins to confess receivesabsolution and that "first grace" is conferred by a sacrament of the living (seeSumma Theologiæ III:72:7 ad 2;III:79:3). ConcerningExtreme UnctionSt. James explicitly states that through it the recipient may be freed from hissins: "If he be insins, they shall be forgiven him" (James 5:15).
(c)Comparison in dignity and necessity. TheCouncil of Trent declared that the sacraments are not all equal in dignity; also that none are superfluous, although all are notnecessary for eachindividual (Sess. VII, can.3, 4). TheEucharist is the first in dignity, because it contains Christ in person, whilst in the other sacramentsgrace is conferred by an instrumental virtue derived from Christ (Summa Theologiæ III.56.3) To this reasonSt. Thomas adds another, namely, that theEucharist is as the end to which the other sacraments tend, a centre around which they revolve (Summa Theologiæ III:56:3).Baptism is always first innecessity;Holy Orders comes next after theEucharist in the order of dignity,Confirmation being between these two.Penance andExtreme Unction could not have a first place because they presuppose defects (sins). Of the twoPenance is the first innecessity:Extreme Unction completes the work ofPenance and preparessouls forheaven.Matrimony has not such an important social work asOrders (Summa Theologiæ III:56:3, ad 1). If we considernecessity alone — theEucharist being left out as our daily bread, andGod's greatestgift — three are simply and strictlynecessary,Baptism for all,Penance for those who fall into mortalsin after receivingBaptism,Orders for theChurch. The others are not so strictlynecessary.Confirmation completes the work ofBaptism;Extreme Unction completes the work ofPenance;Matrimony sanctifies the procreation andeducation of children, which is not so important nor sonecessary as the sanctification ofministers of theChurch (Summa Theologiæ III:56:3, ad 4).
(d)Episcopalians andAnglicans distinguish two great sacraments and five lesser sacraments because the latter "have not any visible sign orceremonyordained byGod" (art. XXXV). Then they should be classed among thesacramentals sinceGod alone can be the author of a sacrament (see above III). On this point the language of the twenty-fifth article ("commonly called sacraments") is morelogical and straightforward than the terminology of recentAnglican writers. TheAnglican Catechism callsBaptism andEucharist sacraments "generally (i.e. universally)necessary forsalvation". Mortimer justly remarks that this expression is not "entirely accurate", because theEucharist is not generallynecessary tosalvation in the same way asBaptism (op. cit., I, 127). The other five he adds are placed in a lower class because, "they are notnecessary tosalvation in the same sense as the two other sacraments, since they are notnecessary for everyone" (loc. cit., 128). Verily this is interpretation extraordinary; yet we should be grateful since it is more respectful than saying that those five are "such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of theApostles, partly are states of life allowed in theScriptures" (art. XXV). Confusion and uncertainty will be avoided by accepting the declaration of theCouncil of Trent (above).
(a) The principal effect of the sacrament is a two-foldgrace: (1) thegrace of the sacrament which is "first grace", produced by the sacraments of the dead, or "second grace", produced by the sacraments of the living (supra, IV, 3, b); (2) The sacramentalgrace, i.e., the specialgrace needed to attain the end of each sacrament. Most probably it is not a new habitualgift, but a special vigour or efficacy in thesanctifying grace conferred, including on the part ofGod, a promise, and on the part ofman a permanentright to the assistance needed in order toact in accordance with theobligations incurred, e.g., to live as a goodChristian, a goodpriest, a good husband or wife (cf.Summa Theologiæ III:62:2).
(b) Three sacraments,Baptism,Confirmation andOrders, besidesgrace, produce in thesoul acharacter, i.e., an indeliblespiritual mark by which some areconsecrated as servants ofGod, some as soldiers, some asministers. Since it is an indelible mark, the sacraments which impress a character cannot be received more than once (Conc. Trid., sess. VII, can. 9; seeCHARACTER).
Few questions have been so hotly controverted as this one relative to the manner in which the sacramentscausegrace (ST IV, Sent., d.1, Q.4, a.1.).
(a) All admit that the sacraments of the New Lawcausegraceex opere operato, notex opere operantis (above, II, 2, 3).
(b) All admit thatGod alone can be the principalcause ofgrace (above 3, 1).
(c) All admit thatChrist asman, had a special power over the sacraments (above, 3, 2).
(d) All admit that the sacraments are, in some sense, the instrumental causes either ofgrace itself or of something else which will be a "title exigent of grace" (infra e). The principalcause is one which produces an effect by a power which it has by reason of its ownnature or by an inherent faculty. An instrumentalcause produces an effect, not by its own power, but by a power which it receives from the principal agent. When a carpenter makes a table, he is the principalcause, his tools are the instrumental causes.God alone cancausegrace as the principalcause; sacraments can be no more than his instruments "for they are applied tomen by Divine ordinance tocausegrace in them" (Summa Theologiæ III:62:1). Notheologian today defendsOccasionalism (seeCAUSE) i.e. the system which taught that the sacramentscausedgrace by a kind of concomitance, they being not real causes but thecausae sine quibus non: their reception being merely the occasion of conferringgrace. This opinion, according to Pourrat (op. cit., 167), was defended bySt. Bonaventure,Duns Scotus, Durandus,Occam, and all theNominalists, and "enjoyed a real success until thetime of theCouncil of Trent, when it was transformed into the modern system ofmoralcausality".St. Thomas (III:62:1,III:62:4; and "Quodlibeta", 12, a, 14), and others rejected it on the ground that it reduced the sacraments to thecondition of meresigns.
(e) In solving the problem the next step was the introduction of the system of dispositive instrumentalcausality, explained byAlexander of Hales (Summa theol., IV, Q. v, membr. 4), adopted and perfected bySt. Thomas (IV Sent., d. 1, Q. i, a. 4), defended by manytheologians down to the sixteenth century, and revived later by Father Billot, S.J. ("De eccl. sacram.", I, Rome, 1900). According to this theory the sacraments do not efficiently and immediatelycausegrace itself, but theycauseex opere operato and instrumentally, a something else — thecharacter (in some cases) or a spiritual ornament orform — which will be a "disposition" entitling thesoul tograce ("dispositio exigitiva gratiae"; "titulus exigitivus gratiae", Billot, loc. cit.). It must be admitted that this theory would be most convenient in explaining "reviviscence" of the sacraments (infra, VII, c). Against it the following objections are made:
(f) Since thetime of theCouncil of Trenttheologians almost unanimously have taught that the sacraments are the efficient instrumentalcause ofgrace itself. Thedefinition of theCouncil of Trent, that the sacraments "contain thegrace which they signify", that they "confergrace ex opere operato" (Sess. VII, can.6, 8), seemed to justify the assertion, which was not contested until quite recently. Yet the end of the controversy had not come. What was the nature of thatcausality? Did it belong to the physical or to themoral order? A physicalcause really and immediately produces its effects, either as the principal agent or as the instrument used, as when asculptor uses a chisel to carve astatue. Amoralcause is one which moves or entreats a physicalcause to act. It also can be principal or instrumental, e.g., abishop who in person successfully pleads for the liberation of aprisoner is the principalmoralcause, a letter sent by him would be the instrumentalmoralcause, of the freedom granted. The expressions used bySt. Thomas seem clearly to indicate that the sacramentsact after the manner of physical causes. He says that there is in the sacraments a virtue productive ofgrace (III:62:4) and he answers objections against attributing such power to a corporeal instrument by simply stating that such power is not inherent in them and does not reside in them permanently, but is in them only so far and so long as they are instruments in the hands ofAlmighty God (loc. cit., ad um and 3 um). Cajetan,Francisco Suárez, and a host of other greattheologians defend this system, which is usually termedThomistic. The language of theScripture, the expressions of the Fathers, theDecrees of the councils, they say, are so strong that nothing short of an impossibility will justify a denial of this dignity to the sacraments of the New Law. Many facts must be admitted which we cannot fully explain. The body ofman acts on his spiritualsoul; fire acts, in some way, onsouls and onangels. The strings of a harp, remarks Cajetan (In III, Q. lxii) touched by an unskilled hand, produce nothing but sounds: touched by the hands of a skilful musician they give forth beautiful melodies. Why cannot the sacraments, as instruments in the hands ofGod, producegrace?
Many gravetheologians were not convinced by these arguments, and anotherschool, improperly called theScotistic, headed byMelchior Cano,De Lugo, andVasquez, embracing later Henno,Tournély,Franzelin, and others, adopted the system of instrumentalmoralcausality. The principalmoralcause ofgrace is thePassion of Christ. The sacraments are instruments which move or entreatGod effectively and infallibly to give hisgrace to those who receive them with proper dispositions, because, saysMelchior Cano, "the price of the blood ofJesus Christ is communicated to them" (see Pourrat, op. cit., 192, 193). This system was further developed byFranzelin, who looks upon the sacraments as beingmorally an act of Christ (loc. cit., p. 194). TheThomists andFrancisco Suárez object to this system:
Recently both of these systems have been vigorously attacked by Father Billot (op. cit., 107 sq.), who proposes a new explanation. He revives the old theory that the sacraments do not immediatelycausegrace itself, but a disposition or title tograce (above e). This disposition is produced by the sacraments, neither physically nor morally, but imperatively. Sacraments are practicalsigns of an intentional order: they manifestGod'sintention to give spiritual benefits; this manifestation of the Divineintention is a title exigent ofgrace (op. cit., 59 sq., 123 sq.; Pourrat, op. cit., 194; Cronin in reviews,sup. cit.). Father Billot defends his opinions with remarkable acumen. Patrons of the physicalcausality gratefully note his attack against themoralcausality, but object to the new explanation, that the imperative or theintentionalcausality, as distinct from the action ofsigns, occasions, moral or physical instruments (a) is conceived with difficulty and (b) does not make the sacraments (i.e. the external, Divinely appointedceremonies) the realcause ofgrace.Theologians are perfectly free to dispute and differ as to the manner of instrumentalcausality.Lis est adhuc sub judice.
It was altogether fitting that the ministration of the sacraments be given, not to theangels, but tomen. The efficacy of the sacraments comes from thePassion of Christ, hence from Christ as a man;men, notangels, are like unto Christ in Hishumannature.MiraculouslyGod might send a goodangel to administer a sacrament (Summa Theologiæ III:64:7).
For administeringBaptism validly no specialordination is required. Any one, even apagan, canbaptize, provided that he use the propermatter and pronounce the words of theessentialform, with theintention of doing what theChurch does (Decr. pro Armen.,Denzinger-Bannwart, 696). Onlybishops,priests, and in some cases,deacons may conferBaptismsolemnly (seeBAPTISM). It is now held ascertain that inMatrimony the contracting parties are theministers of the sacrament, because they make the contract and the sacrament is acontract raised byChrist to the dignity of a sacrament (cf.Leo XIII,Encyclical "Arcanum", 10 Febr., 1880; seeMATRIMONY). For the validity of the other five sacraments theminister must be dulyordained. TheCouncil of Trentanathematized those who said that allChristians could administer all the sacraments (Sess. VII, can.10). Onlybishops can conferSacred Orders (Council of Trent, sess. XXIII, can.7). Ordinarily only abishop can giveConfirmation (seeCONFIRMATION). Thepriestly Order is required for the valid administration ofPenance andExtreme Unction (Conc. Trid., sess. XIV, can.10, can.4). As to theEucharist, those only who havepriestly Orders canconsecrate, i.e. changebread andwine into the Body and Blood of Christ.Consecration presupposed, any one can distribute theEucharisticspecies but, outside of very extraordinary circumstances this can be lawfully done only bybishops,priests, or (in some cases)deacons.
The care of all those sacredrites has been given to theChurch ofChrist.Heretical orschismaticalministers can administer the sacraments validly if they have validOrders, but their ministrations aresinful (see Billot, op. cit., thesis 16).Good faith would excuse the recipients fromsin, and in cases ofnecessity theChurch grantsjurisdictionnecessary forPenance andExtreme Unction (seeEXCOMMUNICATION: V,Effects of Excommunication).
Due reverence for the sacraments requires theminister to be in a state ofgrace: one whosolemnly and officially administers a sacrament, being himself in a state of mortalsin, would certainly be guilty of asacrilege (cf.Summa Theologiæ III.64.6). Some hold that thissacrilege is committed even when theminister does notact officially or confer the sacramentsolemnly. But from the controversy between St. Augustine and theDonatists in the fourth century and especially from the controversy betweenSt. Stephen andSt. Cyprian in the third century, weknow that personalholiness or the state ofgrace in theminister is not a prerequisite for the valid administration of the sacrament. This has beensolemnlydefined in severalgeneral councils including theCouncil of Trent (Sess VII, can.12,ibid., de bapt., can. 4). The reason is that the sacraments have their efficacy by Divine institution and through themerits of Christ. Unworthyministers, validly conferring the sacraments, cannot impede the efficacy ofsignsordained byChrist to producegraceex opere operato (cf.St. Thomas,III:64:5,III:64:9). Theknowledge of thistruth, which followslogically from thetrue conception of a sacrament, gives comfort to thefaithful, and it should increase, rather than diminish, reverence for those sacredrites and confidence in their efficacy. No one can give, in his own name, that which he does not possess; but a bank cashier, not possessing 2000 dollars in his own name, could write a draft worth 2,000,000 dollars by reason of the wealth of the bank which he is authorized to represent. Christ left to HisChurch a vast treasure purchased by Hismerits and sufferings: the sacraments are as credentials entitling their holders to a share in this treasure. On this subject, theAnglican Church has retained thetruedoctrine, which is neatlyproved in article XXVI of the Westminster Confession: "Although in the visible church theevil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes theevil hath the chief authority in the ministration of theWord and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but inChrist's, and dominister by His commission and authority, we may use theirministry both in hearing the Word of God and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect ofChrist's ordinance taken away by theirwickedness nor thegrace ofGod's gifts from such as byfaith, and rightly, do receive the sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because ofChrist's institution and promise, although they be administered byevilmen" (cf.Billuart, de sacram., d. 5, a. 3, sol. obj.)
(a) To be aminister of the sacraments under and with Christ, a man mustact as a man, i.e. as a rational being; hence it is absolutelynecessary that he have theintention of doing what theChurch does. This was declared byEugene IV in 1439 (Denzinger-Bannwart, 695) and wassolemnlydefined in theCouncil of Trent (Sess.VII, can.II). Theanathema of Trent was aimed at theinnovators of the sixteenth century. From their fundamentalerror that the sacraments weresigns offaith, orsigns that excitedfaith, it followedlogically that their effect in no wise depended on theintention of theminister.Men are to be "ministers ofChrist, and the dispensers of themysteries ofGod" (1 Corinthians 4:1), and this they would not be without theintention, for it is by theintention, saysSt. Thomas (III:64:8, ad 1) that a man subjects and unites himself to the principal agent (Christ). Moreover, by rationally pronouncing the words of theform, theminister must determine what is not sufficiently determined or expressed by thematter applied, e.g. the significance of pouring water on the head of the child (Summa Theologiæ III.64.8). One who is demented, drunk, asleep, or in a stupor that prevents a rationalact, one who goes through the externalceremony in mockery, mimicry, or in a play, does notact as a rationalminister, hence cannot administer a sacrament.
(b) Thenecessary object andqualities of theintention required in theminister of the sacrament are explained in the articleINTENTION. Pourrat (op. cit., ch. 7) gives a history of all controversies on this subject. Whatever may be said speculatively about the opinion of Ambrosius Catherinus* (seeLANCELOT POLITI) who advocated the sufficiency of an externalintention in theminister, it may not be followed in practice, because, outside of cases ofnecessity, no one may follow a probable opinion against one that is safer, when there is question of something required for the validity of a sacrament (Innocent XI, 1679; Denzinger-Bannwart, 1151).
Attention is anact of theintellect, viz. the application of themind to what is being done.Voluntarydistraction in one administering a sacrament would besinful. Thesin would however not be grave, unless (a) there be danger of making a serious mistake, or (b) according to the common opinion, thedistraction be admitted inconsecrating theEucharisticspecies. Attention on the part of theminister is notnecessary for the valid administration of a sacrament, because in virtue of theintention, which is presupposed, he canact in a rational manner, notwithstanding thedistraction.
When allconditions required byDivine and ecclesiastical law are complied with, the sacrament is received validly and licitly. If allconditions required for theessentialrite are observed, on the part of theminister, the recipient, thematter andform, but some non-essentialcondition is not complied with by the recipient, the sacrament is received validly but not licitly; and if thecondition wilfully neglected be grave,grace is not then conferred by theceremony. Thusbaptizedpersons contractingMatrimony whilst they are in the state of mortalsin would be validly (i.e. really) married, but would not then receivesanctifying grace.
(a) The previous reception ofBaptism (by water) is anessentialcondition for the valid reception of any other sacrament. Only citizens and members of theChurch can come under her influence as such;Baptism is the door by which we enter theChurch and thereby become members of amystical body united to Christ our head (Catech. Trid., de bapt., nn. 5, 52).
(b) In adults, for the valid reception of any sacrament except theEucharist, it isnecessary that they have theintention of receiving it. The sacraments imposeobligations and confergrace: Christ does not wish to impose thoseobligations or confergrace without theconsent ofman. TheEucharist is excepted because, in whatever state the recipient may be, it is always the body and blood of Christ (seeINTENTION; cf. Pourrat, op. cit., 392).
(c) For attention, see above, VI, 6. By theintentionman submits himself to the operation of the sacraments which produce their effects ex opere operato, hence attention is notnecessary for the valid reception of the sacraments. One who might bedistracted, evenvoluntarily, during the conferring, e.g. ofBaptism, would receive the sacrament validly. It must be carefully noted, however, that in the case ofMatrimony the contracting parties are theministers as well as the recipients of the sacraments; and in the sacrament ofPenance, the acts of the penitent,contrition, confession, and willingness to accept aPenance in satisfaction, constitute the proximatematter of the sacraments, according to the commonly received opinion. Hence in those cases such attention is required as isnecessary for the valid application of thematter andform.
(a) For the licit reception, besides theintention and the attention, in adults there is required:
(b) For the licit reception it is alsonecessary to observe all that is prescribed byDivine or ecclesiastical law, e.g. as totime, place, theminister, etc. As theChurch alone has the care of the sacraments and generally her duly appointed agents alone have theright to administer them, exceptBaptism in some cases, andMatrimony (supra VI, 2), it is a generallaw that application for the sacraments should be made to worthy and duly appointedministers. (For exceptions seeEXCOMMUNICATION.)
Much attention has been given bytheologians to the revival of effects which were impeded at thetime when a sacrament was received. The question arises whenever a sacrament is received validly but unworthily, i.e. with an obstacle which prevents the infusion ofDivine grace. The obstacle (mortalsin) is positive, when it isknown andvoluntary, or negative, when it is involuntary by reason ofignorance orgood faith. One who thus receives a sacrament is said to receive it feignedly, or falsely (ficte), because by the veryact of receiving it he pretends to be properly disposed; and the sacrament is said to bevalidum sed informe — valid, but lacking its properform, i.e.grace or charity (see LOVE). Can such aperson recover or receive the effects of the sacraments? The term reviviscence (reviviscentia) is not used bySt. Thomas in reference to the sacraments and it is not strictly correct because the effects in question being impeded by the obstacle, were not once "living" (cf. Billot, op. cit., 98, note). The expression which he uses (III:69:10), viz., obtaining the effects after the obstacle has been removed, is more accurate, though not so convenient as the newer term.
(a)Theologians generally hold that the question does not apply toPenance and theHoly Eucharist. If the penitent be not sufficiently disposed to receivegrace at thetime he confesses hissins the sacrament is not validly received because the acts of the penitent are anecessary part of thematter of this sacrament, or anecessarycondition for its reception. One who unworthily receives theEucharist can derive no benefit from that sacrament unless, perhaps, he repent of hissins andsacrilege before the sacredspecies have been destroyed. Cases that may occur relate to the five other sacraments.
(b) It iscertain and admitted by all, that ifBaptism be received by an adult who is in the state of mortalsin, he can afterwards receive thegraces of the sacrament, viz. when the obstacle is removed bycontrition or by thesacrament of Penance. On the one hand the sacraments always producegrace unless there be an obstacle; on the other hand thosegraces arenecessary, and yet the sacrament cannot be repeated.St. Thomas (III:69:10) andtheologians find a special reason for the conferring of the effects ofBaptism (when the "fiction" has been removed) in the permanentcharacter which is impressed by the sacrament validly administered. Reasoning fromanalogy they hold the same with regard toConfirmation andHoly Orders, noting however that thegraces to be received are not sonecessary as those conferred byBaptism.
(c) Thedoctrine is not socertain when applied toMatrimony andExtreme Unction. But since thegraces impeded are very important though not strictlynecessary, and sinceMatrimony cannot be received again whilst both contracting parties are living, andExtreme Unction cannot be repeated whilst the same danger of death lasts,theologians adopt as more probable the opinion which holds thatGod will grant thegraces of those sacraments when the obstacle is removed. The "reviviscence" of the effects of sacraments received validly but with an obstacle tograce at the time of their reception, is urged as a strong argument against the system of the physicalcausality ofgrace (supra, V, 2), especially by Billot (op. cit., thesis, VII, 116, 126). For his own system he claims themerit of establishing an invariable mode ofcausality, namely, that in every case by the sacrament validly received there is conferred a "title exigent ofgrace". If there be no obstacle thegrace is conferred then and there: if there be an obstacle the "title" remains calling for thegrace which will be conferred as soon as the obstacle is removed (op. cit., th. VI, VII). To this his opponents reply that exceptional cases might well call for an exceptional mode ofcausality. In the case of three sacraments thecharacter sufficiently explains the revival of effects (cf.ST III:66:1,III:69:9,III:69:10). Thedoctrine as applied toExtreme Unction andMatrimony, is notcertain enough to furnish a strong argument for or against any system. Future efforts oftheologians may dispel the obscurity and uncertainty now prevailing in this interesting chapter.
APA citation.Kennedy, D.(1912).Sacraments. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm
MLA citation.Kennedy, Daniel."Sacraments."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 13.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1912.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Marie Jutras.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor.Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.