Informity and Reviviscence of the Sacraments

I. Informity. 1. The informity of a sacrament consists in this: that the sacrament is validly received, but, on account of an obstacle, does not produce fruit, that is, grace. It is said to be on account of an obstacle, whether material or formal, according as it is placed inculpably or culpably.

2. Six sacraments certainly can be unformed; concerning Penance alone it is disputed whether it can be received informly, that is, validly but without fruit.

II. Reviviscence; concerning which several things must be explained.

1. Notion. Reviviscence consists in this: that a sacrament validly but fruitlessly received afterwards produces grace, when the obstacle has been removed and the sacramental sign has ceased. I said "when the sacramental sign has ceased." Hence, supposing that the Holy Eucharist, received with an obstacle, produces Eucharistic grace when the obstacle has been removed before the consumption of the species,¹ there would not be reviviscence of the sacrament, because the fruit would be produced while the sacramental sign remains.

2. The sacraments which revive are these:

a) Baptism certainly can revive; this is clear from the fact that otherwise those who received Baptism without fruit would be unable to obtain the remission of original sin and of the other sins committed before Baptism. For original sin and the other sins committed before Baptism are not remitted except through Baptism received in reality or in desire. But those who have once received Baptism can no longer receive it: neither in reality, because Baptism cannot be repeated; nor in desire, because if a new Baptism is impossible, the desire for a new Baptism is also excluded.

b) Confirmation, Order, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction much more probably can revive. Otherwise those who had received the said sacraments fruitlessly, even inculpably, would remain deprived of sacramental grace, which is so necessary to man in the various states of life; since Confirmation and Order cannot be repeated at all, Matrimony cannot be repeated while the same bond remains, and finally Extreme Unction, while the same danger persists, is at least not licitly repeated.

c) Whether Penance can revive is doubtful: both because it is doubtful whether it can be unformed, that is, valid and fruitless; and because it can be repeated.

d) The Holy Eucharist, at least if it has been received sacrilegiously, is almost commonly said not to revive: both because it can be repeated so often, and because there would follow the absurdity that one who had communicated very often sacrilegiously, if he afterwards truly repented, would immediately be heaped with grace.

3. The time of reviving. Baptism, Confirmation, and Order can always revive, since they can never be repeated, and by force of the character in some way continue in being. Matrimony can revive so long as the same matrimonial bond persists. Once it has been broken, sacramental grace either is no longer necessary, or can be acquired through a new marriage. Extreme Unction can at least revive so long as the same danger continues. Finally, Penance, if it must be numbered among the sacraments that revive, must be said to be able always to revive.

4. The requisites for reviviscence. If someone has sacrilegiously received a sacrament, or has sinned gravely after receiving it, there is required of itself contrition or attrition with sacramental absolution; accidentally, given good faith, attrition with a sacrament of the living received in good faith suffices, as is taught much more probably. The reason is that such a man is in the state of mortal sin. But in order that mortal sin may be remitted, and thus that place may be given for the reviviscence of the sacrament, there is required of itself contrition or attrition with sacramental absolution; accidentally, attrition with a sacrament of the living suffices (St. Alphonsus, VI, 6, 87, 444). Outside these cases:

a) Attrition certainly suffices in order that Baptism and Penance may revive. For the disposition required in the very reception itself suffices.

b) Of itself contrition is required, but accidentally attrition most probably suffices, in order that Extreme Unction may revive, because this sacrament, received in good faith with attrition, most probably produces fruit.

c) Of itself contrition is required, but accidentally attrition more probably suffices, in order that Confirmation, Order, and Matrimony may revive, because those sacraments, received in good faith with attrition, more probably produce fruit (n. 6).

5. The mode by which reviviscence has place is explained in different ways, according as the causality of the sacraments is explained in different ways. Supporters of moral causality teach that the value of the sacrament received perseveres morally in divine acceptance, and, when the obstacle has been removed, moves God to the infusion of grace. Defenders of intentional causality say that there remains a title demanding grace, and that, when the obstacle has been removed, it produces grace. Defenders of physical causality attribute the reviviscence of Baptism, Confirmation, and Order to character; as for the reviviscence of the other sacraments, some of them deny it, others derive it from a certain habitual determination in the will, and others have recourse to moral causality for these cases.

6. The degree of reviviscence seems to correspond to the actual disposition of the subject.²

¹ Whether this has a place, see in the treatise on the Eucharist.

² Cf. Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter 7.

232. Questions. - QUESTION 1º. Do Sacraments received validly but illicitly, when the obstacle has been removed, revive, or produce the graces proper to themselves ¹?

¹ ** Here you have the question about sacraments which are to be held valid, but at the same time unformed. But in truth nothing compels that a question of this kind be restricted to those cases in which a man approaches the sacrament itself illicitly. For it can happen that the force of the sacrament finds an obstacle, although someone receives the sacrament in good faith, for example if, from inadvertence, an adult approaching baptism in no way sorrows for actual sins. Indeed this hypothesis is necessarily required, so that among such valid but unformed sacraments the Sacrament of Penance also can be numbered. For the absolution which has been imparted to one confessing in bad faith and sacrilegiously cannot be held valid, and therefore fit to exercise its force after the obstacle has been removed. See Cardinal De Lugo, De Sacram., Disp. 9, nn. 100-102, and De Poenit., Disp. 14, nn. 68, 74, 89.

Resp. Affirmatively, at least for most Sacraments. The reason is that it happens only per accidens that they do not produce their proper effects, namely on account of the obstacle; and therefore those effects indeed remain suspended while the obstacle remains; but when this has been removed, they ought to be applied to the soul. This is admitted as certain for Sacraments impressing a character. The same must probably be said also of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction and of Matrimony, which cannot be repeated during the same illness or the same marriage. - St. Ligorius, nn. 6 and 87.

QUESTION 2º. 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 per se attrition suffices for the reviviscence of Baptism and Extreme Unction ². But perfect contrition, or attrition with confession, is required for the other Sacraments, namely for Confirmation, Order, and Matrimony. Likewise, if Baptism was unformed because of the defect of Faith alone, it will revive by an act of Faith with attrition for the sin of infidelity. The reason is that just as the obstacle was introduced because of the lack of some required disposition, so it is removed by the placing of the same: for then no reason remains why the effect of the Sacrament should remain suspended. - Thus St. Thomas, 3 part, qu. 69, art. 10 (for Baptism). - Lugo, D. 9, n. 50 and following. - Lacroix, n. 207.

² ** The same must be said, as is plain, about the sacrament of Penance, if it happens to have been valid, but because of a defect of sorrow for some sin to have been at the same time unformed. See Lugo, cited place in the preceding note.

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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

St. Thomas III, q. 69, a. 10; Suppl., q. 9, a. 1.

56. Notions. - The sacraments confer grace ex opere operato upon those who do not place an obstacle; which formula the Protestants explain erroneously, as if Catholics taught that the external work itself justifies without faith or a good internal movement or disposition of the one acting, provided that in him there is not an actual contrary disposition, but he conducts himself negatively. - But all Catholics teach that the obstacle is not only a contrary act, but also the state of habitual adherence to sin, for the removal of which supernatural acts of faith, hope, and imperfect contrition are required; and these acts, although they are not the cause of grace, since they do not influence its production, nevertheless are the condition without which it would not be produced, because they remove that which would impede the infusion of grace.

Indeed, the greater or lesser that disposition is, the greater or lesser grace the sacrament confers (n. 40): in the same way fire burns wood more efficaciously when it is drier, although dryness is a mere condition removing what prevents, and is not the efficient cause of combustion.

For this to be well understood, it must be defined what fiction and obstacle are in the sacraments.

A. Fiction is the same as simulation: it consists in this, that someone by word or deed shows what is not in the truth of the matter. It is twofold:

1. essential, when someone feigns that he wills to receive a sacrament while he does not will it: this renders the sacrament invalid;

2. accidental, when someone receives a sacrament without the due disposition but with an obstacle: for one who receives a sacrament shows that he wills to receive grace; whence if his will remains adhering to sin, he shows something other than what is in the truth of the matter, and thus there is a fiction by which he feigns that he is disposed for the effect of the sacrament while he is not: then the sacrament is valid, but formless, i.e., without fruit or the form of grace.

B. An obstacle is twofold:

1. a positive, contrary, or formal obstacle is the fully voluntary and gravely culpable lack of the disposition required for the grace of the sacrament, for example, lack of faith or of imperfect contrition; namely, the sin of unworthy reception of the sacrament, or the act here and now posited contrary to the infusion of grace;

2. a negative or material obstacle is the unconscious lack of the disposition necessary for the grace of the sacrament, from ignorance or forgetfulness not gravely culpable, or the mere state of adherence to sin.

One can also distinguish: the obstacle simply, which, as we have said, impedes the principal effect of the sacrament, grace itself; and the obstacle in a qualified respect, which impedes only some secondary effect.

57. Principles. - I. The sacraments do not operate ex opere operato before they are really received. For an efficient cause does not operate before it exists; whence if someone with perfect contrition has the desire or vow of a sacrament, he receives sanctifying grace ex opere operantis, yet not that which is the res et sacramentum, nor sacramental grace.

II. Sacraments received invalidly on account of essential fiction never produce anything, because in truth they are not sacraments.

III. Sacraments validly received effect:

a) that which is the res et sacramentum at the time at which they are received; otherwise they would not have their signification. The Eucharist is excepted, in which the res et sacramentum, namely Christ, exists present before reception.

b) likewise sanctifying and sacramental grace, if an obstacle is not present;

c) if an obstacle is present, provided and for as long as the res et sacramentum remains, they confer this grace at the moment at which the obstacle is removed, and indeed as often as the sinner is justified. The reason is that the sacraments operate according to the norm of natural causes, which, if they are impeded from producing an effect because of an obstacle, immediately upon the obstacle being removed obtain the effect, provided that in the subject there has been left a disposition toward it. But the sacraments once completed leave in the soul a disposition which demands grace. Therefore, once the obstacle has been removed, they confer grace for as long as the disposition demanding it remains; and this theologians call the reviviscence of the sacraments. Therefore reviviscence consists in this, that a valid sacrament, but one formless because of the indisposition of the subject, once this indisposition has been removed, obtains its effect, namely that of grace, whether primary or secondary.

The obstacle is removed:

1. a negative obstacle, per se, by the disposition whose lack was the obstacle, i.e., by imperfect contrition alone, as was said in n. 39;

2. per accidens, if mortal sin supervenes, it is removed only by perfect contrition, or by imperfect contrition with a new sacrament: the reason is that no sacrament has the power of remitting sin committed after it;

3. a positive or contrary obstacle is removed also in this way, namely by perfect contrition, or by imperfect contrition with a new sacrament: for fiction, insofar as it impedes the effect of the sacrament, is by nature posterior to the sacrament, just as the effect itself is; therefore by this sacrament the sin of fiction or of unworthy reception is not remitted.

58. Corollaries. - From the principle laid down it follows:

1. That Baptism, Confirmation, and Order revive during the whole of life, because they leave a permanent disposition in the soul, the character. This is beyond every doubt for Baptism, because the removal of original sin is absolutely necessary for salvation, and it cannot be obtained either by the sacrament of Penance, or by repeated Baptism, and therefore not by the vow of this latter.

2. That the Eucharist does not revive, because, once the sacrament has passed, nothing remains in the soul; but if someone, by sorrowing for sins before the species are corrupted, were to obtain grace, this would not be reviviscence, because the sacrament is still present.

3. That Extreme Unction and Matrimony revive during the same illness or the same marriage: for so long the res et sacramentum remains. Thus the far more common opinion.

4. That Penance probably revives, in the case, which is held by many theologians as possible, in which contrition is had sufficient as a part of the sacrament, but insufficient as a disposition for grace: it revives when a disposition sufficient for grace comes to it, but only once, because in this way the right to remission of sin granted by absolution has already been exhausted.

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.

If Extreme Unction fails to produce its effect at the moment of reception, owing to the lack of the proper dispositions in the recipient, does it revive later on, when the sick person supplies the necessary dispositions? The case is this: Titius was injured and rendered unconscious by an explosion in a trench where he was working. While unconscious he was annointed. When he recovered consciousness, he confessed that he was in mortal sin at the time of the accident, but was hit so suddenly that he had no time to think of anything and had not made an act of contrition. If he makes an act of contrition now, will he receive the grace of Extreme Unction, or must he be annointed again?

Answer. Catholic theology teaches that the Sacraments, when validly administered, give grace to the recipient, unless the recipient places an obstacle in the way of grace. Non ponenti obicem sacramenta dant gratiam. The obex or obstacle which may impede the conferring of grace, is the lack of disposition in the recipient. It is the sacramental rite that is the cause of the grace. And the sacramental rite, when valid, will produce grace in the soul, unless the soul's lack of disposition prevents it. The soul's disposition is a conditio sine qua non. When the recipient of a Sacrament is not rightly disposed to receive it, he is said to place an obstacle, an obex, in the way of the Sacrament. The lack of disposition can never prevent the Sacrament from impressing its indelible character on the soul. The lack of disposition does, however, prevent the Sacraments from conferring grace. When it is said that the Sacraments revive, sacramenta reviviscere, it is meant that the Sacraments, later on, when the necessary dispositions are present, confer the same grace, which they would have conferred at the moment of their reception, had the recipient been rightly disposed. To remove the obstacle to a Sacrament is nothing else than to arouse the necessary dispositions, the absence of which prevented the Sacrament, when it was conferred, from producing its grace in the soul. It is evident that the necessary dispositions for the licit reception of a Sacrament may be lacking either through the fault of the recipient, or without his fault. For instance, a penitent may not have attrition for his sins at the moment when the priest absolves him, and this may happen either known or unknown to himself. In either case the Sacrament does not remit his sins, owing to the obstacle, i. e., lack of attrition, which he himself, either knowingly or unknowingly, places in its way.

There is no intrinsic difficulty, arising from the nature of the Sacraments, why they should not revive, once the obstacle in their way is removed. Every Sacrament, validly conferred, gives grace, or at least gives the right to grace, for every Sacrament, validly conferred, produces its own peculiar effect, unless it is prevented from doing so by the recipient's lack of disposition.

The difficulty about the reviviscence of the Sacraments arises from the difficulty of knowing positively whether Christ instituted the Sacraments so that they would revive. And concerning this question there is a great variety of opinion among the theologians. Some theologians maintain that only Baptism, if received with an obex, revives when the obstacle is removed. Other writers maintain that all the Sacraments revive. And finally, others hold that some of the Sacraments revive, while others do not. It is theologically certain that Baptism does revive, when the obstacle is removed. If this were not so, then many persons who receive Baptism without the proper dispositions, would be deprived, through the course of their lives, of the graces necessary to salvation.

It is very probable that the Sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders also revive. For, like Baptism, they also imprint a character on the soul, and it is forbidden to repeat them, once they have been validly conferred. If they did not revive, remoto obice, many persons would have to go through life lacking the special graces altogether necessary for their state.

As regards the Holy Eucharist and Penance, there cannot be urged the same reasons as for the other Sacraments, and therefore it is very doubtful whether, if received with an obstacle, they revive when the obstacle is removed. As they may be received or repeated every day, it is more than probable that they do not revive. However, it is not certain. The Sacrament of Marriage probably revives, because it may not be repeated or renewed during the lifetime of either party to it. There remains now only Extreme Unction. It is only probable that Extreme Unction revives once the obex to its effect is removed. The reason why theologians think that it may revive is this: Extreme Unction produces very special effects; it confers very special graces, very necessary to the sick person; it may not be repeated during the same sickness. Now if it did not revive when the obex is removed and the necessary dispositions are present, the sick person, who through his own fault or without any fault of his own, had received Extreme Unction without the right dispositions, would be deprived all through his sickness of the graces of Extreme Unction, nor would there be any way of supplying them. As it is difficult to defend such a position, theologians are inclined to think that Extreme Unction, if received by the indisposed, revives or gives grace later on whenever the sick person becomes rightly disposed. This, however, is not certain, but only probable.

Now it may be asked, if the Sacraments do not actually confer grace, owing to the lack of disposition on the part of the recipient, what must the recipient do to induce the right dispositions? Must he go to Confession and receive Absolution, or must he make an act of perfect contrition or will attrition suffice? To answer this question, it is necessary to distinguish between the Sacraments of the living and the Sacraments of the dead. If a person received the Sacraments of the living without being rightly disposed, that is, without being in the state of grace, then later on the state of grace can only be acquired by perfect contrition or by attrition and sacramental absolution. As soon as the state of grace is thus acquired, the obstacle is removed, which was the lack of grace, and the Sacrament produces its effect. This is true of all the Sacraments of the living, except Extreme Unction. In this matter, Extreme Unction is classed with the Sacraments of the dead.

In the case of the Sacraments of the dead, all that is required to remove the obex, and to induce the right disposition so that the Sacrament may produce its grace in the soul, is an act of attrition or imperfect contrition, unless a sacrilege was committed in the reception of the Sacrament, or a mortal sin after its reception; in this latter case, perfect contrition is necessary to induce the state of grace and thus remove the obex, or at least attrition with sacramental absolution. That is to say, sacramental confession and absolution are necessary, if possible, in the latter case, but perfect contrition, which includes a votum sacramenti, will suffice, where it is impossible to go to Confession.

The case. When Titius received Extreme Unction he was in the state of mortal sin. That state was the obex to the Sacrament. It had to be removed before the Extreme Unction could produce its own peculiar graces in his soul. As Titius' reception of Extreme Unction was not sacrilegious and as he committed no mortal sin after its reception, then as soon as Titius makes an act of attrition, the Extreme Unction which he received while unconscious will produce its grace in his soul, even to the remission of his mortal sins committed before the reception of Extreme Unction, in case Titius cannot go to Confession to be absolved, and in case he does not make an act of perfect contrition. For this is peculiar to the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, that it has been instituted togive per se the primam gratiam to those who make an act of attrition, if in mortal sin, and who cannot make a Sacramental Confession. If Titius had only venial sins on his soul when annointed and had no attrition for them, then they would not be remitted by the Extreme Unction until such time as Titius elicited an act of imperfect contrition or attrition. Under no circumstances is it lawful to re-annoint Titius at this time.