Article — Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)
Article I. On the Requisites for the Valid Reception of the Sacraments
- Principles. - I. For receiving the sacraments validly, no probity, nor properly Faith, is required in the subject, if you except the Sacrament of Penance. This is clear from the practice of the Church, which never permitted heretics and wicked men duly baptized and ordained to be baptized or ordained again. It is also clear, as to Faith, from the express definition of the Council of Trent, sess. 7, Can. 13, on Baptism.
II. In infants or the perpetually insane, no disposition, nor intention, is required, so that they may validly receive the Sacraments of which they are capable, namely Baptism, Confirmation, Order, and Eucharist, which was once ministered to them. This is clear from the practice of the Church and the common opinion, etc.
III. 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. But for most Sacraments a habitual intention suffices, even sometimes only confused, or implicit, with the nature of each Sacrament considered; because the conferral of the Sacraments is a certain donation and benefit, for accepting which a habitual intention suffices. But it must be said otherwise of one conferring a Sacrament; because since he ought to act in a human manner, it is necessary that he have at least a virtual intention.
IV. For validly receiving the other Sacraments, reception of Baptism is pre-required; 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; but through Baptism alone men become members of the Church. Therefore... etc. Thus Eugene IV defined in the Decree for the Armenians.
- Questions. - QUESTION 1º. Is attention required in an adult subject, so that he may validly receive a Sacrament?
Resp. Negatively, altogether. For intention suffices, as has already been explained, even in Sacraments which require a virtual intention; the reason is that a human act does not proceed from attention, but from the will or from intention. Moreover most Sacraments, as has been said, do not even require a 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 a Sacrament, as is clear from what was said above, n. 96; therefore a fortiori it is not required in the subject. - Sporer, n. 157.
Hence penitents are sometimes troubled by scruples in vain from the fact that they suffered distractions while they were being absolved, or that they were absolved without noticing it.
- QUESTION 2º. What intention is required in adults for receiving the individual Sacraments?
Resp. 1º For Baptism to be validly received in adults, an intention at least habitual is required, which was previously expressed and never retracted. Nevertheless some say that an implicit will of Baptism suffices, such as would be in him who had the will of performing all things necessary for salvation. See St. Alphonsus, n. 81 1.
1 ** La Croix (Lib. 6, Part 1, n. 288) says: It is probable that an implicit habitual intention suffices, according to what was said n. 168. Hence it is probable... that an intention suffices by which someone generally desires that the means necessary for salvation be applied to him, because Christ could have instituted baptism thus; and Suarez grants that extreme unction was instituted thus; but baptism is much more necessary for salvation. And again (in the cited place, n. 168): An implicit intention alone suffices, contained in contrition or attrition; hence according to them (namely the Doctors whose opinion he brings forward), a Jew or even a Heathen in danger of death could be baptized, if it were probably judged that he had at least attrition, because in this there is included the vow of observing all the precepts, and likewise of receiving all the means necessary for salvation, and therefore also of receiving baptism. For this opinion he brings forward nine Doctors, while for the opposite he enumerates only four. Nor ought it to be passed over here that the reasons which Lugo objects after Suarez (De Sacram., Disp. 9, nn. 129, 130) are in truth not of great weight.
2º For Confirmation a habitual will suffices, even implicit, or, as St. Ligorius says, interpretative. - Thus it can be conferred on a dying person destitute of senses. Yet this is foreign to the practice of the Church, because Confirmation is not necessary for salvation. - St. Ligorius, n. 81, etc. 2.
2 ** St. Alphonsus in this place does not treat of a dying person destitute of senses, but of those sleeping, drunk, or fallen into insanity, who previously had the intention of receiving the sacraments, and whom he teaches, with the most common opinion of the Doctors, validly to receive them. But if he adds with Suarez that sacraments are illicitly conferred on them, nevertheless he excepts: unless they are in probable danger of death; for otherwise the time is to be awaited when the one receiving becomes possessed of reason.
But concerning confirmation he has these things (n. 82): Thus also, by an interpretative or general will, the sacrament of confirmation can be conferred on a dying person destitute of senses, as Lugo, Sporer, Elbel, and Croix say with Con. (that is, Coninck, not Conc., as certain editions of St. Alphonsus have it: for how would Croix, much earlier than Concina, have alleged Concina?!), Arriaga, and Bernal. Aversa alone was the one who (In part. 3, q. 64, Sect. 9) wrote: It is not, however, in use that this sacrament be supplied to such a one destitute of senses: because it is not conferred except by a Bishop and with greater solemnity, and it is not of such necessity, nor per se instituted for the dying. And I would think that Blessed Alphonsus, who had seen this opinion mentioned at least in Croix (Lib. 6, part 1, n. 169), did not consider it worthy even of mention, both because use has the contrary, and because those reasons are truly of no moment.
3º For Penance an intention either actual, or at least virtual, is required; and therefore a habitual intention does not suffice 3. - St. Ligorius, n. 82.
3 ** St. Alphonsus is not to be understood thus, as if either actual or virtual intention must then necessarily be present when the sacrament is perfected, that is, when absolution is conferred. For someone could have sought the sacrament before, which nevertheless is conferred on him much later when he is now destitute of senses. And if indeed you call habitual the intention which, once previously had, afterwards perseveres neither in itself nor by force in any effect, but only was not retracted, certainly in the aforesaid hypothesis you will be able to affirm that even a habitual intention suffices.
But the opinion of St. Alphonsus in reality looks to another thing, as the reason which he adds makes clear. It is required, he says, that there be an intention either actual, or at least virtual, since there are required there, for matter, acts of the penitent, which indeed cannot be had without a will at least virtual of receiving the sacrament... according to what is to be said n. 447. But in that place he does not treat of the intention necessary for receiving the sacrament, but raises the question whether sorrow must have been elicited with the intention of Confession. And he himself indeed adheres to the affirmative opinion rather than to the negative, although he confesses this latter to be absolutely more probable; concerning which matter it will be said in its place. Meanwhile it is manifest, according to this latter opinion, that someone can approach the sacrament not only with a virtual, but plainly with an actual intention, although he had not then ordered to confession the sorrow elicited before. From which things it is plain that the sense in which Blessed Alphonsus disputes concerning the intention necessary for the sacrament of Penance has no bearing on the present question concerning intention.
4º For Extreme Unction a habitual intention suffices, or an implicit, or interpretative one, as Theologians commonly say, and as is clear from the Roman Ritual, where it is said concerning it: This Sacrament is to be supplied to those destitute of senses who asked it before, or probably would have asked it. - St. Ligorius, ibid.
5º For Order certainly an interpretative intention in an adult does not suffice, because without explicit will no adult can undergo the most grave obligation of the clerical state. Nevertheless a habitual intention seems to suffice. But in practice an actual intention, or at least a virtual one, ought to be required. - St. Ligorius, n. 82. 6º For Matrimony an intention at least virtual is required, because Matrimony is perfected by contract, for which deliberation and full will are necessary. - St. Ligorius, ibid.