The dispositions required of the recipient

On the other hand, God does not sanctify adults who have the use of reason without some co-operation on their side; justification, says the Council of Trent,¹ is the sanctification and renewal of the interior man by the voluntary reception of grace and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Some wish, desire, or intention to receive a sacrament is, then, necessary on the part of adults for its validity. A positive refusal to receive a sacrament, or a neutral state of mind neither willing nor refusing it, would make the reception of a sacrament null and void. The kind of intention which is necessary and sufficient for the validity of a sacrament varies according to its nature. In Penance and Matrimony a virtual intention is required in the subject, as it is required in the minister. For in Penance the acts of the penitent enter into the substance of the sacrament, and so they must be directed by him to its confection. Matrimony is constituted by the mutual consent of the parties, and for this at least a virtual intention is necessary. An habitual intention is required in order to be baptized validly; in other words, the person baptized must have at some time intended to receive the sacrament and not revoked his intention afterward. It is a disputed point among divines whether an habitual and express intention is necessary or whether an implicit intention contained in a desire to do all that God has ordained, or in an act of perfect charity or contrition, is sufficient. The latter opinion is probable, and it may be used in case of necessity when one is in danger of death, and then only. For the sacraments, which confer benefits without imposing any great burden, a general or implicit intention, such as is contained in a desire to die like a Catholic with all the rites of the Church, is sufficient for their validity. For Orders at least an habitual intention is required.

Those, therefore, who are asleep, or are unconscious, can receive the sacraments validly, for they may have all the dispositions which are necessary. The only difficulty is about Penance, but, as we shall see, it is at least a probable opinion that absolution is valid when given to one who is unconscious, but otherwise disposed for the sacrament. However, it is not lawful to administer the sacraments to those who are asleep, unconscious, or out of their mind, except when in danger of death. For the subject should be in a fit state to dispose himself for the reception of the sacraments so that he may receive them with due reverence and fruit.

¹ Sess. vi, c. 7.

Except in Penance, neither faith nor good dispositions are required for the validity of the sacraments, as is clear from the practice of the Church, which is not accustomed to repeat sacraments received in heresy or in bad dispositions. However, the state of grace is necessary for the lawful reception of the sacraments of the living, as we have seen; and for those of the dead, faith, hope, and sorrow for sin are necessary, as the Council of Trent teaches that they are for the justification of the sinner.¹ Furthermore, for the lawful reception of the sacraments the subject must be free from all censures which deprive him of the right to receive them.

It follows from this that heretics and schismatics even when baptized may not lawfully receive the sacraments at the hands of Catholic ministers, as a general rule.²2 The sacraments are intended for those who are visibly members of the Catholic Church, and they alone have the right to receive them. If anyone else wishes to receive them, let him enter the visible Church of God. However, it is a disputed point whether the sacraments may be lawfully administered to a schismatic or heretic who is in good faith, and who is in danger of death. Although St Alphonsus and others deny that it is lawful to absolve such a person, yet the opposite opinion has its supporters, and it is in keeping with several decrees of the Roman congregations—as, for example, that of the Holy Office, July 20, 1898.³ The faithful are not prohibited from asking for the sacraments from ministers who they know lead bad lives, if they have good reason for so doing. Sin, indeed, is committed by the minister if he administers a sacrament while in sin, but if he does so his malice must be imputed to himself, not to those who for good reason exercise their right to receive the sacraments. Moreover, the malice of the minister cannot affect the sacraments.

Although in extreme necessity a Catholic may receive the sacraments from schismatical ministers, yet scandal to be avoided rarely permits of its being done, as Benedict XIV teaches.⁴

The faithful may confess to any Catholic priest of any rite who has faculties for confession (Can. 905); and the faithful may receive Holy Communion consecrated according to any rite. But they are to be counselled to receive their Easter Communion according to their own rite. Holy Viaticum should also be received according to the rite of each one, except in case of necessity when it may be received according to any rite (Can. 866).

¹ Sess. vi, c. 6.

² Can. 731.

³ Analecta Ecclesiastica, 1898, p. 387.

⁴ De Syn. vi, c. 5, n. 2.

In order that the sacraments produce the twofold effect concerning which there was discussion (n. 5), namely character and grace, they must be received validly and licitly. I said "in order that they produce the twofold effect," since valid reception suffices for producing character alone. In order, moreover, that grace be received, valid and licit reception is required.

Requirements for a Valid Sacrament in Reference to the Recipient.—(a) The Person of the Recipient.—Since the Sacraments were instituted as means of salvation, they can be given only to those who are still wayfarers in the present mortal existence, and hence a Sacrament administered to a brute animal or a corpse would be invalid, or, in the case of Communion, would not be received sacramentally. As Baptism is the preparation for the other Sacraments, but need not presuppose personal sinfulness, its subject is any and every unbaptized person, infant or adult, male or female. The other six Sacraments presuppose Baptism, and only those who have been initiated into the Church by Baptism can receive them validly. As to these six Sacraments only males are capable of Orders, which is for the rulers of the Church; only adults are capable of Penance, Extreme Unction and Matrimony, which suppose personal sin or personal contract. Further, the impotent and impeded are incapable of Matrimony, and those who are not in danger of death from sickness are incapable of Extreme Unction. Finally, those who have been baptized, confirmed, or ordained, cannot be rebaptized, reconfirmed, or reordained, since these three Sacraments can be given but once; he who is married cannot marry again while his wife lives and the bond endures; he who has been anointed cannot be reanointed during the same danger.

(b) The Acts of the Recipient.—If the recipient is an infant, no disposition on his part is necessary, since he does not understand. If the recipient is an adult, it is necessary in the performance of every Sacrament (on the Eucharist see 2664) that he have some intention or willingness to receive the Sacrament, since Christ does not wish to confer benefits or impose certain grave burdens on those who are unwilling. A forced Sacrament to which the subject yielded no internal consent would be a null Sacrament. Further, since an essential part (namely, the matter, or according to others a conditio sine qua non) of Penance is the faith and repentance of the recipient, these dispositions are necessary in that Sacrament.

Qualities of the Recipient’s Intention.—(a) Objectively, the recipient should intend to receive what the Church confers, and hence intentions that are not serious, or are mistaken or external (e.g., Baptism received for the sake of rehearsal, or in the belief that it is a profane ablution, or accepted as a pure formality), do not seem sufficient (see 2666).

(b) Subjectively.—The recipient must positively will the Sacrament, for it seems that the so-called neutral intention—in which the subject neither consents nor dissents internally, but is passive and indifferent, and acquiesces externally only to please another—is not a true desire. But the strength or influence of the recipient’s intention need not be so great as the minister’s, since the role of the minister is to perform the rite, that of the subject only to receive the rite (see 2665).

When a Virtual Intention Is Necessary.—It is generally agreed, therefore, that while the interpretative intention does not suffice, the actual intention and even, for the most part, the virtual intention are not necessary. But about the virtual intention the following should be noted; (a) a virtual and explicit intention is necessary in Matrimony if a party be considered, not precisely as recipient, but as minister of the Sacrament (see 2666) and as maker of the contract (see 1883); (b) a virtual and at least implicit intention is necessary in Penance, if a penitent is considered precisely as positing the requisite matter or condition of the Sacrament, since this consists in repentance, and repentance includes either an express or an implied desire of sacramental absolution.

When an Habitual Intention Suffices.—The habitual intention is found in those who are not conscious (see 2165), but it suffices for the reception of a Sacrament, since the recipient does not affect the Sacrament, and it is enough that he had the good will to accept it and has not retracted that will.

(a) An habitual and explicit intention suffices for the three Sacraments that impose special obligations, namely, Baptism, Orders, and Matrimony. Hence, he who has asked for Baptism is validly baptized after he becomes delirious; he who has asked for Orders is validly ordained even when unconscious; he who has sent his consent to a marriage by proxy receives the Sacrament during his sleep, if the other party’s consent closing the contract is given at that time.

(b) An habitual and implicit intention included in a particular will to do a good act on which the Sacrament follows in natural course, suffices for the other three Sacraments which do not impose special obligations. Hence, a person who purposed to live as a Catholic is validly confirmed while unconscious; a person who intended to die as a Catholic is validly absolved and anointed, as far as intention is concerned, at the moment of death, even though he be out of his mind. Further, if an unbaptized person has resolved to become a Catholic but has no knowledge of Baptism itself, he is validly baptized in virtue of his implicit desire, even though he be unconscious.

(c) An habitual and implicit intention included in a general will to do all that is necessary for salvation or a good life is taught by some authors, and is by them considered sufficient for Baptism, since it is the most necessary Sacrament, and the Sacraments are for men. An unbaptized person of good will who has supernatural contrition or charity is justified through Baptism of desire, but if he has only supernatural attrition the Sacrament itself is necessary for him. Hence, in case of urgent need conditional Baptism should be given a dying and unconscious infidel who was well disposed; but, as the intention is not certain, the Baptism should be repeated in case of recovery. The same principle is extended by some moralists to the administration of Penance and Extreme Unction to schismatics and heretics who are in danger of death.

Requirements for Lawful or Fruitful Reception of a Sacrament by an Adult.—(a) Worthiness of the Recipient from Divine Law.—The two Sacraments of the Dead, Baptism and Penance, were intended by Christ to be means of forgiveness to the repentant, and hence they require at least that the recipient believe himself attrite. The five Sacraments of the Living were meant by Christ to strengthen grace and life already had, and consequently he who approaches them must have no serious fault on his conscience. Conscious unworthiness is a sacrilege, and only extreme necessity can excuse reception in such a state (e.g., when a sinner takes Communion to save the Host from profanation).

(b) Worthiness from Church Law.—The recipient must be free from church censures (Canon 2260) or impediments, and must possess the preparation or qualification which the church law prescribes (e.g., a certain age is required for Confirmation; the Eucharist must be received fasting; the candidate for Orders must be approved, etc.).

(c) Worthiness of Reception.—The Sacraments should be received devoutly, with proper preparation, attention, and thanksgiving. In the case of the Eucharist, though intention is not necessary for validity, it is required for a sacramental or fruitful Communion; an habitual and implicit intention suffices for the Viaticum (and Easter Communion), an habitual explicit intention for Communion of devotion.

230. • 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.

88. Diverse conditions are required for licitly receiving the diverse sacraments, as will be explained more broadly below. In general, however, the following can be noted:

1. An adult possessing the use of reason, in order licitly to receive any sacrament of the dead, must, besides the required intention, have at least supernatural attrition concerning the sins committed. For no remission of guilt is granted by God without sorrow for the offense committed. In true supernatural attrition are included faith, hope, and initial love.

2. An adult receiving a sacrament of the living must be in the state of sanctifying grace, which state is possessed either from baptismal grace never lost, from perfect contrition, or from sacramental absolution rightly received.³³¹ But knowingly to receive a sacrament of the living in the state of mortal sin is a grave sacrilege, since it is a grave abuse of a most holy thing.

St. Alphonsus³³² enumerates two very rare cases in which, to avoid a greater evil, it is lawful to receive the Eucharist notwithstanding the state of mortal sin. "If a consecrated host were about to be profaned by heretics, and someone, on account of that sudden assault, could not so quickly become contrite, then it seems that he could consume it without sin, although without fruit. For then he would not consume it as a sacrament, but would only hide it in his body as in a wall in order to free it from injury.... They probably say the same concerning a layman reclining at the Communion rail who should remember a mortal sin and could not elicit contrition on account of the shortness of time."

3. An adult possessing the use of reason must receive any sacrament whatsoever with reverence and actual devotion; for a sacrament is a most holy thing.

4. Of itself, it is not lawful to request the sacraments from a minister who is certainly unworthy. It is said: certainly unworthy; for if he is not certainly known to be unworthy, he must be presumed good. But that minister is called unworthy who cannot administer a sacrament without mortal sin, either because he is bound by some censure or because he himself is in the state of mortal sin. The reasons why it is not lawful in ordinary cases to request the sacraments from ministers of this kind are several, namely: a) incitement or cooperation in the sin which the minister perpetrates by administering the sacraments; b) scandal, which not rarely arises therefrom; c) danger of one's own perversion.

5. For a just and proportionate cause, however, it is lawful to request a sacrament from an unworthy minister, provided that he can administer it validly. The reason is that such a petition is nothing other than material cooperation in the sin of another, and this cooperation is lawful for a just and proportionate cause. Several just causes are enumerated by St. Alphonsus,³³³ for example, if the precept of confession or Communion is urgent, especially if spiritual danger threatens from delayed reception; if someone would have to remain longer in the state of mortal sin; if otherwise he could not gain a jubilee indulgence. Indeed, St. Thomas³³⁴ says generally: "As long as [a minister] is tolerated by the Church in the ministry, he who receives a sacrament from him does not communicate in his sin."

But if a minister is a) an excommunicate to be avoided, or b) if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been rendered against him, or c) if he is a public heretic or schismatic, it is not lawful to request any sacrament from him except at the moment or in danger of death.³³⁵ The reason is that such a minister is most gravely forbidden to administer the sacraments; indeed, outside danger of death all jurisdiction has been taken away, such that he cannot validly absolve; and finally, because from such a petition there would arise both most grave scandal and danger of perversion.

According to the discipline now in force,³³⁶ the faithful situated in danger of death can request sacramental absolution from any priest, even an excommunicate to be avoided; but the other sacraments only if another minister is lacking. The older discipline was more severe in this matter.³³⁷

³³¹ Concerning confession necessary before Communion, see below, n. 192.

³³² Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 86.

³³³ Ibid., n. 89.

³³⁴ S. theol. 3, q. 64, a. 6 ad 2.

³³⁵ Canon 2261, § 3 of the Code of Canon Law determines: "From excommunicates to be avoided, and likewise from other excommunicates after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has intervened, the faithful can, in danger of death alone, request both sacramental absolution and also, if other ministers are lacking, the other sacraments and sacramentals." But to request the sacraments outside danger of death from heretics or schismatics is gravely prohibited, since it is communication in divine things.

³³⁶ Cf. c. 2261 cited above.

³³⁷ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 88.

96. Principle I. For the licit reception of a sacrament in an adult there are required: a) the capacity and intention necessary for validity; - b) the disposition necessary for fruit or effect.

For fruitful reception, one disposition is required in the sacraments of the living and another in the sacraments of the dead. In these latter there are required faith, hope, and attrition, without which no adult can be justified; but not charity. In the former there is required consciousness of the state of grace, i.e., that by which he does not know himself to be in the state of sin. But if someone is conscious of sin and wishes to receive the Eucharist, he must confess by a special precept; for the other sacraments of the living, even an act of charity or of perfect contrition also suffices.

97. Principle II. He commits a grave sin of sacrilege who receives a sacrament unworthily; namely:

1. he who receives a sacrament without capacity or intention, because it is a simulation and mockery of the sacrament. Thus a woman who would approach ordination, one asking for absolution without attrition, one receiving Confirmation while not baptized;

2. he who receives a sacrament without the disposition required for fruit, because he deprives the sacrament of its principal effect, namely grace, to signify and produce which it was instituted; whence he renders the signification of the sacrament partially false and evacuates its end.

I say. Besides the Sacrament of Baptism, which, since it is the gate of the Church, is prerequired essentially and in all things for the validity of the other sacraments, it must be held that for receiving the sacraments validly some intention is certainly necessary in adults, but that no probity or faith properly so called is required, excepting the Sacrament of Penance. The reason for the first is that it is repugnant for some adult to be sanctified unless in some way he wills it; but whoever validly receives a sacrament is sanctified, at least by right. But the reason for the second is taken from the practice of the Church, which never permitted heretics or wicked men duly baptized and ordained to be baptized or ordained again. Yet I said 1st. in adults, because in infants or those perpetually without the use of reason no intention is required, so that they may validly receive the sacraments of which they are capable, namely Baptism, Confirmation, Order, and the Eucharist, which was formerly ministered to them. The reason is that, on the one hand, they cannot have any intention, and, on the other, it would be unlawful to assert that the Church permits or has permitted an invalid reception of a sacrament. - I said 2nd. some intention, because for most sacraments habitual intention suffices, even sometimes only confused or implicit, considering the nature of each sacrament; for the conferral of the sacraments is a certain donation and benefit, for accepting which habitual intention suffices. - I said 3rd. excepting the Sacrament of Penance, because the matter of this sacrament is the acts themselves of the penitent. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 80 and seq.

Question 1. What intention is required in adults for receiving each of the sacraments?

Resp. For validly receiving Baptism in adults, an intention at least habitual is required, which was previously expressed and never retracted. Some, however, say that an implicit will of Baptism suffices, such as would be in him who had the will of doing all things necessary for salvation and nevertheless expressly refused Baptism because through error he thought it not necessary. - For Confirmation, a habitual will suffices, even implicit, or, as St. Alphonsus says, interpretative; wherefore it can be conferred on a dying person deprived of his senses. - For Penance, intention either actual or at least virtual is required; and therefore habitual intention does not suffice. - For Extreme Unction, habitual or implicit, or interpretative, intention suffices, as theologians commonly say, and as is clear from the Roman Ritual, where it is said concerning it: "This sacrament is to be furnished to those deprived of their senses, who previously asked for it or likely would have asked for it." - For Order, certainly in an adult interpretative intention does not suffice, because without explicit will no adult can undertake the most grave obligation of the clerical state. Yet habitual intention seems to suffice. In practice, however, actual or at least virtual intention must be required. - For Matrimony, intention at least virtual is required, because Matrimony is perfected by a contract, for which deliberation and full will are necessary. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 82. - Ballerini, note (a) p. 148.

But no intention is required for the Eucharist, which, since it is a permanent sacrament, is always validly received.

Question 2. Is internal attention required in an adult subject, so that the sacrament may be validly received?

Resp. Negatively, for if attention is not required in the Minister for confecting a sacrament, as is clear from what has been said, a fortiori it is not required in the subject, for less is always required for receiving than for making something. - Hence penitents are sometimes troubled in vain by scruples from the fact that they have suffered distractions while they were being absolved, or that they have been absolved without noticing it. - Cf. Sporer, n. 157.

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).