Chapter IV. On The Institutor Of The Sacraments

Preliminary note. We entitle the present chapter On the Institutor rather than On the Cause of the Sacraments, because, as St. Thomas notes beforehand at question 64 of the third part of the Summa theologica, the cause of the sacraments is twofold: namely, by authority and by ministry. The first is the principal cause and can be called the institutor; the other is the instrumental cause and can be named the minister of the sacraments. We now treat of the principal cause, or the institutor of the sacraments, and afterward of their instrumental cause, or minister.

48. That God alone is the principal author of all the sacraments, both of the Old and of the New Testament, is almost self-evident. For no one except God can determine sensible signs with which grace is joined (as in the Old Testament), or which instrumentally cause sanctifying grace (as in the New Testament). Hence St. Thomas teaches: "God alone works the interior effect of the sacrament [therefore, a fortiori, the sacraments themselves], both because God alone enters into the soul, in which the effect of the sacrament exists, ... and because grace, which is the interior effect of the sacrament, is from God alone."¹⁸⁷ "The sacraments of the New Law are more worthy than the sacraments of the Old Law. But all the sacraments of the Old Law were instituted by God. Therefore, much more strongly, all the sacraments of the New Law have their institution from Christ Himself."¹⁸⁸

God is so the principal author of all the sacraments that He cannot communicate to any creature the authoritative power of instituting sacraments. For "the power of authority communicated to someone would draw him beyond the bounds of a creature; because it cannot be that a creature is the principal agent with respect to the most noble effect by which we are joined to the ultimate end, such as grace, through which the remission of sins is effected. And therefore all say that the power of authority could be communicated to no creature."¹⁸⁹

Besides the authoritative power of instituting sacraments, theologians, with St. Thomas¹⁹⁰ leading the way, speak of an authority of excellence in instituting sacraments, which belongs to Christ as man, or to His humanity, and indeed for four reasons: 1. because the power of the Passion of Christ as man operates in the sacraments; 2. because the sacraments are administered in the name of Christ; 3. because, as the excellent instrument of the divinity, He could institute sacraments; 4. because He could grant the effect of the sacrament, namely, sanctifying grace, even without a sacrament, namely, by His command alone. Briefly, therefore, it can be said: Christ as God is the principal author; but as man, the excellent ministerial author of all the sacraments.

¹⁸⁷ S. theol. 3, q. 64, a. 1.

¹⁸⁸ Supplement, q. 29, a. 3, from IV Sent., dist. 23, q. 1, a. 1.

¹⁸⁹ IV Sent., dist. 5, q. 1, a. 3, sol. 1.

¹⁹⁰ S. theol. 3, q. 64, a. 3.

49. Thesis 1. All the sacraments of the New Law were immediately instituted by Christ before His Ascension.

This thesis, which is held by some theologians (for example, Bl. Bellarmine, Becanus, Gonet) as pertaining to the faith, is at least theologically certain. Before the Council of Trent certain theologians thought that some sacraments were not immediately instituted by Christ. Thus Hugh of St. Victor, Roland, and the Master of the Sentences judged that extreme unction was instituted by the apostles after the Ascension of Christ; Alexander of Hales,¹⁹¹ deceived by a remarkable error, thought that confirmation was instituted in the Council of Meaux in the year 845, although in the canons of that Council there is nothing concerning the institution of confirmation. St. Bonaventure¹⁹² thinks that the sacraments of confirmation and extreme unction were instituted by the apostles. The Quaracchi Editors assert, however, that this opinion was later corrected by him.

Since the Holy Fathers, as we saw above, did not give so clear a definition of a sacrament, nor indicate their sevenfold number, but enumerated among the sacraments things which certainly are sacramentals instituted by the Church (for example, the consecration of a church, the anointing of a king, etc.), neither could they clearly teach that all the sacraments were immediately instituted by Christ. All taught that baptism and the Eucharist were instituted by Christ; indeed, the most ancient author of the pseudo-Ambrosian book On the Sacraments teaches in express words: "Who is the author of the sacraments except the Lord Jesus? These sacraments came from heaven."¹⁹³

Since certain Modernists, such as Loisy,¹⁹⁴ spread errors concerning the origin of the sacraments, Pius X in the Decree Lamentabili condemned proposition 40: "The sacraments had their origin from this, that the apostles and their successors, under the persuasion and impulse of circumstances and events, interpreted some idea and intention of Christ."¹⁹⁵

The immediate institution of all the sacraments by Christ is proved:

1. From the Council of Trent: "If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord ... let him be anathema."¹⁹⁶ Although in this canon it is not expressly said that Christ immediately instituted all the sacraments, for the Council did not wish to condemn the opinion of several Catholics admitting only a mediate divine institution, nevertheless that this is the mind of the Council follows from three things:

a) After the Council almost no Catholic theologian dared openly to deny immediate institution.

b) The same Council¹⁹⁷ defined that extreme unction was instituted by Christ and promulgated by St. James. Therefore, even extreme unction, concerning which there exists the greatest difficulty of all, was only promulgated and not instituted by an apostle, but was instituted by Christ Himself. A fortiori, therefore, the other sacraments were immediately instituted by Christ.

c) The same Council¹⁹⁸ declares that the Church cannot change the substance of the sacraments. Therefore, a fortiori, it cannot institute the sacraments, and this not even by the authority of Christ, because the existence of such conferred authority is not established.

2. From theological reasons. a) Nowhere do either the apostles or the Church attribute to themselves a delegated power of instituting sacraments, but rather they deny this. Therefore, Christ alone is the author of the sacraments. The apostles called themselves ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God, but never institutors of the sacraments. On the contrary, St. Paul forcefully rebuked the Corinthians who disputed by whom each had been baptized, arguing that all were baptized in the name of Christ.

b) Just as God, the author of the Old Law, instituted all its sacraments, so Christ, the author of the New Law, Himself instituted all the sacraments.

c) The sacraments, as instruments necessary for salvation, pertain to the very foundation of religious worship and of the Church. But it is very fitting that the author of the Christian religion and Church Himself determine these foundations.

¹⁹¹ S. theol. 4, q. 9, member 1; cf. Pourrat, La théol. sacr., c. 6, § 4, p. 308.

¹⁹² IV Sent., dist. 7, a. 1, q. 1, and dist. 23, a. 1, q. 2.

¹⁹³ In Migne, Patr. lat. 16, 439.

¹⁹⁴ L'Évangile et l'Église, c. 6, n. 2.

¹⁹⁵ Denz., n. 2040.

¹⁹⁶ Sess. 7, can. 1 on the sacraments in general (Denz., n. 844).

¹⁹⁷ Sess. 14, can. 1 on extreme unction (Denz., n. 926).

¹⁹⁸ Sess. 21, c. 2 on Communion (Denz., n. 931).

50. Thesis 2. Christ not only immediately instituted all the sacraments of the New Law, but also so specifically determined their matter and form that it is not lawful to change them substantially.

This doctrine follows from the first proposition as a corollary. For since the essence of each sacrament consists in matter and form,¹⁹⁹ He who immediately instituted the sacraments also had to determine their form and matter. Consequently, all theologians living after Trent teach that the determination of matter and form was made by Christ; but they dispute among themselves how far this determination extends. A threefold determination is customarily distinguished, namely, individual, specific, and generic. Individual determination reaches all and each of even the accidents; specific determination reaches only substantial things; finally, generic determination establishes only the effects of the sacraments.

a) It is indeed established among all that Christ did not determine the individual accidents to be employed in the administration of the sacraments, because in the course of time these accidents have been sufficiently changed, and even now they differ greatly in the Latin and Eastern Church. Hence, without any doubt, matter and form, or rather the sacraments, were not directly determined by Christ in the individual, that is, as to all qualities, even accidental ones. Thus, for example, whether baptism is performed by immersion or infusion; whether consecration is performed in unleavened bread or not, etc., was not directly determined by Christ.

b) Theologians dispute whether Christ determined the matter and form of the sacraments generically or specifically. Christ would have made this determination generically if, for example, He had said to the apostles: I establish seven sacraments, namely, baptism, confirmation, etc., and I will that you employ matter and form suitably signifying the effect of each sacrament, so that in baptism washing from original sin is signified, in confirmation strength for firmly resisting the devil, in the Eucharist nourishment of the soul, etc. If Christ had chosen this manner, He would still always remain the true and immediate author of the seven sacraments, since He would have willed that there be seven determinate modes of conferring grace through sacraments.

Christ is said to have determined the matter and form of the sacraments specifically if, besides the generic institution explained in this manner, He also prescribed the substantial elements of each sacrament, for example, baptism is to be administered with water and the form: "I baptize you, etc."; confirmation with an anointing of chrism, the imposition of the bishop's hand, and the form: "I sign you with the sign of the cross, etc." Accidental changes of matter and form, however, were entrusted by Christ to the Church, whence certain accidental differences even in matter and form exist between the Latin and Eastern Church.

¹⁹⁹ Cf. above, n. 9.

51. The opinion teaching that the specific determination was made by Christ seems preferable. For if Christ had determined the sacraments only generically, the Church would necessarily have the authority to change the matter and form of the sacraments substantially; but this is denied by the Council of Trent.²⁰⁰ Thus, for example, if Christ had instituted the sacrament of confirmation only generically, the Church could decree that any oil whatever be employed in place of chrism, and, in place of the customary form, any other form whatever signifying the conferral of strength. Moreover, there is the authority of St. Thomas,²⁰¹ St. Alphonsus,²⁰² and many theologians of great authority. Behold the words of the Angelic Doctor: "Because the sanctification of man is in the power of God who sanctifies, it does not belong to man to assume by his own judgment the things by which he is sanctified, but this must be determined by divine institution. And therefore in the sacraments of the New Law ... it is necessary to use things determined by divine institution." Finally, the dignity of the sacraments is increased by this specific determination. For since Christ, from His infinite goodness, instituted the sacraments as the principal means of our salvation, it is very fitting to the dignity of these means that they be ordained by their Founder Himself, not in a generic and vague manner, but in a specific manner.

²⁰⁰ Sess. 21, c. 2 on Communion (Denz., n. 931).

²⁰¹ S. theol. 3, q. 60, a. 5.

²⁰² Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 12.

52. There are several theologians²⁰³ who indeed concede that in certain sacraments, for example in baptism and the Eucharist, the substance of the matter and form was determined by Christ, but not in all, and notably not in the sacrament of order, since in the Eastern Church it is administered without the tradition of the instruments, with the imposition of hands alone.²⁰⁴ Although this doctrine has some slight probability, nevertheless it is not so apparent why Christ, in the sacrament of order, which is so excellent and necessary, permitted that liberty which He denied in the other sacraments. Therefore, it must be said either that the imposition of hands alone is of the essence of the sacrament of order, or that even in the Eastern Church there is a tradition of the instruments, namely, an indirect one, since the ordinand must touch the altar upon which the instruments have been placed. (Which opinion is to be preferred may be seen below in the tract on order, n. 594.)

No serious difficulty can arise against the doctrine explained from clandestine marriages, which were valid before the Council of Trent but not afterward. For the legitimate contract and consent of the spouses always was and is the essence of the sacrament of matrimony. By the impediment of clandestinity introduced by the Council of Trent, the Church changed absolutely nothing concerning this essence, but merely decreed that spouses ordinarily cannot validly express matrimonial consent except before their proper pastor and two witnesses.

²⁰³ Cf. Haine, Theol. mor. elementa IV, De sacr. in gen., q. 11.

²⁰⁴ Among moderns Pourrat somewhat modifies this opinion (La theol. sacr., chap. 6, § 1, p. 274), following the footsteps of Cardinal Newman: "Christ immediately instituted all the sacraments; but all the sacraments were not given by the Savior to the Church fully constituted. Concerning several, particularly those essential to Christianity, baptism and the Eucharist, for example, Christ explained Himself completely.... As for the others, the Savior laid down their essential principles; development was to show the apostles and the Church what the Master had willed to do. Jesus, in fact, could not say everything to His apostles: 'You cannot bear it now.'... One then understands why the Church, according to the testimony of history, did not possess, altogether from the beginning, a full and entire consciousness of certain sacraments.... Jesus immediately and explicitly instituted baptism and the Eucharist; He immediately but implicitly instituted the five other sacraments." This opinion indeed seems very dangerous and not greatly dissimilar to proposition 40 condemned in the Decree Lamentabili (cf. above, n. 49).