Section — Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis
§ 3. On The Reviviscence Of The Sacraments
41. Notion. The reviviscence154 of the sacraments consists in this, that a sacrament indeed validly but fruitlessly received on account of an existing obstacle afterward, when the obstacle has been removed, produces all its effects. More briefly: Reviviscence is the passage of an unformed sacrament to a formed sacrament. The obstacle opposing the fruits of the sacrament is indeed commonly gravely culpable (namely, the voluntary reception of a sacrament of the living in the state of mortal sin), but not always, as was said above in n. 33 (4).
154 This word reviviscence, which in sacramental matters is not found in St. Thomas and the other ancient theologians, properly speaking is not accurate. For that is said to revive which was alive, then dead, and afterward alive again. But a sacrament received with an obstacle is not truly alive and consequently cannot properly revive. It is difficult, however, to find a better word. Perhaps it could be called the resurrection of the sacraments.
42. Which sacraments revive has neither been defined by the Church nor agreed upon by theologians. There are three opinions. The first asserts that no unformed sacrament at all revives. This opinion is customarily attributed to Vasquez.155 The second opinion teaches that absolutely all the sacraments revive when the obstacle has been removed, because each sacrament is and remains a work of Christ which will always produce its effect if the obstacle is removed. Thus Haine.156 Hence according to this opinion, for example, one who had received Communion sacrilegiously one hundred times would, if at length he received the sacrament of penance with attrition or even elicited contrition alone, receive the whole accumulation of graces from the hundred sacrilegious Communions. St. Alphonsus157 calls this opinion absurd.
The third opinion asserts that certain unformed sacraments indeed revive when the obstacle has been removed, but not all. This is the most common opinion. In assigning the sacraments which revive, however, theologians again do not agree; but they agree that at least the three sacraments which imprint a character, and in addition the sacrament of matrimony, revive.
a) Concerning baptism, St. Thomas teaches:158 "But it is sometimes impeded through fiction [which is the same as an obstacle]; hence it is necessary that, when it has been removed through penance, baptism immediately attain its effect." St. Augustine had already taught the same:159 "In him who had approached with fiction [for baptism], it happens ... that what was given before then begins to avail when that fiction has departed through truthful confession." The reason is that, if the reviviscence of baptism is not admitted, it is scarcely understood how a man baptized in this manner with an obstacle can afterward obtain the remission of original sin. For such remission cannot be obtained through the sacrament of penance, which can remit actual sins alone.
b) Just as baptism, so also confirmation and order, when the obstacle ceases, revive, "because, since these sacraments cannot be repeated, it seems consonant with the divine goodness that such recipients not be left destitute of sacramental grace, so profitable in those confirmed for resisting temptations, and in those ordained for discharging clerical duties."160
c) The same seems more probably to be said concerning extreme unction and matrimony, because these sacraments also cannot be repeated in a certain respect, namely, during the same illness or the same marriage. Therefore, if anyone after the valid but unworthy reception of extreme unction (during the same illness) or of matrimony (during this marriage) elicited perfect contrition or worthily received the sacrament of penance, the grace of those sacraments revives.
d) The reviviscence of penance is very doubtful;161 St. Thomas is indeed cited by St. Alphonsus162 in favor of the affirmative opinion, but the words of the Angelic Doctor easily admit another explanation. Lugo,163 however, teaches that penance can revive. But it is rightly doubted whether the sacrament of penance can truly be valid and nevertheless unformed. For if someone even in good faith approaches penance thinking himself to have at least sufficient attrition, but in fact does not have it, the sacrament is null because attrition belongs to the essence of penance. Therefore, in this case the sacrament is not unformed but altogether invalid.
The sole case concerning which there can be a question is this: if the penitent in good faith does not elicit universal sorrow, for example, if, guilty of two mortal sins (for example, fornication and the violation of a fast), wholly forgetful of one, he sorrows for fornication alone from a particular motive, namely, because it is expressly said in Sacred Scripture that fornicators will not enter the kingdom of heaven. But, as anyone sees, this case is almost theoretical and never occurs in practice; furthermore, it is not certain whether particular sorrow suffices in this case for the validity of the sacrament. Certainly all are to be exhorted to elicit sorrow from a universal and not a particular motive.
But if in the aforesaid case there had been a universal motive of sorrow, even the sin omitted through forgetfulness would have been remitted through the sacrament. Hence, in practice, when someone inculpably forgets some sin and consequently does not even repent of it, since nevertheless general contrition or attrition for all sins must be presumed, it suffices that the sin previously omitted and again occurring to the mind be declared in the following confession. But if it never comes to mind, it nevertheless was indirectly remitted in the confession made.164
It has already been said above that the sacrament of the Eucharist does not revive.
The proposed doctrine concerning the reviviscence of the sacraments can be briefly summarized in this manner: Five sacraments, if they are unformed, revive, namely, baptism, confirmation, extreme unction, order, and matrimony; but two sacraments do not revive, namely, the Eucharist and penance.
155 Cf. Chr. Pesch, Prael. dogm. VI, n. 315, who contends that this opinion is undeservedly attributed to Vasquez.
156 De sacr. in gen., q. 7. John of St. Thomas (De Sacram., disp. XXIV, n. 277) teaches the same.
157 Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 87. Cajetan also taught the reviviscence of the Eucharist (Opusc. 1, tr. 5, q. 5), but retracted this in his Commentary on S. theol. 3, q. 79, a. 1.
158 S. theol. 3, q. 69, a. 10.
159 De bapt. contra Donat. l. 1, c. 12, n. 18 (Migne, Patr. lat. 43, 119).
160 St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 87.
161 Cf. below, n. 353.
162 IV Sent., dist. 17, q. 3, a. 4, sol. 1.
163 De sacr. in gen., nn. 103 and 104.
164 Cf. concerning this matter St. Alphonsus, l.c., n. 444, and Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. II, n. 401 sq.
43. Conditions required for reviviscence. With the reviviscence of certain sacraments admitted, it is asked what must be done so that these sacraments in fact revive.
The general rule is: For unformed sacraments to revive, the same disposition is required and suffices which was required and sufficient in the reception itself for obtaining grace.
Resolutions: 1. When the unformed sacrament was at the same time sacrilegious, it does not revive until the state of grace has been acquired either through sacramental absolution or through perfect contrition with the desire of confessing. Thus all authors.
When, after an unformed sacrament was received (even inculpably), someone committed a mortal sin, that sacrament does not revive until the state of grace has been acquired either through sacramental absolution or at least through contrition with the desire of confessing. Thus all authors.
When a sacrament of the living remained unformed inculpably, for example, when someone thought himself to have sufficient attrition but in fact did not have it, and therefore, invalidly absolved, received confirmation in good faith, this sacrament does not revive unless the state of grace has been acquired through contrition, or through true attrition with sacramental absolution. Thus the more probable opinion.
When a sacrament of the dead, that is, baptism (and the same holds for extreme unction), inculpably remained unformed, attrition alone seems to suffice for that sacrament to revive. For example, someone received extreme unction when he was already deprived of his senses and did not even have sufficient attrition; then this unformed sacrament seems to revive when the man afterward elicits an act of true attrition.165 Moreover, as we have already noted above, the Church has hitherto defined nothing concerning the reviviscence of the sacraments and its required conditions.
165 Cf. J. Kern, De sacr. extr. unct. (1907), 372 sqq.