What a sacrament is; the seven sacraments

MERELY external religion, without devotion of mind and heart to the service of God, is hypocrisy, but though we should serve God in spirit and in truth, external rites and ceremonies are not excluded from religion. On the contrary, they form an essential part of it. Man is composed of body and soul; both come from God, and both should share in the worship due to their Creator. Besides, internal religion will be faint and likely to evaporate altogether, unless it sometimes finds expression in outward acts. God has provided for these wants of human nature by instituting the sacred rites, which we call sacraments, as essential parts of true religion. They serve also as signs by which the faithful are known to and united among themselves and distinguished from those outside the fold. They serve, too, as an external profession of faith, and as a means of practising the very salutary virtue of humility, inasmuch as we are compelled to seek in external rites the spiritual help of which we stand in need, whereby intellectual pride is humbled.

There were sacraments under the Old Law as there are under the New, although the latter are far more efficacious than the former. As expressing what is common to the sacraments of Judaism and Christianity, a sacrament may be defined to be an outward sign of inward grace. A sacrament, then, is some outward rite or ceremony instituted by God, to show forth and make known the grace which he thereby bestows on the soul of the recipient. Thus circumcision signified separation from the idolatrous world, incorporation among the people of God, and the infusion of grace into the soul for the remission of original sin. The sacraments of the Old Law produced their effects by exciting the faith of the ministers and recipients of them and by the profession of faith in the coming Redeemer which their use contained.

The sacraments of the New Law were instituted by Christ our Lord, and they confer the grace which they signify, not on account of the meritorious dispositions with which they are ministered or received, but on account of their dignity and intrinsic excellence. They were instituted by Christ, they are administered in his name and by his authority, and thus they are in a true sense the actions of Christ our Lord executed by his ministers. Divines express this by saying that the sacraments of the Christian Church confer grace ex opere operato, while those of the Old Law produced it ex opere operantis. A sacrament, then, of the New Law may be defined to be an outward sign of invisible grace instituted by Christ to confer the grace which it signifies.

There are certain rites and ceremonies in use in the Church which are called sacramentals. Of these we may mention the consecration of abbots, the first tonsure of clerics, the sacring of kings, the blessing of chalices and bells, holy water, Agnus Dei, scapulars, and many more. They are called sacramentals because they are sacred rites which, if properly used according to the mind of the Church, confer spiritual graces on the soul of him who uses them. They do this through the approbation and blessing of the Church, the Spouse of Christ, whose prayers and desires Christ always listens to, and through the good dispositions of those who use them. They thus differ from sacraments, as also in the grace which they produce. They confer actual graces, special helps to do good and avoid evil, given by God in answer to the prayers of the Church and the pious desires of those who use them properly (Can. 1144).

The Council of Trent defined as of faith that there are seven sacraments instituted by Christ our Lord: Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony; that these sacraments contain the grace which they signify, and that they always confer grace on all those who receive them and put no obstacle to their effect. The sacraments, then, require certain dispositions on the part of the recipient in order that they may produce their effect. They will be validly received if nothing that is essential be wanting to them, but in order to produce their effect when they are received the recipient must have the required dispositions. I may apply a match to a faggot of wood, but this will not take fire if it is sodden with water. Similarly, if an adult asks for Baptism and is rightly baptized the sacrament will be validly received, but if the recipient has no faith or no sorrow for his sins the Baptism will indeed imprint a character, but it will not infuse sanctifying grace in the soul. In such a case as this the sacrament is validly but not licitly received; it is said by divines to be unformed, not formed.

1. The efficacy of the Sacraments depends solely on the will of God, and hence all that is required for their valid administration on the part of the minister is power and jurisdiction, proper application of matter and form, and an actual or at least a virtual intention of doing what the Church does.¹ It is a mortal sin for any one not in the state of sanctifying grace to administer a Sacrament solemnly. Ignorance, of course, is an excuse, and so is urgent necessity, as when the administration of Baptism or Penance cannot be postponed without danger to the salvation of others. In such urgent cases the minister is called minister necessitatis; in all others, minister called minister necessitatis; in all others, minister solemnitatis.

¹ Conc. Trident., Sess. VII, De Sacr., can. 10, 11, 12; Sess. XIV, De Poenit., can. 10 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 853, 854, 855, 920).

Hence the general rule that no Sacrament should be performed or administered by one who is in the state of mortal sin. One who is so unfortunate as to be called upon to administer a Sacrament in that state, should first cleanse himself by the worthy reception of Penance, if he can conveniently find a confessor (habita copia confessarii)² or else by an act of perfect contrition.

² Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, cap. 7, can. 11; Rit. Rom., De Administr. Sacram., tit. i, n. 4; Codex Iuris Can., can. 807.

Matrimony is the only Sacrament that is not administered by the priest but by the contracting parties to each other, and hence husband and wife are themselves the ministers.³ They should receive this holy Sacrament in the state of grace, which means, ordinarily, that they should go to confession and Communion before plighting their troth.

³ Conc. Trident., Sess. XXIV, De Reform. Matr., c. i; Rit. Rom.t De Sacr. Matr., tit. 7, c. 1, n. 17.

In regard to the other Sacraments the question arises: If a priest who is in the state of mortal sin be called upon to administer a Sacrament, must he go to confession, or is perfect contrition sufficient? We answer: Perfect contrition suffices for all Sacraments except the Holy Eucharist (i. e., saying Mass). The reason is this: Perfect contrition, including the votum sacramenti, restores sanctifying grace, and the administration of all the Sacraments, with the exception of the consecration of the Eucharist, is always, morally speaking, a matter of necessity. When the celebration of Mass is a matter of necessity, as sometimes happens, it will suffice for the priest to make an act of perfect contrition, but he is bound to receive the Sacrament of Penance as soon thereafter as an opportunity offers, i. e., at least within three days, according to the common interpretation of the law.⁴

⁴ Conc. Trident., Sess. VI, c. 5-6.—Missale Rom., De Defect. in Cel. Missae, tit. 8, n. 2 sq.— Prop. Damnat. ab Alexandra VII., 38: "The command of the Council of Trent, given to a priest who celebrates from necessity while in mortal sin, to confess as soon as possible, is a counsel, not a precept."—Prop. 39: "That phrase ‘as soon as possible’ is understood to mean when the priest confesses in his own time." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1138 sq.).—Cfr. Ferreres, Comp. Theol. M., ed. 8a, Vol. II, n. 431, qu. 5.

It follows that all those who are ex officio entrusted with the administration of the means of grace, are in duty bound to hold themselves in readiness to administer the Sacraments, in other words, to be habitually in the state of grace.⁵

⁵ Cfr. St. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps., CIII, s. i, n. 9: "Let those who use holy things unholily consider what account they will have with God." (Migne, Pat. La*., XXXVII, 1343).

So much for the interior disposition of the minister. Now for the act of administration. As the minister acts in the name and by authority of the Church, the first rule is that he must comply with her directions. Sancta sancte tractanda. Hence it is a mortal sin knowingly to employ the wrong matter or form, or, except in case of necessity, a matter or form of doubtful validity; since this would endanger the Sacrament. In cases of necessity (iusta causa) a doubtful matter or form may be employed, because the Sacraments are instituted for the sake of men (sacramenta propter homines). It is likewise sinful (mortally or venially, according to the circumstances of each case) to alter or mutilate the words of the form, to utter them inarticulately or without devotion, or to omit important rites or ceremonies prescribed by the Church. If this is done out of contempt for Christ or the Church, or if it causes grave scandal, the minister commits a mortal sin, and even when the motive is mere negligence, a mortal sin is committed every time the object is materia gravis.⁶ 2. The faithful have a right to the Sacraments, and hence all duly appointed ministers of the Church are bound in justice to administer the same whenever they are asked, and should always be ready and willing to comply with every reasonable request, nay exhort their people to make frequent use of the divinely appointed means of grace.⁷ It is a mortal sin for a priest entrusted with the care of souls to refuse to administer a Sacrament without good reason, or to administer it with manifest reluctance. Such conduct is apt to deter the faithful from the reception of the Sacraments and easily causes scan- dal. The duty of administering Baptism and Penance, in particular, binds even when there is danger of contracting a contagious disease or incurring grave risk to life or limb.⁸ Of course, all reasonable precautions may and should be taken in such cases. The duty just mentioned does not bind priests who are not officially engaged in pastoral work, though all are bound to respond to urgent calls when there is grave necessity, as, e. g., on the field of battle, or when some one is seriously ill or dying and no other priest can be had. The same rule applies to a pastor in his conduct towards those not under his care. We need hardly add, however, that no true priest will confine himself to what is of strict duty in matters of this kind.

⁶ Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. VII, De Sacr., can. 13 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 856); Rit. Rom., De Administr. Sacram., tit. 1, n. 11.

⁷ Cfr. Concilium Trident., Sess. XXIII, De Ref., c. i; Rit. Rom., De Administr. Sacram., n. 5.

⁸ John X, 11-13. —Benedict XIV, De Synodo Dioecesana, XIII, c. 19, n. 8.—Cfr. I. Chapeauville, Tract. de Necessitate et Modo Ministrandi Sacramento, Tempore Pestis, Mayence 1612.

It is forbidden (extra periculum mortis) to administer the Sacraments to persons who are notoriously unworthy (publice indigni), especially if these persons are excommunicated by name, or are under an interdict, or if they lead a life of public infamy, e. g., prostitutes, fortune tellers, concubinarians, and Freemasons publicly known as such, unless indeed they have done penance and repaired the scandal given. The reason for this prohibition is the danger of scandalizing the faithful and Christ's admonition not to give that which is holy to the dogs nor to cast pearls before swine.⁹

⁹ Matth. VII, 6.—Cfr. 1 Tim. V, 22.—Rit. Rom., De S. Eucharist. Sacr., tit. 4, c. 1, n. 8-9. —Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogmaticae, Vol. VI, 3rd ed., pp. 126 sqq.

In applying this rule attention must be paid to the distinction between public and private sinners and to the nature of the request made. If the priest knows of the unworthiness of an applicant only by his official position, i. e., through the confessional, he is obliged to administer the Sacrament asked for, e. g., Holy Communion, because the preservation of the seal and the good name of the recipient are more important than regard for the sanctity of the Sacrament. Hence if a person who is guilty of secret sin should publicly demand a Sacrament, his demand must not be refused if there is danger of public defamation or grave scandal. The case is different with public sinners and secret offenders who apply privately to the priest. To such (extra periculum mortis) no Sacrament should be administered except Penance and, under certain conditions, Matrimony.

To simulate a Sacrament, e. g., by administering an unconsecrated host, is never allowed, not even for the purpose of preventing sacrilege or saving one's life.¹⁰ To bless or pray over a penitent not properly disposed, in order to protect the secret of the confessional or the good name of the sinner, is not a simulatio or fictio sacramenti, and therefore permitted.¹¹

¹⁰ The proposition: "Urgent grave fear is a just cause for simulating the administration of the Sacraments." was condemned by Pope Innocent XI (Prop. Damnat., n. 29; Denz.- Bannwart, n. 1179).

¹¹ H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. III, 11th ed., pp. 40 sq.

READINGS. —St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 3a, qu. 60-90. —St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, 1. VI, tr. 1-5 (ed. Gaudé, Vol. III).—P. Schanz, Die Lehre von den hi Sakramenten, Freiburg 1893, pp. 161 sqq. —N. Gihr, Die hl. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1902, pp. 140 sqq.—Chr. Pesch, S.J., Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Vol. VI, 3rd ed., pp. 98 sqq. —P. Pourrat, Theology of the Sacraments, 2nd ed., St. Louis 1914. —Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, St. Louis 1915, pp. 161 sqq. —Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. II, 2nd ed., London 1901, pp. 366 sqq. —J. E. Pruner, Lehrbuch der Pastoraltheologie, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Paderborn 1904, pp. 94 sqq.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. III, 11th ed., pp. 3 sqq. —J. de Lugo, De Sacramentis in Genere, disp. 1-9. —Ballerini-Palmieri, SJ., Opus Theol. Mor., 3rd ed., Vol. IV, n. 642-710.—A. Lehmkuhl, SJ., Theol. Moral, Vol. II, 11th ed., pp. 1-43 —Sabetti-Barrett, SJ., Comp. Theol. Mor., 22nd ed., pp. 515 sqq.—Th. Slater, SJ., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. II, pp. 15 sqq.

Regarding the moral requisites of worthy reception, a distinction must be drawn between what is necessary for the validity of a Sacrament and what is required for its licit and fruitful reception.

1. The valid reception of a Sacrament requires: a) that the recipient be in the wayfaring state (in statu viatoris); b) that (if he be an adult) he have the wish to employ the Sacrament as a means of grace; c) that he be baptized. Baptism, according to an ancient saying, is the door to the supernatural life. No other Sacrament can be validly received without it.¹

¹ Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacratnents, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 238 sqq.; Chr. Pesch, S.J., Praelect. Dogm., Vol. VI, 3rd ed., pp. 130 sqq.; N. Giehr, Die hi. Sakramente, Vol. I, "5 and ed., pp. 158 sqq.

As regards the necessary intention, this is supplied by the Church for infants, insane and weakminded persons, and adults who lack the full use of reason.² When there is question of adminis- tering Extreme Unction to an unconscious Catholic, it may be presumed that the patient would wish to receive the Sacrament if he were in possession of his faculties. Penance and Extreme Unction require an actual, or at least a virtual, intention; for the other Sacraments (Baptism of adults, Confirmation, Communion, and Holy Orders) a habitual intention is sufficient.

² Cfr. Matth. VIII, 5-10; XV, 22-28; Mark IX, 16-26.

2. For the licit and fruitful reception of Baptism (in the case of adults) and Penance there is required in the subject faith, hope, and imperfect contrition (attritio). One who has lost sanctifying grace after Baptism must regain it by a worthy confession before he can worthily receive Holy Communion.³ The reception of Penance is recommended, though not prescribed, as the best means of preparing for the other Sacraments of the living. To receive any of these Sacraments consciously in the state of mortal sin is a sacrilege and a more grievous sin than would be the administration of a Sacrament in the same condition.

³ Conc. Trident., Sess. VI. c. 5-6; Sess. XIII, c. 7, can. 11 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 797, 798, 880, 893).

Broadly speaking, the faithful are in duty bound to demand the Sacraments only from properly constituted ministers of good character. Every priest is to be regarded as worthy unless his unworthiness is certain and notorious.

READINGS. —P. Schanz, Die Lehre von den hl. Sakramenten, Freiburg 1893, pp. 187 sqq.—Chr. Pesch, S.J., Praelectiones Dogmaticac, Vol. VI, 3rd ed., pp. 130 sqq. —Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 191 sqq. —Sabetti-Barrett, S.J., Com/>. Theol. Mor., 22nd ed., pp. 526 sqq. —H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. III, pp. 42 sqq. —Th. Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, pp. 41 sqq—A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 37 sqq.

1. BAPTISM. —Since the coming of Christ Baptism is "the laver of regeneration,"¹ in which every man must be washed, either actually (in re), or at least in desire (in voto), in order to be saved.²

² John III, 5.—Conc. Trident., Sess. VI, c. 4; Sess. VII, De Bopt., can. 2 sqq. (Denzinger-Bannwart, n, 796, 858 sqq.)—Cfr. Pesch, Prae- Sess, Praelect. Dogm., Vol. VI, 3rd ed., pp. 181 sqq.

¹ Tit. III, 5.

The necessity of Baptism, therefore, is a necessitas medii; but it is also a necessitas praecepti, on account of Christ's command to the Apostles to teach and baptize all nations.³

³ Matth. XXVIII, 19.

The precept of receiving Baptism obliges all who have the use of reason and are capable of receiving this Sacrament.⁴ Nothing can dispense from this duty except utter inability. a) Baptism being "the Sacrament of faith," is necessary for all men, including the children of Christian parents, and as an indispensable condition of membership in the mystic body of Christ imposes certain well-defined duties.

⁴ Conc. Trident., Sess. V, can. 4; Sess. VI, c. 7 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 799); Rit. Rom., De Sacr. Bapt., tit. 2, c. 1, n. 1.

Parents and their representatives are bound under pain of grievous sin to have their children baptized as soon as possible after birth. To allow a child to die without Baptism is a mortal sin. As regards the time, due attention should be paid to approved custom and local ecclesiastical regulations. Under the present discipline infants must be baptized as soon as it can conveniently be done.⁵ Most theologians deem it a mortal sin to defer Baptism for more than a month without reasonable cause. It is safe to say that the reception of this most important Sacrament should not be postponed for more than a few days unless there be some very good reason for delay.

⁵ Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 2, qu. 33. — Decree of the Holy Office, of Jan. 11, 1899: “It must be urged that Baptism be administered as soon as possible.” — Codex Juris Can., can. 770: "Infants are to be baptized as soon as possible; and pastors and preachers are frequently to remind the faithful of this grave obligation of theirs."

The Rituale Romanum forbids a child to be baptized in utero matris on the ground that the Sacrament cannot be validly administered under such conditions. This prohibition is based on an assumption which has proved to be unfounded. With the means now at command it is possible to baptize an infant in utero, and therefore it should be done. If the head can be reached, the child should be baptized in the regular way, and the Baptism must not be repeated if the child is born alive; if the head cannot be reached but some other limb protrudes, the child should be baptized conditionally and rebaptized sub conditione after birth.⁶

⁶ Codex Iuris Can., can. 746, § 1: "No one enclosed in the mother’s womb is to be baptized until there is probable hope that, once duly delivered, he can be baptized. If an infant has put forth the head and danger of death is imminent, he is to be baptized on the head; nor afterward, if he survives, is he to be baptized again conditionally. If he has put forth another member, he is to be baptized conditionally on it if danger is imminent; and then, if he lives after birth, he is again to be baptized conditionally." —Cfr. Rit. Rom., De Sacr. Bapt., tit. 2, c. 1, n. 16. —Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 68, art. 11.

Apparently still-born infants, and such as are incompletely developed (foetus abortivus) or abnormally shaped (monstra), should be conditionally baptized if there is doubt whether they are dead or alive.⁷

⁷ Codex Iuris Can., can. 747, 748.

In case a mother dies during pregnancy, the fetus should be carefully extracted from the womb and baptized, —absolutely if it is certainly alive, conditionally if there be doubt.⁸

⁸ Rit. Rom., De Sacr. Bapt., tit. 2, c. 1, n. 17. —Cfr. Stohr-Kannamuller, Handbuch der Pastoralmedisin, 5th ed., Freiburg 1909, pp. 479 sqq.; Pruner, Lehrb. d, Pastoraltheol., Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 157 sqq. —Codex Iuris Can., can. 746, § 4.

Infants should be baptized privately immediately after birth if there is reason to fear that they will die before the Sacrament can be administered in the ordinary way. This precept implies the duty, on the part of physicians and midwives, of calling attention to such danger, where it exists, and on the part of all concerned of seeing to it that the Sacrament is administered in time.⁹

⁹ Codex Iuris Can., can. 759, § 1; can. 743. —Rit. Rom., De Sacr. Bapt., tit. 2, c. 1, n. 13. —The decree of the Holy Office of Jan. 11, 1899, already quoted, says: "It can then be permitted that the midwife confer it when there is a positive fear that the child will die during the delay." —Cfr. J. B. Geniesse, La Mort Reclle et la Mart Apparente et leurs Rapports avec I'Administration des Sacrements, Paris 1906; J. Antonelli, Medicina Pastoralis, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Rome 1906, pp. 265 sqq.

b) After having their child baptized, parents are in duty bound to give it a good Christian education, in order that the grace conferred by Baptism may be preserved. In case of death or neglect, this duty devolves upon the sponsors, of whom there should be at least one and not more than two.¹⁰

¹⁰ Codex Iuris Can., can. 760, 764. —Rit. Rom., De Sacr. Bapt., tit. 2, c. 1, n. 25. —Cfr. C. Krieg, Wissenschaft der Seelenleitung, Vol. I, p. 110. Under the new Code no spiritual relationship is incurred by Baptism except between the baptizing minister and the person baptized, and between the latter and the sponsors (can. 768).

2. CONFIRMATION. —The Sacrament of Confirmation bestows the grace to be "a good soldier of Christ Jesus,"¹¹ to profess the Catholic faith courageously, and never under any circumstances to deny it. Hence all who are able to receive this Sacrament are in duty bound to do so.¹² Culpable neglect in this matter exposes one to great spiritual danger and is a mortal sin if inspired by formal contempt for the Sacrament or accompanied by grievous scandal, or when there is proximate danger of losing faith or charity.

¹¹ 2 Tim. II, 3. —Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 72, art. 1 and 7.

¹² Codex Iuris Can., can. 787.

Bishops are under a grave obligation of affording the faithful an opportunity to receive this Sacrament at least once every five years.¹³

¹³ Ibid., can. 785, § 3 sq.

Each person confirmed ought to have a separate sponsor, whose obligations are similar to those assumed by the sponsor at Baptism.¹⁴

¹⁴ Codex Iuris Can., can. 794, 797.

There is no obligation either to administer or to receive this Sacrament fasting, though, according to St. Thomas, "where it can conveniently be done, it is more becoming that both giver and receiver should be fasting."¹⁵

¹⁵ Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 72, art. 12, ad 2: "Because of the multitude of the faithful and the dangers that threaten, it is tolerated that this Sacrament, which can be given only by bishops, be given or received even by those who are not fasting, because one bishop, especially in a large diocese, would not suffice to confirm so many people if their time were restricted. Yet where it can suitably be observed, it is more fitting that it be given and received by those who are fasting."

READINGS. —Rituale Romanum, De Sacro Baptismate. —J. B. Geniesse, La Mort Reel et la Mart Apparente et leurs Rapports avec I'A dministration des Sacrements, Paris 1906. —J. Antonelli, Medicina Pastoralis, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Rome 1906. —Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 238 sqq., 304 sqq. —Stohr-Kannamiiller, Handbuch der Pastoralmedizin, 4th ed., Freiburg 1900. —Codex Iuris Canonici, De Baptismo, can. 737-779; De Confirmatione, can. 780-800. —M. J. O'Donnell, "Baptism in the New Code," in the Irish Eccles. Record, 5th Series, Vol. X, No. 6, pp. 441 sqq.—P. Hoornaert, S.J., Baptéme d’Urgence, Brussels 1923. —Sabetti-Barrett, S.J., Comp. Theol. Mor., pp. 534 sqq., 555 sqq.—Th. Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. II, pp. 47 sqq., 67 sqq. —H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. III, pp. 62 sqq., 99 sqq.—A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 43 sqq., 70 sqq.

The Holy Eucharist is entitled to an important place in Moral Theology because it has been instituted as the spiritual food of the soul, as a means to avoid everyday sins, and as a pledge of eternal glory.¹ Christ instituted this Sacrament for the twofold purpose of transforming and ennobling human nature, and enabling men to advance on the way to righteousness and become intimately united with God. As Communion the Holy Eucharist is both the efficient cause and sign of a real and mystic union with Jesus Christ ² —"the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, which is brought about by many being one in Christ." ³ "From the Eucharist the martyrs drew their strength, the virgins their zeal, the saints their courage." ⁴ The nature and effects of this Sacrament give rise to the following obligations.

¹ John VI, 50 sqq.—St. Ignatius (Ep. ad Ephes., 20, 2) calls the Holy Eucharist "the medicine of immortality, the antidote that we should not die, but live forever in Christ." (Funk, Patres Apost., Vol. I, 2nd ed., p. 230). —Rit. Rom., De S. Euch. Sacr., tit. 4, c. 2, n. 6: "O sacred banquet, in which Christ is received, the memory of His Passion is recalled, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us."

² Cfr. John VI, 54; 1 Cor. X, 16 sq.—Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. II, 2nd ed., pp. 218 sqq.; M. Heimbucher, Die Wirkung der hi. Kommunion, Ratisbon 1884.

³ "The Sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, which consists in this, that many are one in Christ." (St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 82, art. 2, ad 2). —St. Augustine 123 exclaims: "O Sacrament of piety! O sign of unity! O bond of charity!" (TV. in loa., 26, n. 13). In another place (ibid., n. 14) he calls the Eucharist "panis concordiae." Again he says: "The martyrs are strong, the martyrs are steadfast; but bread strengthens the heart of man, the bread which came down from heaven." (Serm., 333, c. i; Migne, P. L., XXXVIII, 1464). —Cfr. K. Adam, Die Eucharistielehre des hl. Augustin, Paderborn 1908.

⁴ Don Bosco.

1. THE DUTY OF RECEIVING HOLY COMMUNION. —Holy Communion is not necessary as a means of salvation (necessitate medii), but a divine precept imposes upon all who have attained the use of reason the duty of receiving the Eucharist if possible (necessitas praecepti).⁵

⁵ Cfr. Luke XXII, 19; John VI, 4 1 Cor. XI, 26. —Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, c. 2, can. 9; Sess. XXI, c. 4, can. 4 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 875, 891, 933, 937)- —St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 73, art. 3; qu. 80, art. 11. 5 "The most perfect and most necessary provision for the journey."

1. This duty is based on the same general reasons as that of receiving Confirmation, plus the additional one that Holy Communion is a food without which the supernatural life of the soul must needs grow weak or cease altogether. There can be no doubt that the divine precept of receiving the Holy Eucharist as viaticum 6 (when there is danger of death from whatever cause) obliges under pain of mortal sin, for Christ expressly declared: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." ⁷

⁷ John VI, 54. —Codex Iuris Can., can. 864, § 1. —Conc. Nicaen. I., can. 13 (Hefele, Concilicngeschichte, Vol. I, 2nd ed., p. 417). —Conc. Trident-, Sess. XIII, c. 8. —On the ancient custom of receiving Communion as viaticum see A. Struckmann, Die Gegenwan Christi in der hi. Eucharistie, Vienna 1905, pp. 210 sqq.

2. The duty with which we are concerned is inculcated by the well-known ecclesiastical precept which commands all the faithful who have attained the use of reason to receive Holy Communion at least once a year, during Easter time. This law, passed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran,⁸ was at first purely disciplinary, but received dogmatic character at the Council of Trent.⁹ The paschal precept must be regarded as an authentic interpretation of the divine command to eat the Body and Blood of the Lord. Needless to say, it can be fulfilled only by a worthy Communion.¹⁰ If for some reason the precept is not complied with during the paschal season, it remains binding for the remainder of the ecclesiastical year, and if one foresees that he will be unable to perform his Easter duty within or after the prescribed time, he should try to attend to it in advance.¹¹

⁸ Conc. Lat. IV. (A. D. 1215), c. 21 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 437).

⁹ Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, can. 9. —Cfr. J. P. Gury, Comp. Theol. Moralis, Vol. II, n. 218 sq. —The new Codex Iuris Can. states the law of paschal Communion in the usual terms of our catechisms, but adds (can. 859, § 1): "unless perhaps, on the advice of his own priest and for some reasonable cause, he judges that its reception should be postponed for a time."

¹⁰ This has been indirectly defined by Innocent XI when he condemned the proposition: "The precept of annual Communion is fulfilled by a sacrilegious eating of the Lord." (Prop. Damnat., n. 55; Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1205). The new Codex Iuris Can. expressly says (can. 861): “The precept of receiving Communion is not fulfilled by a sacrilegious Communion.”

¹¹ Cfr. Koch-Preuss, Handbook of Moral Theology, Vol. I, p. 179. —St. Alphonsus, Theol. Moral., 1. VI, n. 297 sqq.

The place for making the Easter Communion is the parish church. One who makes it elsewhere, under the new Code of Canon Law, is admonished to inform his pastor of the fact.¹²

¹² Codex Iuris Can., can. 859, § 3: "The faithful are to be advised that each fulfill this precept of paschal Communion in his own parish; and those who fulfill it in another parish are to take care to notify their own pastor that the precept has been fulfilled." —On the history of this procept see A. Villien, A History of the Commandments of the Church, St. Louis 1915, pp. 210 sqq.

II. PREPARATION FOR COMMUNION. —The nature of the Holy Eucharist is such that it must be received with the greatest possible purity of soul and body. i. PREPARATION OF THE SOUL. —In order to receive Holy Communion worthily, the soul must be free from mortal sin.¹³ Therefore, if one is conscious of a mortal sin, he must worthily receive the Sacrament of Penance before approaching the Holy Table. If he must communicate, and confession is impossible, he should at least make an act of perfect contrition. Mortal sins forgotten in a worthy confession should, if a good opportunity offers, be confessed before approaching the Holy Table. There is, however, no strict obligation to do so, and if one has no opportunity to confess, it will suffice to mention such sins in the next confession. To receive the Holy Eucharist while conscious of mortal sin is a very grievous sin, and the greatest of sacrileges, though, contrary to the opinion of many, by no means the most grievous sin a man can commit.¹⁴

¹³ Cfr. 1 Cor. XI, 27 sqq.; Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, c. 7, can. 11 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 880, 893); Sess. XXII, De Observ. et Evitand. in Celebrat. Missae. —Cfr. Prop, Dantnat. ab Alexandra VII., n. 38 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1138).

¹⁴ Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 3a, qu. 80, art. 5; Pohle- Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 268 sq. —On the participation of Judas in the Last Supper see St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 81, art. 2; J. Belser, Die Geschichte des Leidens und Sterbens des Herrn, Freiburg 1903, pp. 162 sqq.

As an immediate preparation for Holy Communion, acts of faith, hope, charity, adoration, desire, devotion, and humility should be elicited. All these acts may profitably be directed to Christ's sacrificial death on the cross.¹⁵ A part of the preparation for Communion in the wider sense is the thanksgiving following its reception. This is a very important and effective means of preserving the graces obtained and of making them fruitful for the spiritual life. The thanksgiving after Communion should consist mainly in acts of adoration, humility, gratitude, love, and self-oblation,¹⁶ and should contain some special petitions and resolutions.

¹⁵ Cfr. Luke XXII, 19; 1 Cor. XI, 26; Rit. Rom., De Euch. Sacr., tit. 4, c. 1, n. 4; F. S. Renz, Die Geschichte des Messopferbegriffes, Vol. I, pp. 115 sqq.

¹⁶ Cfr. P. Lejeune, Avant et après la Communion, Paris 1901.

2. PREPARATION OF THE BODY. —On the part of the body the worthy reception of the Eucharist requires: a) Cleanliness and a decent habiliment. Neglect of these requisites betrays a moral defect and is a violation of the respect due to the Sacrament and to Jesus Christ, who is present therein. Holy Communion must not, however, be denied to those who suffer from diseases which ordinarily involve physical uncleanness, e. g., leprosy, smallpox, eczema, etc. The married are advised (though not commanded) to abstain from carnal intercourse immediately before and after Communion. ¹⁷ "Neither legitimate cohabitation nor a flow of blood nor seminal pollutions during sleep but only impious and illicit conduct can violate nature or expel the Holy Ghost/' ¹⁸ b) A second bodily requisite for the worthy reception of Communion is that the recipient be fasting. The Eucharistic fast, known as ieiunium naturale, consists in complete abstention from food and drink and everything that is ordinarily taken after the manner of food and drink (per modum cibi et potus) after midnight (post mediam noctem).¹⁹™ This law binds under pain of mortal sin and admits of no parvitas materiae. The term midnight is to be understood physically, not morally, but we are allowed to follow either standard or sidereal time.

¹⁷ Cfr. 1 Cor. VII. 5 sq.; Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 4, qu. 56; Innocent XI's Decree "Quum ad Aures," Feb. 12, 1679 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1147); Missale Rom., De Defect, in Celebr. Missae, tit. 9, n. 5; Pseudo- Augustine, Append. Serm., 292 (at. 244 De Temp.), n. 3 (Migne, P. L., XXXIX, 2298).

¹⁸ Constit. Apost., VI, c. 27 (ed. Funk, Vol. I, p. 371); cfr. Struckmann, Die Gegenwart Christi in der hi. Eucharistie, pp. 207 sqq.; St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, Suppl., qu. 64, art. 3.

¹⁹ St. Augustine, Epist., 54 (a/. 118), n. 8: "It pleased the Holy Spirit that, in honor of so great a Sacrament, the Lord’s body should enter the Christian’s mouth before other foods; for this is why that custom is observed throughout the whole world." (Migne, P. L., XXXIII, 203). Missale Rom., De Defect, in Celebr. Missae, tit. 9, n. 1-4; Rit. Rom., tit. 4, c. 1, n. 3. —St. Thomas says (Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 80, art. 8, ad 5): "The Roman Church begins the day at midnight. Therefore, if anyone takes anything after midnight by way of food or drink, he cannot receive this Sacrament on the same day; but he can if it was before midnight." —The new Codex Iuris Can. reinforces the old law as follows (can. 858, § 1): "One who has not observed the natural fast from midnight cannot be admitted to the Most Holy Eucharist unless danger of death is urgent or there is a necessity of preventing irreverence toward the Sacrament."

The Eucharistic fast does not, however, bind those who are in danger of death, i. e., who suffer from a disease in which the Holy Eucharist is given as viaticum (which may be done repeatedly in the course of the same illness²⁰20). Nor does it bind when there is danger of a profanation of the Sacrament by unbelievers, or of scandal or infamy, or when a priest is compelled to complete the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass after the Consecration, either because he has "consecrated" and consumed water instead of wine (in which case he is obliged to reconsecrate and consume both species) or, for good reason, the wine only, or because he is overcome by sudden illness or death. It is of precept to complete a Mass once it has proceeded beyond the consecration of the bread, and in case of necessity it may be done by one who is no longer fasting. If the priest who finishes a Mass in place of another has not yet said Mass himself, he is not allowed to say another Mass, etiam ablutione non sumpta, unless he has the privilege of binating.²¹

²⁰ See the decision of the Holy Office of Sept. 7, 1897, and that of the S. Congregation of the Council, of Dec. 7, 1906. —Codex Iuris Can., can. 858, § 2; 864, § 3.

²¹ Missale Rom., De Defect, in Celebr. Missae, tit. 10, n. 5. —Cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mort, 1. VI, n. 287 sqq.

The Eucharistic fast, finally, is not binding on in- valids or on those who have been legitimately dispensed by the Pope. Invalids may receive Communion once or twice a week even if they are obliged to take some liquid food.²¹

²¹ Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 858, § 2.

(cc. 731-736)

Utility. - This is the common utility of the present treatise: that, by generic accounts concerning the nature, dispensation, and use of the sacraments, it may furnish a certain first information and anticipated knowledge concerning the individual sacraments, which may render plainer and permit more expeditious explanation of the parts which recur in the individual sacraments with some specific notes.

Division of the treatise. - In order we shall speak: On the Nature and Division of the sacraments; On the Minister and the right Administration of the sacraments; On the Subject by whom the same are validly and licitly requested.

— By polemical reasons which the war against the Church made necessary, theologians in more recent times have been led to defend more the external ramparts of the Church, and to explore less her interior riches, with which she has been enriched by her Spouse, much less to show and preach the same to the faithful. The analytic consideration of things also has had this inconvenience, that things were proposed and considered as too separate. Thus, too much in the understanding and practical judgments of the faithful, the sacraments have been separated from the Eucharist, the common priesthood of the baptized from the ministerial priesthood of those who are ordained for doing sacred things, actions called natural from supernatural ones, the life of Christians from the passion of Christ, man from his exemplar and new Father in whom he has been regenerated, Christ from the Church, which continues Christ.

But by a wonderful unity all the sacraments converge toward the Eucharist. For every man now exists for this purpose, that he may be converted into Christ. This is done formally through the Eucharist, which alone, according to itself, communicates the life of Christ. But the other sacraments either prepare the Eucharist: thus Baptism, Penance; or render it more certain, as Confirmation; or complete it, as Extreme Unction; or confect it, as Order; or beget for it other worshipers and participants, as Matrimony, which also "by its signification touches this sacrament, insofar as it signifies the union of Christ and the Church, whose unity is figured by the sacrament of the Eucharist" (cf. St. Thomas, III, q. 65, art. 3, On the Excellence of the Most Holy Eucharist).

3. The common opinion of theologians admits that there were true sacraments even in the Old Testament, which, although they were much more imperfect than the seven sacraments of the New Testament, nevertheless cannot be reduced to a mere analogy of sacrament.¹¹ Hence St. Thomas¹² simply teaches: "Before the coming of Christ it was necessary that certain sacraments be instituted," and the Council of Trent¹³ defines: "If anyone says that these same sacraments of the New Law do not differ from the sacraments of the Old Law except that the ceremonies are different and the external rites are different, let him be anathema." It is established, therefore, that there existed true sacraments both in the New and in the Old Law, and yet that there is an essential distinction between the two. Therefore, a quasi-generic definition is to be sought which includes all the sacraments both of the Old and of the New Law. The Scholastics labored greatly to find such a definition, but they departed into various opinions.¹⁴ The definition given by St. Thomas¹⁵ seems better to us:

Generic definition. A sacrament is a sign of a sacred thing insofar as it sanctifies men.

¹¹ The younger St. Thomas seems to have taught that the sacraments of the Old Law were not sacraments in a univocal sense with the sacraments of the New Law; nevertheless, when he had grown older, he retracted this opinion, as Cajetan, Dominic Soto, and John of St. Thomas clearly show (cf. Billuart, De sacr. diss. 1, a. 1).

¹² S. theol. 3, q. 61, a. 3.

¹³ Session 7, canon 2 on the sacraments in general (Denz., n. 845).

¹⁴ See Lugo, De sacr. in gen. disp. 1, sect. 1.

¹⁵ S. theol. 3, q. 60, a. 2.

4. This is explained. It is said, 1. A sacrament is a sign, and indeed a sensible sign. For in all the sacraments, even those of the Old Law, something sensible is contained, for example, circumcision, washing, anointing, etc., which signifies a spiritual effect. Hence the ancient Scholastics were accustomed to say: a sacrament is in the genus of sign and not in the genus of cause, because, namely, a sacrament taken formally does not cause but only signifies a supernatural effect. For this reason the sacraments of the Old Law indeed signified sanctifying grace, but, as "weak elements," they were unable of themselves to cause it; for grace proceeded not precisely from those sacraments but from faith in the Messiah to come. But the sacraments of the New Law not only signify but also cause sanctifying grace.¹⁶

It is said, secondly: of a sacred thing. This sacred thing is manifold. First, there is sanctifying grace. All the sacraments, both of the Old and of the New Law, signify sanctifying grace to be conferred. Hence Eugene IV taught in the Decree for the Armenians: "They [namely, the sacraments of the Old Law] did not cause grace, but they prefigured that it was to be given through the Passion of Christ."¹⁷ Then there is sacramental grace proper to each sacrament, as will be said below.

It is said, thirdly: insofar as it sanctifies men. All Catholic theologians teach: a) that the sacraments of the New Law either confer or increase sanctifying grace;¹⁸ b) that the sacraments of the Old Law did not confer sanctifying grace ex opere operato.¹⁹

St. Thomas²⁰ wrote to the point: "The sacraments of the Old Law did not have in themselves any power by which they operated to confer justifying grace, but they only signified the faith through which men were justified.... And therefore it seems better to say that circumcision, like the other sacraments of the Old Law, was only a sign of justifying faith.... In circumcision grace was conferred insofar as it was a sign of the future Passion of Christ." From these words of St. Thomas it is manifest that in circumcision and the other sacraments of the Old Law God conferred the sanctification of man, not indeed on account of those sacraments themselves, but insofar as they were professions of faith in the Christ to come. In another place the same Angelic Doctor expresses still more explicitly the same doctrine concerning circumcision, which is one of the sacraments of the Old Law: "In circumcision grace was conferred as to all the effects of grace, yet in another manner than in baptism. For in baptism grace is conferred by the power of baptism itself, which it has insofar as it is an instrument of the Passion of Christ already accomplished; but in circumcision grace was conferred not by the power of circumcision, but by the power of faith in the Passion of Christ, of which circumcision was a sign; so, namely, that the man who received circumcision professed that he received such faith, either an adult for himself or another for infants."²¹

Therefore, all the sacraments are practical signs of sanctifying grace. Since, however, in sanctifying grace there can also be considered its meritorious cause, namely, the Passion of Christ, and its end, namely, eternal glory, St. Thomas hence teaches that the sacraments signify three things, namely: the Passion of Christ, which is the meritorious cause of sanctification; sanctifying grace, which is the form of sanctification; eternal life, which is the ultimate end of sanctification.²²

¹⁶ Cf. below, n. 38.

¹⁷ Denz., n. 695.

¹⁸ Cf. below, n. 35.

¹⁹ Only a few Scotists, such as Mastrius (De sacr. disp. 1, q. 2, a. 2, n. 86) and Bosco (Theol. sacram. disp. 1, sect. 2, concl. 6, n. 65), taught the contrary concerning circumcision and the so-called sacrament of nature.

²⁰ S. theol. 3, q. 62, a. 6, corpus and ad 3.

²¹ Ibid., q. 70, a. 4.

²² Cf. ibid., q. 60, a. 3: "A sacrament is both a commemorative sign of that which preceded, namely, the Passion of Christ; and a demonstrative sign of that which is effected in us through the Passion of Christ, namely, grace; and a prognostic sign, that is, a sign foretelling future glory." The Angelic Doctor set forth these three things most beautifully in the antiphon O sacrum convivium: "The memory of His Passion is recalled, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us."

5. Corollaries. 1. The sacraments cannot be practical signs of sanctifying grace except by divine institution. For it entirely exceeds the capacity of any natural thing practically to signify something supernatural, such as sanctifying grace.

2. Not all sacred signs have the character of a sacrament. For example, the cross, sacred images, the passage through the Red Sea, manna, the bronze serpent, very many ceremonies, etc. The reason is that all these things are indeed sacred signs, but they lack a divine institution elevating them to practical signs of sanctifying grace.

3. Sacrifices also are not sacraments. The reason is that sacrifice is primarily ordered to worship to be offered to God Himself, whereas the sacraments are primarily ordered to the sanctification of men. Nothing prevents the same thing, accepted under a diverse aspect, from being both a sacrifice and a sacrament. Thus, in fact, the Eucharist in the New Law and the immolation of the paschal lamb in the Old Law are at once a sacrifice and a sacrament, but accepted under a diverse aspect.

4. The opinion of heretics concerning the sacraments is false, who teach that they are only testimonies of justice received (the Lutherans); or signs by which a man is distinguished from gentiles and Jews (the Anabaptists and Socinians); or certain pledges by which men bind themselves to Christ and openly profess that they wish to follow His religion (the Zwinglians); or external symbols of divine benevolence toward us and attestations of our fidelity toward God (the Calvinists); or commemorative signs of benefits received from God, which signs were introduced not by Christ Himself but by the Apostles and their successors (the Modernists).²³ Hence, according to all these heretics, no true causality of our interior sanctification belongs to the sacraments. Their opinions are false because they rest upon a false foundation, namely, that the justification of man is not effected through the infusion of sanctifying grace, but either through faith alone or through the mere imputation of the merits of Christ.²⁴

5. The definitions adduced by the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism agree with the definition given. The Council of Trent defines a sacrament as "a symbol of a sacred thing and a visible form of invisible grace."²⁵ The Roman Catechism adduces two definitions: a) "A sacrament is a visible sign of invisible grace instituted for our justification";²⁶ b) "A sacrament is a thing subject to the senses which, by God's institution, has the power both of signifying and of effecting sanctity and justice."²⁷ The former definition of the Catechism applies to all the sacraments; but the latter definition, which has always been regarded as the most perfect, applies to the sacraments of the New Law, which alone can properly cause sanctifying grace.²⁸ Therefore, this definition is specific to these sacraments.

6. For the essence of any sacrament there are required: an external and sensible sign, interior grace, institution made by God, and a due minister. The institution and minister of the sacraments will be treated below in chapters 4 and 5, and interior grace below in chapter 3. But now the external and sensible sign must be explained more fully.

²³ Cf. Loisy, L'Évangile et l'Église, 3rd ed., c. 6. The errors of the Modernists concerning the sacraments are described in this manner in the encyclical Pascendi of 8 September 1907: "For the Modernists, the sacraments are bare symbols or signs, although not devoid of force. To indicate this force, they themselves use the example of certain words which are commonly said to have met with fortune, because they have acquired a power for propagating certain robust ideas which strike souls most forcefully." In the decree of the Holy Office Lamentabili of 3 July 1907, proposition 41 of the Modernists was proscribed: "The sacraments are directed only to this: that they recall to the mind of man the ever-beneficent presence of the Creator" (Denz., n. 2041).

²⁴ Drouven reports and refutes the opinions of the heretics exceedingly well, De re sacr. l. 1, c. 2; cf. also Schanz, Die Lehre von den Sakr. 1, § 4.

²⁵ Session 13, c. 3 (Denz., n. 876).

²⁶ Part 2, c. 1, q. 3.

²⁷ Ibid., q. 8.

²⁸ For other definitions given by St. Augustine, Hugh of St. Victor, etc., see Peter Ledesma, Summa, de sacr. 1.

In the preceding article enough has already been said concerning the number of the sacraments of the Old Law; hence here we treat only of the number and division of the sacraments of the New Law.

30. Proposition. There are seven sacraments of the New Law, namely, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order, and matrimony. This is of faith.

Thus the Councils of Florence and Trent defined: "If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord; or that there are more or fewer than seven, namely, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order, and matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament, let him be anathema."⁹⁰

From this definition, however, it is not lawful to deduce that the number seven is the lowest division of the sacraments; for, as will be evident below in the treatise on order, according to all theologians at least the presbyterate and diaconate are true and proper sacraments. Thus the sacrament of order is indeed subdivided into several parts which are true sacraments, as sensible signs instituted by Christ for conferring sanctifying grace; nevertheless, together they constitute only one sacrament of order, as being ordered to one principal thing, namely, to the priesthood.

Almost all Protestants deny the sevenfold number of the sacraments, with the exception only of certain Ritualists. At the beginning of the so-called Reformation, Protestants admitted at one time two, at another three, and at another four sacraments; indeed, Luther at the beginning of his apostasy still acknowledged seven sacraments, but later only two.⁹¹ Today Protestants commonly admit only two sacraments. The Anglicans have the following in the Book of Common Prayer: "How many sacraments has Christ instituted in His Church? Two only which are generally necessary for salvation, namely, baptism and the supper." The reason for this fundamental error is twofold: a) because according to Protestants the sacraments do not at all produce justification, but only arouse faith; or they are nothing but pledges by which a man is rendered more certain concerning the remission of sins. But such pledges of the remission of sins are found only in baptism and the Eucharist; b) because the other sacraments (apart from baptism and the Eucharist) are not so clearly described in Sacred Scripture.

⁹⁰ Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 1 on the sacraments in general (Denz., n. 844); cf. Council of Florence, Decree for the Armenians (Denz., n. 695).

⁹¹ Cf. Sermo de Novo Testamento, a. 1520.

31. I. Argument from tradition. That Christ truly instituted seven sacraments can be proved from tradition in both the Latin and the Eastern Church. It must indeed be admitted that neither in Sacred Scripture nor in any author up to the twelfth century is there discussion of the sevenfold number of the sacraments. But Protestants cannot thence derive an argument against Catholic doctrine. For Sacred Scripture does not enumerate the sacraments at all; and just as it does not enumerate seven, so neither does it enumerate the two sacraments which Protestants admit. The Holy Fathers and ancient authors speak of all seven sacraments received in the Catholic Church, as will be evident below when the existence of the individual sacraments is treated. Thus almost all the Holy Fathers speak of baptism and the Eucharist; Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and many others also of confirmation; St. Augustine in various places treats in addition of penance, extreme unction, order, and matrimony.

That the Holy Fathers never speak expressly and explicitly of the sevenfold number of the sacraments arises from various causes:

a) In ancient times up to the thirteenth century the word sacrament had dissimilar significations and notably included also sacramentals and sacred ceremonies. Thus, for example, even in the eleventh century St. Peter Damian (d. 1072) enumerated twelve sacraments, among which were blessings of things, canons, monks, nuns, and even holy water; Hildebert of Tours (d. 1134) enumerated nine sacraments. St. Bernard (d. 1153) recognizes ten sacraments, among which is also the washing of feet at the supper of the Lord.⁹²

Since, therefore, the ancient authors did not determine the signification of sacrament so clearly, it is easily understood why they did not indicate the number of the sacraments in the same manner.⁹³ The first who seems expressly to have enumerated seven sacraments was St. Otto, Bishop of Bamberg (c. 1139).⁹⁴ Master Roland Bandinelli (later Alexander III) did the same in the Sentences which he composed about the year 1150.⁹⁵ Peter Lombard (d. 1164) defines a sacrament sufficiently clearly and then enumerates seven sacraments. After Peter Lombard, all theologians gradually acknowledged the sevenfold number of the sacraments.⁹⁶

b) Among the ancient authors there is not so systematic a treatment of all the sacraments as there is from the thirteenth century onward; consequently, those authors indeed explained the doctrine concerning individual sacraments if an occasion occurred, but they did not enumerate them all together.

Some theologians⁹⁷ think that the so-called discipline of the secret was the reason why the ancient authors did not enumerate seven sacraments. Pourrat⁹⁸ rightly rejects this explanation; for: a) if the Holy Fathers could explain the individual sacraments, as in fact they did in their writings, why could they not indicate all of them together by the number seven? Then: b) did the discipline of the secret prevent authors from the sixth century to the twelfth century from clearly indicating the number seven? Or did the same discipline of the secret impel those authors to enumerate at one time twelve, at another ten, and at another nine sacraments? Surely no one will say this. Therefore, the silence or disagreement of the ancient authors concerning the sevenfold number of the sacraments is rather to be explained from the manifold and inconstant acceptation of the word sacrament.

A valid argument for the sevenfold number of the sacraments is drawn from the agreement of the Eastern Churches in this matter.

For all the Eastern Churches, even those which separated themselves from the Roman Church as early as the fifth century, assert the sevenfold number of the sacraments.⁹⁹ Hence, whenever there was discussion of the reconciliation of an Eastern Church with the Catholic Church, never did even the least disagreement arise concerning the number of the sacraments, while, on the contrary, almost endless disputes were held concerning other matters of no such great importance, for example, concerning the manner of administering baptism, unleavened bread, the chant "Alleluia," etc. But this clearly demonstrates that the sevenfold number of the sacraments had already been admitted for centuries in the Eastern Churches; otherwise the Easterners would most certainly have tried to contradict Catholic doctrine. In the Catholic Church, moreover, seven sacraments were always in use, as will be evident when the argument from tradition concerning the individual sacraments is adduced.

Furthermore, Protestants cannot prove from history that any sacrament was introduced by some bishop or Pope. Hence Drouven¹⁰⁰ argues forcefully, saying: "Let the adversaries explain to us who at length was the fabricator of that insane dogma, as they call it? By what name was he called? From what country did he arise? Of what institute was he a professor? Finally, with what authority was he endowed, that he could have persuaded not only the West, but also the whole East, contrary to ancient doctrine, that there are not two or three, but seven sacraments of the Gospel, efficacious of grace? But if in so necessary a matter they are silent, as in fact hitherto, although repeatedly challenged, they have remained silent, we shall by our right accuse them of falsehood and meanwhile enjoy our inheritance, which ... by this very fact we rightly glory is ancient and coeval with the Church, according to that axiom of Tertullian so often repeated: What is found as one among all is not an error, but a tradition."

⁹² Canonists of the twelfth century, such as Rufinus, Stephen of Tournai, John of Faenza, Sicard of Cremona, and Huguccio, customarily distinguished sacraments of a fourfold kind. Thus, for example, Rufinus speaks: "The species of sacraments is propagated in a fourfold manner. For some are salutary, others ministerial, others venerative, and others preparatory. Salutary are those by which salvation is acquired, such as baptism, Eucharist, and confirmation. Ministerial: those which are exercised in the ministries of offices, such as the praises of Masses and the other day or night offices diligently assigned to the vigils of clerics. Venerative: those which at certain times of the year are exercised venerably in memory of some sacred thing, such as the feasts of the Lord.... Preparatory: those which are prepared for celebrating all the aforesaid sacraments, such as the consecration of clerics, churches ..." (Die "Summa Decretorum", ed. Singer, Paderborn, 1902, 537; cf. J. de Ghellinck, in Revue des Sciences phil. et théol. 1912, 528).

⁹³ A splendid example of the diverse acceptations in which ancient theologians employed the word sacrament is found in Hugh of St. Victor, who is eminent among the ancient authors writing on this matter; see above, n. 2.

⁹⁴ In the life of St. Otto, 2 July, in the Bollandists.

⁹⁵ Cf. Gietl, Die Sentenzen Rolands, 154 sqq. and 194 sqq.

⁹⁶ Cf. Schanz, Die Lehre v. d. Sakr. I, § 13; Pourrat, La théol. sacr., c. 5, § 4.

⁹⁷ Cf. Chr. Pesch, Prael. dogm. VI, n. 91; Tanquerey, Theol. dogm. III, De sacr., c. 1, n. 22, and others; Gihr, Die heiligen Sakramente, § 24.

⁹⁸ L.c.

⁹⁹ Cf. Drouven, De re sacr. l. 1, q. 3, c. 2, § 1.

¹⁰⁰ L.c.

32. 2. Argument of fittingness. The sacraments of the Catholic Church are fixed at the number seven. Why neither more nor fewer are enumerated is explained very well by the Roman Catechism,¹⁰¹ following in the footsteps of St. Thomas.¹⁰² For spiritual life is in a certain manner similar to bodily life. But in bodily life seven things are principally necessary, namely, five for the perfection of the individual and two for the perfection of society. For the perfection of the individual it is required: 1. that man be born, which is effected spiritually through baptism; 2. that he grow and be strengthened, which is effected spiritually through confirmation; 3. that he be nourished, which is effected in the spiritual life through the heavenly bread of the Eucharist; 4. that he be healed from a disease perhaps contracted, which is effected in the spiritual life through penance; 5. that after disease he recover his former health in a perfect manner, which is effected spiritually through extreme unction, which removes the remnants of sins. For the perfection of society, however, it is required: 1. that there be a power of governing, which is conferred in the Church with the sacrament of order; 2. that there be propagation of the human race, which in the spiritual life is sanctified through the sacrament of matrimony.

¹⁰¹ Part 2, c. 1, q. 12.

¹⁰² S. theol. 3, q. 65, a. 1.

33. Divisions of the sacraments. Above we already distinguished the sacraments of the Old and New Testaments. The sacraments of the New Testament are customarily divided:

1. By reason of necessity, into sacraments necessary for all unto salvation, namely, the first five sacraments, and into sacraments necessary not indeed for individual men but for Christian society, which are order and matrimony.

The sacraments necessary for all and each do not have the same necessity; for some are necessary by a necessity of means, namely, baptism for all; penance for those who have fallen into mortal sin; and, according to several authors, also the Eucharist for those who have the unimpeded use of reason.¹⁰³ Eternal salvation therefore cannot be had unless these sacraments have been received at least in desire. It is not absolutely required, however, that these sacraments also be received in fact. For the Church the sacrament of order is necessary by a necessity of means, because without that sacrament the visible Church cannot subsist.¹⁰⁴ The other sacraments are necessary only by a necessity of precept, namely, confirmation, extreme unction, and, according to several authors, also the Eucharist. The necessity of the individual sacraments will be treated more fully below in the treatise on the sacraments in particular. The Council of Trent defined the necessity of the sacraments in a general manner: "If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but superfluous; and that without them or the desire of them men obtain from God the grace of justification through faith alone, although all are not necessary for each individual, let him be anathema."¹⁰⁵

2. By reason of the subject, into sacraments of the dead and of the living.

The sacraments of the dead were instituted per se to confer spiritual life upon those spiritually dead, that is, those lacking sanctifying grace. They are baptism and penance, which of themselves confer first grace; but per accidens, namely, when the man receiving them is already in the state of sanctifying grace, they confer second grace, or increase grace already existing. The sacraments of the living, namely, confirmation, Eucharist, extreme unction, order, and matrimony, are those which can licitly be administered only to those spiritually living, that is, those existing in the state of sanctifying grace; therefore, per se they cause second grace, or increase sanctifying grace. But per accidens, namely, when the man receiving is in the state of mortal sin with inculpable ignorance, they cause first grace.¹⁰⁶

3. By reason of the effect, into sacraments which imprint a character and those which do not imprint one.

The sacraments which imprint an indelible character and consequently cannot be repeated are baptism, confirmation, and order. The other four sacraments do not imprint a character and can be repeated. The former are also called non-repeatable sacraments; the latter, repeatable sacraments.

4. By reason of their relation to the subject, into formed and unformed sacraments.

Formed sacraments are those which produce or increase the form of the sacrament, insofar as form is taken in the first sense explained above in n. 7, or insofar as it is sanctifying grace. But if, on account of an existing obstacle, the sacrament cannot produce grace and nevertheless was validly conferred, it is an unformed sacrament. Therefore, an unformed sacrament is not to be confused with an invalid sacrament (on account of a substantial defect of matter, form, or minister). Ancient theologians called unformed sacraments sacraments received with fiction, because then the recipient is disposed not truly but fictitiously.¹⁰⁷ They distinguished a twofold fiction: one material, when he who receives the sacrament invincibly does not know or does not advert to the defect of a necessary disposition, for example, when an adult receives baptism without adverting that he does not have sufficient attrition for the personal sins committed; the other formal, when a man knowingly receives a sacrament unworthily. Material fiction therefore renders a sacrament simply unformed, but formal fiction renders it sacrilegious in addition.

¹⁰³ Cf. below, n. 205 sqq.

¹⁰⁴ Cf. S. theol. 3, q. 65, a. 4.

¹⁰⁵ Sess. 7, can. 4 on the sacraments in general (Denz., n. 847).

¹⁰⁶ See more fully on this matter below, n. 40.

¹⁰⁷ Cf. St. Thomas, IV Sent., d. 4, q. 3, a. 2, quaestiunc. 2, ad 2.

34. Scholion. On the order of the different sacraments. The Council of Trent¹⁰⁸ defined that the sacraments of the New Law are not all equal among themselves. Hence it is asked how the sacraments are to be ordered among themselves. A threefold order is customarily distinguished, namely, of nature, dignity, and necessity. The order of nature fittingly arranges the sacraments as they are commonly enumerated: baptism, confirmation, etc., because the sacraments necessary for the individual man (namely, the first five sacraments) are to be placed before those which are necessary for society (namely, the last two sacraments).¹⁰⁹ The order of dignity places the Eucharist in the first place, because in the Eucharist Christ Himself is contained, but in the other sacraments only the grace of Christ. Moreover, all the other sacraments are ordered to the Eucharist as to an end.¹¹⁰ The order of necessity places baptism in the first place, because no sacrament is so necessary for all as baptism, concerning which it is said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."¹¹¹

¹⁰⁸ Sess. 7, can. 3 on the sacraments in general (Denz., n. 846).

¹⁰⁹ For a fuller explanation, see S. theol. 3, q. 65, a. 2.

¹¹⁰ S. theol. 3, q. 65, a. 3.

¹¹¹ John 3:5.

St. Thomas III, q. 60, a. 1, 2, 3.

5. Definition of sacrament. - Several definitions of sacrament are handed down,¹ which nevertheless can all be reduced to two. The first is: sacraments are ceremonial practical signs of human sanctification. In this definition there is indicated:

¹ Gregory the Great, on chapter 16 of book I of Kings: "A sacrament is that in which, under the covering of visible things, divine power more secretly works human salvation." - Hugh of St. Victor, book I On the Sacraments, part 9, c. 2: "A material element, outwardly proposed sensibly, representing from likeness, signifying from institution, and containing by sanctification invisible and spiritual grace." - The Master of the Sentences: "A sacrament is that which is so a sign and form of invisible grace, that it bears its image and exists as a cause." - Council of Trent: "A symbol of a sacred thing and a visible form of invisible grace, having the power of sanctifying," sess. 13, c. 3. - Catechism of the Council of Trent: "A sacrament is a thing subject to the senses which, from the institution of God, has power both for signifying and for effecting sanctity and justice," or according to the formula composed from Augustine: "A visible sign of invisible grace, instituted for our justification." - Theological Catechism for Ordinands: "A practical sign of a sacred thing (sanctifying)." - Scotus: "It is a sensible sign effectively signifying the grace of God, or a gratuitous effect of it, from divine institution, ordained to the salvation of man as wayfarer." - Sylvius: "A sacrament of the Old Law is a sacred sign figurative of grace to be given through the passion of Christ. A sacrament of the New Law is a visible form of invisible grace, having the power of sanctifying from the institution of God." Or: a visible sign of invisible grace divinely instituted for our sanctification, as is said in law and in St. Canisius.

A. The genus to which the sacraments belong: namely, they are signs, and indeed external signs which signify by a likeness of sensible things.

B. That which is proper to them and by which they differ from other signs, namely:

1. They are ceremonial signs,² that is, sacred signs on the part of the thing signifying, instituted permanently by law, belonging to public and ordinary worship.

² Augustine, Against Faustus, book XIX: "They are signs by which the faithful are gathered together into one name of religion" and are distinguished from others; whence they ought to be sensible.

Thus they differ a) from all signs which, although they do not pertain to worship, nevertheless represent divine things, such as martyrdom, and also all creatures;

b) from symbols which are not instituted by law, such as images of Christ, of the Cross, of the Saints;

c) from those things which are not instituted permanently and in perpetuity, such as the fiery tongue on the day of Pentecost, and the signs by which Christ remitted sins.³

³ Hence the following are not sacraments: the passage through the Red Sea, the rock pouring forth waters, the manna, the bronze serpent, the immolation of Isaac, the words of Christ constituting the apostles priests or working miracles, the baptism of John, the descent of the dove, the washing of the feet, the breathing upon the disciples, extraordinary charisms.

2. They are practical signs, that is, efficacious signs, conferring that which they signify.

Thus they are distinguished from merely speculative signs, representing divine things, for example for the instruction of the people, such as likenesses of mysteries, the image of the cross, and the accidental ceremonies of the sacraments.⁴

⁴ Likewise the words of Scripture; and those ceremonies of the Old Law which signified the sanctity of Christ by which He is holy in Himself, not that by which He sanctifies.

3. They are signs of human sanctification, and indeed of the hidden sanctification by which man is joined to God as supernatural end; whence they are sacred also on the part of the thing signified.

Thus they are distinguished both from sacramentals, such as the consecration of an altar and the sprinkling of blessed water, which signify a disposition toward sanctity;⁵ and from sacrifice, which is the sign of the interior affection by which man devotes himself to God, but not of sanctification to be conferred through it: for the direct end of sacrifice is that by its action God be honored, but the end of a sacrament is that by its reception man be sanctified.

⁵ Other examples are: tonsure, absolution from censures, religious profession, exorcism, the blessing of marriage, the consecration of a virgin, the blessing of an abbot, the washing of the feet.

Sanctification is twofold: one interior, which is effected through grace making one pleasing and through the infused virtues, by which man becomes capable of eternal life: this belongs to the New Law; the other external and legal, which consists in external consecration, purification, insertion into the people of God, deputation to sacred ministries (Heb. IX, 13), and which is at the same time figurative of the former: this is proper to the Old Testament. But the sacraments effect the sanctity proper to that economy to which they belong, whence arises the fundamental difference between the sacraments of the Old and New Law: the latter signify and effect interior sanctity in the present; the former signified and effected in the present legal sanctity, by which someone before the law is held as pure, holy, fit for the offices of religion, and by the conferral of this they were signs, figures, types, and real promises of Christ the Savior whom they proclaimed as about to come, and of future interior sanctification to be conferred through the passion of Christ and the sacraments of the New Law.⁶

⁶ Cf. I-II, q. 103, a. 2. - Hence q. 61, a. 4, ad 3: "Those things [of the Old Law] were fitting for prefiguring grace; but these things [of the New Law] are fitting for showing grace as present." And Augustine, on Psalm 73: "Those things only promised and signified; but these give salvation."

The sacraments of human sanctification in the Old Law are enumerated: circumcision, the initiation of priests, the eating of the paschal lamb and of the loaves of proposition, several expiations and purifications. But the following are not sacraments: the consecration of the tabernacle or of vessels, sacrifices, expiations of houses.

6. Another definition of St. Thomas. - The definition given above indicates that by which sacraments are distinguished from other signs, namely, that they are practical signs; but it is not altogether complete, because several things are signified by the sacraments which are not produced by them. Hence St. Thomas hands down another definition: A sign of a sacred thing, insofar as it is sanctifying men (a. 2); in which these last words, "insofar as it is sanctifying men," are referred not to the sign but to the sacred thing; whence the sense is: a sign of a sacred thing according as this is the cause of our interior sanctification.

For a sacrament is properly said to be that which is ordained to signify our sanctification. But in it "three things can be considered: namely, the very cause of our sanctification, which is the passion of Christ; and the form of our sanctification, which consists in grace and the virtues; and the ultimate end of our sanctification, which is eternal life. Therefore all these things are signified by the sacraments"; for they signify a sacred thing insofar as it sanctifies, that is, the cause of sanctification insofar as it produces its effects. But this is the essential difference between a sacrament of the Old and of the New Law, that the former signified Christ as about to come and future sanctity; but the latter represents redemption already accomplished and present sanctity, whence it is "both a commemorative sign of that which preceded, namely, the passion of Christ, and a demonstrative sign of that which is effected in us through the passion of Christ, namely, grace, and a prognostic, that is, a prenunciative sign of future glory" (a. 3). But the sacraments of the Old Law prenunciated all these things.

Thus in Baptism are signified at once grace, which is the seed of glory, and the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, according to Rom. VI, 3-6; in Confirmation is signified the mystery of Christ crucified, which to the Jews is a scandal and to the Gentiles foolishness (I Cor. I, 23); in Matrimony is signified the union of Christ and the Church, and Christ loved the Church and delivered Himself for her, that He might sanctify her (Eph. V, 25-32); the Eucharist is "the sacred banquet, in which the memory of the passion is recalled, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us" (cf. I Cor. XI, 24-25; John VI, 50-59).

Similarly in the Old Law, circumcision (Gen. XVII, 10; Rom. IV, 11) signified the cause of sanctification, the advent of Christ in the flesh from the seed of Abraham; the form of sanctification, the grace of Christ binding concupiscence; and since it was done on the eighth day, which is the day of Christ's resurrection, it also represented the end of sanctification, future resurrection and glory. Likewise the paschal Lamb signified Christ to be immolated, the refreshing grace of the Eucharist, and salvation to be obtained by the blood of Christ.

7. Corollaries. - From the aforesaid it is easily understood:

1. Why St. Thomas places the sacraments in the genus of sign, but not in the genus of cause: a) because the sacraments do not cause except insofar as they signify; b) because the sacraments also signify sacred things which they do not cause.

2. It is also understood that the word sacrament is not an univocal term but an analogous one, which is said perfectly and simply of the sacraments of the New Law, imperfectly and in a certain respect of the sacraments of the Old Law.⁷ For they differ either a) in the very signification of sanctity, which they signify practically and simply, or only speculatively and in a certain respect; or b) in the very sanctification which they effect, which is either true and perfect sanctity, or only an imperfect shadow of it.

⁷ "Sacrament is not divided through the sacraments of the Old and New Law as a genus through species, but as an analogous term into its parts, as healthy into having health and signifying it: but a sacrament simply is that which causes sanctity; that which is only a sign is not a sacrament except in a certain respect, and therefore to be a cause can be placed in the definition of sacrament, just as having health is placed in the definition of healthy," St. Thomas, on IV Sentences, d. 1, q. 1, a. 1, qc. 3, ad 5. And in the Summa, III, q. 62, a. 1, ad 1: "The sacraments of the New Law are at once causes and signs; and hence it is that, as is commonly said, they effect what they figure. From this it is clear that they have the ratio of sacrament perfectly insofar as they are ordained to something sacred, not only by way of sign but also by way of cause."

3. Sacraments a) in order to Christ, are certain remains of the divine Incarnation, by which Christ left us a memorial of Himself and applies to us His merit and the fruits of His passion. Whence they are said to have flowed from His side and to have streamed forth from His most Sacred Heart, together with the Church (Augustine, on John, tr. 120, n. 2);

b) in order to the Church, they are tokens by which the faithful are distinguished from infidels; bonds by which the members of the Church are gathered into one visible body; instruments of divine life and sanctity; and therefore they belong to the essential constitutive elements of the Church;

c) as to men, they are fountains of salvation, medicines which heal wounds, instructions and teachings by which man is led by sensible things to spiritual things;

d) as to God, they are marvelous inventions of divine Wisdom by which God remedies us, and signal effects of Omnipotence, which conferred on weak elements the power of sanctifying.

8. Observation. - That the sacraments, as they have been described, in fact exist is the conclusion of the whole of sacramental theology.

St. Thomas III, q. 64, a. 1, 2, 3, 4.

68. Principle I. God alone is the principal cause, by the power of authority both instituting the sacraments and operating in them. - This is certain.

It is proved: He institutes something who gives to it force and power, as is clear in the institutions of laws. But the power of a sacrament is from God alone. Therefore God alone can institute a sacrament. The minor is proved: God alone can operate in the soul, and He alone as principal cause can confer either grace, which is a participation of His nature, or a right to it, or the instrumental power of causing it. Whence God alone is able by His own power to institute a sacrament, and to communicate to it the power of conferring grace (a. 1 and 2).

69. Principle II. Christ as man has principal ministerial power over the sacraments, insofar as He operates toward the interior effects of the sacraments meritoriously and efficiently.

It is proved: Christ 1. as head of the whole of humanity, from the fullness of grace merited for others the graces of salvation, and thus supplied the merits which are applied in the sacraments; and 2. by the hypostatic union He is an instrument conjoined to God, while the other ministers are separated instruments. Whence in the genus of ministerial cause He has a certain principality with respect to the other ministers, which is called the power of excellence (a. 3).

This consists in four things: 1. in this, that the merit and power of the passion of Christ operates in the sacraments (I Tim. II, 5, 6; Eph. V, 2), and therefore 2. the sacraments are ministered in His name (John I, 33; Acts II, 38; I Cor. I, 13); whence 3. most fittingly the power of instituting them was left to Him, and 4. He Himself could confer their effect even without them (Luke V, 20; VII, 48; XXII, 19; Mt. IX, 2).

70. Principle III. Christ instituted all the sacraments of the New Law. - This is of faith, defined by the Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 1, against the Reformers; and it is also evident from condemned propositions 39 and 40 of the Modernists.

The assertion is to be understood of at least mediate institution, because the Council did not intend to define more, since it did not wish to condemn theologians defending that.¹

¹ This is evident from the history of the Council and from the testimony of those who were present at the Council, such as Ruard Tapper and Dominic Soto. Cf. De Baets, in Revue Thomiste, March 1906.

But it is sufficiently certain that Christ immediately, by Himself, instituted all the sacraments and did not confer upon the apostles, by a certain general and indeterminate mandate, the power from their own authority of determining sacraments at will according to species and number; but that He Himself determined each sacrament, i.e., the seven signs with some special grace, and indeed to its proper end. Yet one who said that Christ did not reveal all the sacraments by Himself to the apostles, but some by means of the Holy Spirit after the ascension, although that opinion rests on no solid argument, nevertheless would not certainly affirm something which is already judged erroneous in sacred doctrine by the Church.²

² Yet the manner of speaking of certain moderns is not to be approved, when they assert that Christ instituted certain sacraments only in their principles. The manner of speaking is equivocal; indeed false, if they intended that those sacraments were instituted only virtually, as conclusions which only afterward are known to be deducible from principles and are deduced. For then they would not be formally revealed.

It is proved:

1. From the documents of revelation: If Christ had given to anyone the power of instituting sacraments, He would especially have done this to the Apostles. But they declare that they are only ministers and dispensers of mysteries (I Cor. I, 12; III, 5; IV, 1). Therefore. - Whence Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, I, prologue, 18: "For ours are the services, but Yours, O Christ, are the sacraments." And Augustine, on John, tract. 5, shows that a sacrament does not depend on the dignity of the minister, because it is the sacrament of Christ.

2. From the Council of Trent, which denies to the Church the power of changing the substance of the sacraments (sess. 21, c. 2); but there would be no reason for this if the power of instituting sacraments had been handed over by Christ to the apostles or to the Church.

3. From reason: The sacraments pertain to the very constitution of the Church and are the foundations of the New Law; therefore they had to be instituted by the very founder and institutor of the New Law, Christ; as Dionysius the mystic already observed, in the books On the Heavenly Hierarchy, I, and On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, I.

Among the scholastics several are cited who seem to have admitted mediate institution for certain sacraments, such as Hugh of St. Victor, the Master of the Sentences, Alexander of Hales, and St. Bonaventure for Extreme Unction; William of Auxerre, Alexander of Hales, and St. Bonaventure for Penance; St. Bonaventure again and Alexander for Confirmation. Some, however, understand them benignly of the revelation or manifestation of the institution through the Holy Spirit; others of the final determination of matter and form. That they can be understood in this way does not seem certain, at least for all.

Peter, a missionary called to a dying man, fortified him with the last sacraments and the blessing at the point of death. As Peter was about to leave the dying man’s room after the sacraments had been administered, he was called back by the dying man, who said: “Father, I made a bad confession.” After the confession was heard again and absolution given, Peter doubted whether or not he ought to repeat the other sacraments and the blessing. Hence it is asked:

1. What is an unformed and a formed sacrament?

2. When the obstacle has been removed, does an unformed sacrament revive?

3. When does one who has been blessed at the point of death gain the indulgence by the papal blessing?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is a formed and unformed sacrament?

A formed sacrament not only has everything required for its validity but the requisite dispositions are present in the recipient, so that it produces grace when it is received. An unformed sacrament is validly received, but for want of the necessary dispositions in the recipient it does not at the time produce grace in the soul.¹

81 *

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 17.

2. Does an unformed sacrament produce grace when the impediment to grace is removed?

Baptism, Confirmation, Order, when received unformed, according to the common opinion, produce grace in the soul on removal of the obstacle. Many authorities teach the same with respect to Matrimony and Extreme Unction. Penance probably does. The Eucharist does not.²

2 Ibid., p. 18.

3. When does the last blessing take its effect?

The last blessing takes effect at the moment of death. It may be given immediately after Extreme Unction and then its effect is suspended until the moment when death takes place.³

3 Lehmkuhl, vol. ii, n. 709.

4. The case. Peter, a missionary, had given a dying man the last sacraments and the papal blessing. When he was leaving the room the dying man called him back and told him that the confession which he had just made was a bad one. Peter heard his confession again and absolved him, but was in doubt as to whether he should repeat the other sacraments and the papal blessing. He should not repeat Extreme Unction for it can be received only once in the same sickness, and the doctrine of reviviscence makes repetition unnecessary. Nor need he repeat the last blessing, for it will take its effect at the moment of death. He may and should administer Holy Communion again for the previous Holy Communion was sacrilegious.