IV. On the Subject of the Sacraments

Who is the subject of the sacraments? - As the minister of a sacrament is he who performs in the name of Christ the sacramental rite instituted by him, so the subject of a sacrament is called he who receives the sacrament and is capable of the effect of the sacrament. The subject of the sacraments is only man as wayfarer; because, as is clear from Sacred Scriptures and Tradition, the sacraments were instituted for men as wayfarers alone. Yet not all men are capable of all the sacraments. For neither can women receive the sacrament of order, nor can children not yet using reason receive the sacraments of penance and extreme unction.

The reason a priori why only man as wayfarer is capable of the sacraments is the will of Christ the Lord, the institutor of the sacraments. But the reason of fittingness is that, according to the order of present Providence, only man as wayfarer is capable of first grace, or of an increase of grace; but such are not the Blessed, or souls detained in Purgatory, for whom the measure of glory corresponding to the grace which they had merited in mortal life has already been determined. But much less are the damned capable of grace, since they have already been separated from God for eternity. - St. Thomas Suppl. q. 39, a. 1, 2.

What things are required for the valid reception of the sacraments? - For receiving the sacraments validly, no probity is required in adults, nor properly faith in the subject, if you except the sacrament of penance. This is clear from the practice of the Church, which has never permitted heretics and wicked men, duly baptized and ordained, to be baptized or ordained again. - In infants or those perpetually insane, no disposition is required, nor intention, so that they may validly receive the sacraments of which they are capable, namely baptism, confirmation, order, and the Eucharist, which formerly was ministered to them. This is clear from the practice of the Church and the common opinion. L. 80, 782; St.

Thomas Suppl. q. 39, a. 2. - In adults, for the valid reception of the sacraments some intention is required, because it is not fitting that an adult be sanctified unless he wills it. Council of Trent sess. 6, c. 5, 6, 7. But for most sacraments a habitual intention suffices, even sometimes only a confused, or implicit, intention, the nature of each sacrament being considered; because the conferral of the sacraments is a certain giving and benefit, for accepting which habitual intention suffices. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 68, a. 7. Cf. Lugo de Euch. d. 13, n. 23, 26; de Poenit. d. 14, n. 46, 48. If the will of receiving the sacrament is lacking, the sacrament will be invalid, whether someone does not wish to receive it, or does not not wish, having a neutral will. Benedict XIV, Const. Postremo mense § 47, 48, 51; L. 81. - For validly receiving the other sacraments, reception of baptism is presupposed; therefore an unbaptized man is in no way capable of the other sacraments. The reason is that the other sacraments were instituted for the Church alone; moreover through baptism alone men become members of the Church. Therefore. Florence, Decree for the Armenians. - E. M.

Is attention required in an adult subject, so that he may validly receive a sacrament? - Resp. In the negative. For intention suffices, even in the sacraments which require virtual intention; the reason is that a human act proceeds not from attention, but from will or from intention.

Besides, most sacraments do not even require virtual intention; therefore a fortiori they do not require attention on the part of the subject. Moreover, attention is not required in the minister for confecting the sacrament, as is clear from the things said above n. 338; therefore a fortiori it is not required in the subject. - Hence penitents are sometimes troubled in vain by scruples from this, that they suffered distractions while they were being absolved, or that they were absolved without noticing it. Sporer 157.

What intention is required in adults for receiving the individual sacraments? - In baptism and order there is required at least a habitual explicit will. The reason is that sacraments of this kind impose grave obligations to be fulfilled. But no one is judged to receive a grave obligation; rather, his positive will must be altogether clear. Lugo d. 9, n. 119, 127; L. 81, 82. The sacrament of baptism and of order is indeed invalidly conferred on those having only interpretative intention. Nevertheless Coninck, Sporer, Dicastillo, etc., apud Croix l. 6, p. 1, n. 168, and others judge that for receiving baptism an implicit intention contained in contrition or attrition had by the recipient suffices, or, as Lugo d. 9, n. 130 says, in the will of giving one's name to the Christian Religion, or, if he is ignorant of this, of doing whatever things are necessary for salvation, as La Croix has it, l.c. Cf. L. 82. This indeed can have place in urgent necessity, but baptism must then be conferred conditionally, and therefore repeated conditionally if time allows, unless there is certainty concerning a true and explicit intention not retracted. Cf. S. C. de P. F., March 30, 1898.

In confirmation, extreme unction, and the Eucharist, a habitual implicit will suffices, which is less rightly called interpretative, and which consists in this, that someone has had a general intention, and has not retracted it, of applying those things which are necessary and useful for his salvation; or of living and dying in the Catholic religion, with the helps of the same religion; or, a fortiori, of receiving all the sacraments in life and at death. The reason is that these sacraments bring many advantages and no disadvantage. But all are judged to wish to receive advantages. Hence both confirmation and extreme unction can be conferred conditionally on a dying person deprived of his senses. Ritual, de Extr. unct. § 6; L. 82. But if he in reality had never thought of receiving them, they would have to be altogether repeated.

For penance there is required either actual or at least virtual intention; nor therefore does habitual intention suffice. The reason is that in this sacrament the acts of the penitent are required for the matter, and these indeed cannot be had without at least virtual will of receiving the sacrament.

L. 82. - Likewise for matrimony at least virtual intention is required. For "since each spouse is not only receiving, but also minister of the sacrament, in each of them there is certainly required that intention which is demanded in the ministers of the other sacraments." L. 82.

Fr. Lehmkuhl, ed. 11, n. 66, requires for the Eucharist, besides the case of viaticum, an expressed habitual intention. Yet ordinarily it is not only virtual, but even actual. The reason, he says, is that "in the general will of living a Christian life there is in no way contained the will of receiving the sacred Eucharist so many times and at such a time." - But if, besides the case of viaticum, it is a question of the Eucharist to be received from obligation, certainly that general will also implicitly contains this. And if that general will is conceived more determinately, namely of applying all the means constituted by God as necessary and useful for salvation, certainly this will would also implicitly include the Eucharist to be received from mere devotion. Finally, if the general will of dying in a Christian manner includes the will of receiving the sacraments of the Church at the point of death, why does the general will of living a Christian life not include the will of receiving Christ's sacraments during life? "Wherefore," the same Fr. Lehmkuhl concludes, "an adult to whom, besides the case of viaticum, the Holy Eucharist were given without his knowledge, would indeed receive it materially, but not with fruit." - But consequently to the things which have just been noted: if in the case of Viaticum the aforesaid adult would receive the sacred Eucharist sacramentally and with fruit, also outside that case he would receive it sacramentally and with fruit, if namely, as was said, he has its will at least implicitly.

Are sacraments validly conferred on those sleeping, drunk, or fallen into insanity, who previously had the intention of receiving them? - Resp. In the affirmative. Thus most commonly. The reason is that they are a capable subject. - But this would be done illicitly "unless in probable danger of death, or unless when the impediment of the use of reason is judged perpetual; otherwise one must wait for the time in which the one receiving becomes master of reason." L. 81, 139; St. Thomas 4 d. 6, q. 1, a. 2, q. 3 ad 2; 3 p., q. 68, a. 12; Roman Ritual, de Bapt. adult. Wherefore, to the sick who are deprived of their senses, the sacraments are to be given; but only in danger of death, and unless they die impenitent and in manifest mortal sin. Roman Ritual, de Sacr. extr. unct. In doubt they must be given; namely baptism and penance, even with the lowest probability of disposition; but confirmation, the Eucharist, and extreme unction, when it is probable that they are rightly disposed.

Indeed these can also be given if this can only be presumed. Lugo d. 9, n. 122, 126. Cf. 318, 383; E. M.

Can the sacraments be conferred on the deaf and mute from birth who have not been instructed in schools? - Some compare those deaf and mute from birth, not at all instructed in schools, to idiots; others to those using reason. Likewise some hold that they cannot know those things which pertain to the discernment of good and evil and to faith; but others hold that they can, at least in some way. Hence, since it is probable that they are like infants, baptism and confirmation can then be given to them conditionally. Likewise they can be baptized if they show some signs of religion. Collection of S. C. de P. F. n. 585. But since it is not plainly indubitable that they are ignorant of those things which pertain to faith, absolution also can then be given to them conditionally. The Eucharist can also be given to the dying, if it is clear from signs that they have some sort of discernment of it, or, as formerly to infants, if they are idiots, provided every danger of irreverence is absent. Yet extreme unction is not to be given to them, since it is neither necessary nor probably valid, namely if they are probably idiots from birth. But even it can be given if they probably conceive sorrow for their own sins, and do not seem to be ignorant of those things of faith which must necessarily be believed. But they are permitted to contract matrimony. C. Cum apud 23; C. Tuae fraternitati 25, de Spons. - Sanchez de Matr. l. 1, d. 8, n. 13; Kenrick tr. 17, n. 39.

What things are required for licit reception of the sacraments? - For the sacraments of the living to be received licitly and fruitfully, besides the intention of receiving them, the state of grace is prerequired. For these from their primary institution by Christ are ordered, not to conferring first grace, but to its increase, since they already suppose first grace in the subject. Hence they sin gravely who knowingly receive the sacraments of the living in the state of mortal sin, and indeed more gravely than those who unworthily minister or confect them. But the state of grace is to be procured through confession, if one is to approach the Eucharist; or at least through perfect contrition, if it concerns the other sacraments. Cf. 568. But it is better, as far as can be done, always to premise Confession even to the reception of the other sacraments. - For the sacraments of the dead to be received licitly by adults, there are required at least implicit acts of faith and hope, according to the words of the Apostle, Heb. 11:6: One who approaches God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder to those seeking him. Nor indeed does it suffice only to know those things which are necessary by necessity of means, but it is also necessary to know those things which are necessary to be known by necessity of precept.

Cf. V. 1, n. 348 ff., 356 ff. Moreover, an act of sorrow for sins is required, because forgiveness of sins is given to no one without retraction or sorrow for committed sins. But these things in the sacrament of penance are necessary also for validity, because they pertain to the disposition of the penitent. Trent sess. 14, c. 4. But attrition suffices, as will be said in its own place. - Likewise it is required that one be bound by no excommunication and no personal interdict. Roman Ritual, de Extr. unct. c. 1, § 8. But if someone cannot abstain from the sacraments without grave inconvenience, he licitly receives them, although for the present he cannot be absolved from the censure. - L. 86, 265, q. 2; E. M.

Is there a case in which it is licit to receive a sacrament of the living with mortal sin? - Resp. In the affirmative; but it is very rare. St. Alphonsus enumerates two. The first is if a host would be profaned unless it is consumed at once; then the host would be taken, not as a sacrament, but so that it may be rescued from that profanation, and therefore irreverence would cease. The other is if a layman already reclining at the communion rail and about to receive Communion at once were to remember a mortal sin and, because of the excessive shortness of time, could not make an act of contrition. But unless the time is altogether extremely short, God's special grace would not be lacking in such cases for conceiving contrition at once. - L. 86, 33; St. Thomas 4 D. 24, q. 1, a. 3, q. 5 ad 4.

Is it licit to ask for a sacrament from a bad minister? - Resp. In the negative, if he is an intruded priest, namely one who, contrary to the rights of the Church, has invaded offices and benefices of the Church relying on secular power, unless extreme necessity is present. Pius VI, Epist. Sollicitudo, Apr. 1, 1794. The same consequently must be said of a notorious schismatic or heretic. Holy Office, July 2, 1864. For there is danger of perversion and scandal. - Resp. Also in the negative, if the minister is an excommunicate to be avoided, or one suspended by name, unless in extreme or very grave necessity. For there is a positive prohibition of the Church. - Resp. In the affirmative, if he is a tolerated excommunicate, and precisely insofar as tolerated; because the Council of Constance absolutely granted to the faithful that they could communicate with tolerated persons. L. 88; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 9.

If the minister is simply bad because of mortal sin, it is licit from a reasonable cause of necessity or grave utility to receive the sacraments from him. The reason is that, such a reason standing, the sin of another is licitly permitted, which "nevertheless he could put away, because in an instant a man is amended by divine grace." St. Thomas 4 d. 24, q. 1, a. 3, q. 5 ad 3. Moreover, "he who approaches the sacraments receives the sacraments from a minister of the Church, not insofar as he is such a person, but insofar as he is a minister of the Church; and therefore as long as he is tolerated by the Church in ministry, he who receives the sacrament from him does not communicate in his sin, but communicates with the Church, which presents him as a minister." St. Thomas 3 p., q. 64, a. 6 ad 2; C. Vestra 7, de Cohabit. clericor. From a reasonable cause, because charity requires that we impede the sin of our neighbor which we can easily impede. - But it is certain that any minister is presumed worthy unless the opposite is established. "Hence it is probably inferred that the sacrament can still be asked from him who is known to have sinned a little before, because he himself is to be presumed already to have disposed himself at least through contrition, unless it is established that the minister is habitual in sin, or is in a proximate occasion of sin, understand a voluntary one." L. 89. "Thus likewise I think," says St. Alphonsus ibid., "that it is illicit without grave cause to serve a priest celebrating unworthily." - L. l. 2, n. 47, 79; l. 6, n. 560; q. 19 among recent reforms; Scavini ed. 12, Milan 1874, v. 4, n. 454, 566; Collection of S. C. de P. F. n. 1823, 1845.