Article — Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis
Article II. On The Real Definition Of A Sacrament
3. The common opinion of theologians admits that there were true sacraments even in the Old Testament, which, although they were much more imperfect than the seven sacraments of the New Testament, nevertheless cannot be reduced to a mere analogy of sacrament.11 Hence St. Thomas12 simply teaches: "Before the coming of Christ it was necessary that certain sacraments be instituted," and the Council of Trent13 defines: "If anyone says that these same sacraments of the New Law do not differ from the sacraments of the Old Law except that the ceremonies are different and the external rites are different, let him be anathema." It is established, therefore, that there existed true sacraments both in the New and in the Old Law, and yet that there is an essential distinction between the two. Therefore, a quasi-generic definition is to be sought which includes all the sacraments both of the Old and of the New Law. The Scholastics labored greatly to find such a definition, but they departed into various opinions.14 The definition given by St. Thomas15 seems better to us:
Generic definition. A sacrament is a sign of a sacred thing insofar as it sanctifies men.
11 The younger St. Thomas seems to have taught that the sacraments of the Old Law were not sacraments in a univocal sense with the sacraments of the New Law; nevertheless, when he had grown older, he retracted this opinion, as Cajetan, Dominic Soto, and John of St. Thomas clearly show (cf. Billuart, De sacr. diss. 1, a. 1).
12 S. theol. 3, q. 61, a. 3.
13 Session 7, canon 2 on the sacraments in general (Denz., n. 845).
14 See Lugo, De sacr. in gen. disp. 1, sect. 1.
15 S. theol. 3, q. 60, a. 2.
4. This is explained. It is said, 1. A sacrament is a sign, and indeed a sensible sign. For in all the sacraments, even those of the Old Law, something sensible is contained, for example, circumcision, washing, anointing, etc., which signifies a spiritual effect. Hence the ancient Scholastics were accustomed to say: a sacrament is in the genus of sign and not in the genus of cause, because, namely, a sacrament taken formally does not cause but only signifies a supernatural effect. For this reason the sacraments of the Old Law indeed signified sanctifying grace, but, as "weak elements," they were unable of themselves to cause it; for grace proceeded not precisely from those sacraments but from faith in the Messiah to come. But the sacraments of the New Law not only signify but also cause sanctifying grace.16
It is said, secondly: of a sacred thing. This sacred thing is manifold. First, there is sanctifying grace. All the sacraments, both of the Old and of the New Law, signify sanctifying grace to be conferred. Hence Eugene IV taught in the Decree for the Armenians: "They [namely, the sacraments of the Old Law] did not cause grace, but they prefigured that it was to be given through the Passion of Christ."17 Then there is sacramental grace proper to each sacrament, as will be said below.
It is said, thirdly: insofar as it sanctifies men. All Catholic theologians teach: a) that the sacraments of the New Law either confer or increase sanctifying grace;18 b) that the sacraments of the Old Law did not confer sanctifying grace ex opere operato.19
St. Thomas20 wrote to the point: "The sacraments of the Old Law did not have in themselves any power by which they operated to confer justifying grace, but they only signified the faith through which men were justified.... And therefore it seems better to say that circumcision, like the other sacraments of the Old Law, was only a sign of justifying faith.... In circumcision grace was conferred insofar as it was a sign of the future Passion of Christ." From these words of St. Thomas it is manifest that in circumcision and the other sacraments of the Old Law God conferred the sanctification of man, not indeed on account of those sacraments themselves, but insofar as they were professions of faith in the Christ to come. In another place the same Angelic Doctor expresses still more explicitly the same doctrine concerning circumcision, which is one of the sacraments of the Old Law: "In circumcision grace was conferred as to all the effects of grace, yet in another manner than in baptism. For in baptism grace is conferred by the power of baptism itself, which it has insofar as it is an instrument of the Passion of Christ already accomplished; but in circumcision grace was conferred not by the power of circumcision, but by the power of faith in the Passion of Christ, of which circumcision was a sign; so, namely, that the man who received circumcision professed that he received such faith, either an adult for himself or another for infants."21
Therefore, all the sacraments are practical signs of sanctifying grace. Since, however, in sanctifying grace there can also be considered its meritorious cause, namely, the Passion of Christ, and its end, namely, eternal glory, St. Thomas hence teaches that the sacraments signify three things, namely: the Passion of Christ, which is the meritorious cause of sanctification; sanctifying grace, which is the form of sanctification; eternal life, which is the ultimate end of sanctification.22
16 Cf. below, n. 38.
17 Denz., n. 695.
18 Cf. below, n. 35.
19 Only a few Scotists, such as Mastrius (De sacr. disp. 1, q. 2, a. 2, n. 86) and Bosco (Theol. sacram. disp. 1, sect. 2, concl. 6, n. 65), taught the contrary concerning circumcision and the so-called sacrament of nature.
20 S. theol. 3, q. 62, a. 6, corpus and ad 3.
21 Ibid., q. 70, a. 4.
22 Cf. ibid., q. 60, a. 3: "A sacrament is both a commemorative sign of that which preceded, namely, the Passion of Christ; and a demonstrative sign of that which is effected in us through the Passion of Christ, namely, grace; and a prognostic sign, that is, a sign foretelling future glory." The Angelic Doctor set forth these three things most beautifully in the antiphon O sacrum convivium: "The memory of His Passion is recalled, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us."
5. Corollaries. 1. The sacraments cannot be practical signs of sanctifying grace except by divine institution. For it entirely exceeds the capacity of any natural thing practically to signify something supernatural, such as sanctifying grace.
Not all sacred signs have the character of a sacrament. For example, the cross, sacred images, the passage through the Red Sea, manna, the bronze serpent, very many ceremonies, etc. The reason is that all these things are indeed sacred signs, but they lack a divine institution elevating them to practical signs of sanctifying grace.
Sacrifices also are not sacraments. The reason is that sacrifice is primarily ordered to worship to be offered to God Himself, whereas the sacraments are primarily ordered to the sanctification of men. Nothing prevents the same thing, accepted under a diverse aspect, from being both a sacrifice and a sacrament. Thus, in fact, the Eucharist in the New Law and the immolation of the paschal lamb in the Old Law are at once a sacrifice and a sacrament, but accepted under a diverse aspect.
The opinion of heretics concerning the sacraments is false, who teach that they are only testimonies of justice received (the Lutherans); or signs by which a man is distinguished from gentiles and Jews (the Anabaptists and Socinians); or certain pledges by which men bind themselves to Christ and openly profess that they wish to follow His religion (the Zwinglians); or external symbols of divine benevolence toward us and attestations of our fidelity toward God (the Calvinists); or commemorative signs of benefits received from God, which signs were introduced not by Christ Himself but by the Apostles and their successors (the Modernists).23 Hence, according to all these heretics, no true causality of our interior sanctification belongs to the sacraments. Their opinions are false because they rest upon a false foundation, namely, that the justification of man is not effected through the infusion of sanctifying grace, but either through faith alone or through the mere imputation of the merits of Christ.24
The definitions adduced by the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism agree with the definition given. The Council of Trent defines a sacrament as "a symbol of a sacred thing and a visible form of invisible grace."25 The Roman Catechism adduces two definitions: a) "A sacrament is a visible sign of invisible grace instituted for our justification";26 b) "A sacrament is a thing subject to the senses which, by God's institution, has the power both of signifying and of effecting sanctity and justice."27 The former definition of the Catechism applies to all the sacraments; but the latter definition, which has always been regarded as the most perfect, applies to the sacraments of the New Law, which alone can properly cause sanctifying grace.28 Therefore, this definition is specific to these sacraments.
For the essence of any sacrament there are required: an external and sensible sign, interior grace, institution made by God, and a due minister. The institution and minister of the sacraments will be treated below in chapters 4 and 5, and interior grace below in chapter 3. But now the external and sensible sign must be explained more fully.
23 Cf. Loisy, L'Évangile et l'Église, 3rd ed., c. 6. The errors of the Modernists concerning the sacraments are described in this manner in the encyclical Pascendi of 8 September 1907: "For the Modernists, the sacraments are bare symbols or signs, although not devoid of force. To indicate this force, they themselves use the example of certain words which are commonly said to have met with fortune, because they have acquired a power for propagating certain robust ideas which strike souls most forcefully." In the decree of the Holy Office Lamentabili of 3 July 1907, proposition 41 of the Modernists was proscribed: "The sacraments are directed only to this: that they recall to the mind of man the ever-beneficent presence of the Creator" (Denz., n. 2041).
24 Drouven reports and refutes the opinions of the heretics exceedingly well, De re sacr. l. 1, c. 2; cf. also Schanz, Die Lehre von den Sakr. 1, § 4.
25 Session 13, c. 3 (Denz., n. 876).
26 Part 2, c. 1, q. 3.
27 Ibid., q. 8.
28 For other definitions given by St. Augustine, Hugh of St. Victor, etc., see Peter Ledesma, Summa, de sacr. 1.