Article II. On the Requisites for the Licit Reception of the Sacraments

For the licit and fruitful reception of the sacraments, besides the intention of receiving them, the state of grace is prerequired if there is question of sacraments of the living; and if there is question of sacraments of the dead, acts of faith, hope, and sorrow concerning sins are required. - The reason for the first is that the sacraments of the living, from their primary institution by Christ, are ordered not to conferring first grace but second grace, and therefore those who knowingly receive the aforesaid sacraments in the state of mortal sin sin gravely, and indeed more gravely than those who unworthily minister and confect them. But the reason for the second is taken both from the Apostle saying, Hebr. xi, 6: "It is necessary that one approaching God believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder to those seeking Him"; and from the fact that it is repugnant for remission of sins to be given without retraction of them and sorrow. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 86.

Question 1. Do sacraments received validly but with an obstacle, when this has been removed, revive or produce the graces proper to themselves?

Resp. Affirmatively, although not with the same certainty for all the sacraments. The reason is that it happens only accidentally that they do not produce their proper effects, namely because of the obstacle, and therefore those effects remain as though suspended while the obstacle remains; yet when this has been removed, they must be applied to the soul. This is admitted as certain for the sacraments imprinting a character. According to some, the same probably seems to have to be said of the Sacrament of Penance, and by a stronger reason of the sacraments of Extreme Unction and Matrimony, which cannot be repeated during the same illness or the same marriage. But concerning the Eucharist, this is more probably to be denied. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 6 and 87.

Question 2. What disposition is required in the subject, so that an unformed sacrament may revive?

Resp. This general rule is commonly established: that disposition is required which was lacking and whose absence caused the obstacle to the effect of the sacrament, or precisely that must be placed which was necessarily required in the reception of the sacrament. Hence, in itself, attrition suffices for the reviviscence of Baptism, and likewise it must be said for Penance, according to those who hold that this sacrament can be given validly but unformed. But perfect contrition is required, or attrition with confession, for the other sacraments, namely for Confirmation, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony. - Cf. Lugo, disp. 9, nn. 50 and seq. - Lacroix, n. 207.

Question 3. Does attrition suffice for unformed Baptism to revive, if the one receiving has afterward committed other grave sins?

Resp. Negatively, because sins committed after Baptism are the necessary matter of the Sacrament of Penance, and therefore they cannot be remitted except through that sacrament, or through perfect contrition with the vow of the Sacrament of Penance included in it. - Cf. Lugo, disp. cit. n. 55. - Lacroix, loc. cit.

Question 4. Is it licit to ask a sacrament from an unworthy Minister?

Resp. It is not licit without cause, because thus without reason an unworthy Minister would be induced to sin gravely. But this is illicit in itself, because charity requires that we impede the sin of a neighbor which we can easily impede. But it is licit if the sacrament cannot easily be asked from another priest, nor can its reception easily be deferred; for no one is bound with great inconvenience to yield from his own right for impeding the free sin of another. Then the one asking the sacrament simply permits the sin, but is not the cause of the sin. But a sufficient cause would be, for example, the Paschal precept to be fulfilled, or if someone otherwise would have to remain long in the state of mortal sin or be deprived of Communion, etc. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 89.

Question 5. Is it licit to ask a sacrament from an excommunicated Minister?

Resp. If the Minister is excommunicated as one to be avoided, it is not licit except in extreme necessity; but if he is tolerated, it will be licit even without grave cause, because the Council of Constance granted absolutely to the faithful that they can communicate with tolerated persons. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 88.

The administration of the sacraments could not be committed to the judgment or devotion of each individual priest; for otherwise both uniformity would be lacking and the very validity of the sacramental action would be exposed to great danger. Wherefore from the time of the Apostles the Church established laws and always willed them to be observed. Paul V willed that these laws, rites, and ceremonies, called customary, be collected in one volume, and he again sanctioned and promulgated them by the Constitution Apostolicae Sedi, where he speaks thus: "In which (volume), since we have beheld the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church arranged in their order, we have judged that it should deservedly be published under the name of the Roman Ritual for the public good of the Church of God."

§ 1. In confecting, administering, and receiving the Sacraments, the rites and ceremonies which are prescribed in the ritual books approved by the Church are to be accurately observed.

§ 2. But each one is to follow his own rite, with the prescription of can. 851, § 2, 866, being saved (Can. 733).

Question 1. Whether in administering the sacraments there is given a true obligation, especially for this region, of observing the ceremonies prescribed in the Roman Ritual?

Resp. Affirmatively, and the reason is that, on the one hand, the laws of the Roman Ritual oblige in conscience, and, on the other, no custom to the contrary can be invoked among us.

The first, namely that the laws of the Roman Ritual oblige in conscience and are not only certain norms usefully to be followed, is proved from the fact that according to the Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 13, the approved and received rites of the Church, customarily employed in the solemn administration of the sacraments, cannot be omitted without sin. But the Roman Ritual, as Paul V himself bears witness, is nothing other than the collection of the approved and received rites of the Church. Therefore . . . - This argument is set forth at the front of the Roman Ritual as a preface in this way: "That those things which in this book are prescribed from the ancient institutes of the Catholic Church and from the sacred Canons and Decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, concerning the rites and ceremonies of the sacraments, may be kept with fitting diligence and religion, and faithfully observed everywhere; it is fitting before all things to know and observe that which the Most Holy Tridentine Synod, sess. 7, can. 13, decreed concerning these rites in these words: 'If anyone shall have said that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily employed in the solemn administration of the sacraments can either be contemned, or be omitted without sin by the Ministers at pleasure, or be changed into other new rites by any Pastor whatsoever of the Churches: let him be anathema.'"

But the other, namely that no custom can be invoked among us against the laws of the Roman Ritual, is clear from the Fathers of Baltimore, Second Plenary Council, who at n. 209 speak thus: "With how great diligence our predecessors labored that the Roman Ritual would be accurately observed everywhere among us, and with how great zeal they took care lest new rites, or rites foreign to the custom of the Holy Roman Church, be introduced, is plain from their several decrees, which we add here and, insofar as there is need, confirm again." - Consult by all means the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, nn. 209 and seq.

Question 2. What kind of sin is it to omit the ceremonies prescribed in the Roman Ritual for the administration of the sacraments?

Resp. A distinction must be made, for if grave scandal arises and great contempt of religion, the omission will certainly be grave sin. But setting aside this hypothesis, again a distinction must be made: omission in grave matter will be grave, and light in light matter. But what must be judged grave matter and what light should be left rather to the judgment of prudent persons than defined by a certain rule. Nevertheless, it can be said generally that ceremonies instituted on account of sacred signification are graver and are omitted more culpably than those which are for ornament and decorum alone; and in the same proportion, those whose signification is higher are judged graver, especially if with the signification they have some spiritual effect. But from those things which pertain to decorum, the circumstances of prescribed place and time, speaking in itself, are customarily considered grave, because these circumstances greatly regard external ornament and public solemnity and esteem.

Question 3. Who must bless the sacred oils? Can old ones be used? From whom must the parish priest ask for them?

Resp. § 1. The sacred oils which serve for administering certain Sacraments must have been blessed by the Bishop on Thursday in the Lord's Supper next preceding; nor are old ones to be used unless necessity urges.

§ 2. To blessed oil soon to be deficient let other non-blessed oil of olives be added, even repeatedly, yet in lesser quantity (Can. 734).

The Parish Priest must ask for the sacred oils from his Ordinary and in the church must diligently preserve them under key in safe and decent custody; nor may he keep them at home, unless because of necessity or another reasonable cause, with the permission of the Ordinary being added (Can. 735).