The Sacraments in General

1. a. Man must merit for himself eternal life, to which he has been destined by the supreme goodness of God, by works worthy of so great an end. The sacraments are so many means and helps divinely instituted for attaining this end. Moreover, sacraments are means and helps of eternal life in two ways: both because they infuse sanctifying grace, and because they confer actual graces, by which we can observe the precepts of God and of the Church as is required for the supernatural end: for through the sacraments all true justice either begins, or, once begun, is increased, or, once lost, is repaired.¹ In moral theology the sacraments are to be considered as means and helps of eternal life granted to us by God.

b. From the institution of the sacraments a new order of precepts arises, of which some pertain to ministers, while others pertain to those who are about to receive the sacraments. Now it belongs to moral and pastoral theology to explain the precepts which are referred to the sacraments being rightly administered and received. Therefore, after the treatment of the sacraments in general has been premised, the individual sacraments must be treated in particular in such a way that the precepts are proposed which, from their institution, are enjoined upon the faithful and upon the ministers of the sacraments.

c. All the sacraments are aptly divided into two genera: for some are referred to the utility of the community, order and matrimony; others regard the utility of individual men, baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, penance, and extreme unction. The former indeed produce their effect also in the individual persons receiving them, but that effect is not so much necessary to the receiver himself as to the community, that is, to the Church and to civil society.

The sacraments of the latter genus are again divided into two classes: for some, abstraction being made from one's own sins, were instituted for generating, preserving, or increasing supernatural life, baptism, confirmation, the eucharist; others were instituted for destroying one's own sins, penance and extreme unction. Therefore the treatment of the sacraments in particular can be divided into three parts, of which the first treats the sacraments which confer or increase supernatural life, baptism, confirmation, the eucharist; the second treats the sacraments which destroy one's own sins, penance, extreme unction; finally the third treats the sacraments which are referred not to individuals, but to the community, order and matrimony.

¹ Council of Trent, sess. 7, De sacramentis, Proemium.

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.

The Council of Trent also defined it to be of faith that the three sacraments, Baptism, Confirmation, and Orders, whenever they are validly received, imprint on the soul a certain spiritual mark which is called a character. This character serves to distinguish in the eyes of God and of his saints those who have received the sacrament in question; it is indelible, and prevents the sacrament from being received a second time. It is, however, compatible with the presence of mortal sin in the soul, so that, as was said above, a valid sacrament imprints its proper character even when on account of some obstacle in the recipient it is unformed and does not convey sanctifying grace to the soul.

The question here occurs whether a valid but unformed sacrament will afterward produce grace in the soul, if and when the obstacle be removed. The common opinion of Doctors and divines is that it will do so in the case of the three sacraments which impress a character on the soul. This opinion is founded on the tradition of the Church and on what is to be expected from the goodness of God and the nature of the sacraments. A cause which is in existence, but which was hitherto prevented from producing its full effect on account of some obstacle in the way, will produce that effect when the obstacle is removed. Many divines hold the same doctrine of reviviscence concerning the sacraments of Matrimony and Extreme Unction, which may not be repeated at the will of the recipient. Whether it is also applicable to Penance is a much disputed point, while it is commonly denied that the sacrament of the holy Eucharist can afterward produce its effect if it was unformed when received.

The sacramental grace which is conferred by the sacraments is habitual or sanctifying grace as directed toward the particular end for which the sacrament from which it flows has been instituted. Together, then, with the grace which justifies the sinner, or which increases the sanctifying grace of the soul in friendship with God, a sacrament gives a title to receive from God special help or actual graces when they are required by the recipient of the sacrament. Thus, the sacrament of Penance, if worthily received, infuses sanctifying grace into the soul by which the sins confessed are blotted out, and, moreover, it gives the sinner a title to receive actual graces in time of temptation, so as to enable him not to yield. In the same way the holy Eucharist increases sanctifying grace within the soul, making it more holy and more pleasing in the sight of God, and fresh help is given to enable it to remain steadfast in the friendship of God. The sacraments of Baptism and Penance, which remit sin and give sanctifying grace to souls that were deprived of it, are called sacraments which give the first grace, or sacraments of the dead, inasmuch as they give spiritual life to those who were spiritually dead; while the sacraments which should only be received by such as are already in the state of grace are said to confer the second grace, and are called sacraments of the living. If the soul is already justified and in the state of grace, sacraments of the dead confer second grace; while Extreme Unction may, as we shall see, confer the first grace, although it is primarily a sacrament of the living; and it is a probable opinion that the other sacraments may per accidens confer the first grace when received in good faith by the sinner. Inasmuch as a sacrament confers grace in virtue of the worth and dignity of the sacred rite itself, the quantity of grace given will per se be the same for all who receive it. However, per accidens, since a cause acts with greater or less efficacy in proportion to the dispositions of the subject on which it works, so a sacrament will give more grace to such as receive it in better dispositions. It may, then, very well be that more grace will be obtained from Holy Communion received two or three times a week with better dispositions than from daily Communion made without fervour.

The Council of Trent anathematizes anyone who shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, though it also teaches that not all the sacraments are necessary for every individual. Under each sacrament it will be explained how far it is necessary and in what sense.

THE decree of Eugenius IV, for the instruction of the Armenians, lays down that all the sacraments consist essentially of three things: the matter, the form, and the minister who makes the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. And, it adds, if any one of these elements be wanting the sacrament is not made. The sacraments, then, are not simple, but composite signs, which consist of two distinct elements. One of these in technical language is called the matter, because it is that portion of the sacramental sign which is the most indeterminate with respect to conveying the meaning which the sacrament signifies. This matter is called remote when considered by itself; it is called proximate when it is taken and applied by the minister to the making of the sacrament. The second element consists of words, and this part is called the form of the sacrament, because the words determine the matter to the more complete signification expressed by the whole sacramental sign. Thus in Baptism the water, considered by itself, is the remote matter of the sacrament and does not necessarily signify washing; water may be used to slake the thirst, and for many other purposes. The application of the water to the person to be baptized is the proximate matter, and when this is done with the form of words, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” the whole composite rite assumes a religious aspect, and signifies, according to the intention of the minister, the washing away of sin from the soul.

The minister of a sacrament must necessarily use the matter and form which were instituted by Christ, for he alone as God-Man has the power to cause grace to be conveyed to the soul by means of sacred rites.

There must be no change made in the matter and form of the sacraments; not even the Church’s authority suffices for that. If a substantial change be made either in the matter or in the form, the sacrament is destroyed. The matter will be substantially changed if in the estimation of ordinary men it is no longer the same, but something else. Thus, if the wine has become vinegar, it cannot be used as the matter of the Eucharist. The form will be substantially changed if the sense is no longer the same, but different. Thus, ‘“ I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ” is the divinely instituted form for Baptism, and if the minister baptize with the words, “I baptize thee in the name of the Trinity ” it is no sacrament, because of the substantial change. It is not lawful to make any change in the matter and form of the sacraments, but if an accidental and not a substantial change be made, so that the matter and the sense of the form remain the same, the sacrament will not be rendered invalid, as a general rule. However, a change which in itself is slight and accidental may be made substantial by the perverse intention of the minister. For the sense may then be quite different, and that different sense is expressed in the form. Thus Pope Zacharias wrote to St Boniface that Baptism administered with the form, Baptizo te in nomine Patria, et Filia, et Spiritus Sancta, is valid when the mistakes are made through ignorance of Latin, and not through heresy or a perverse intention. If, then, such changes were introduced to give expression to heresy, the sense would be substantially changed and the form would be invalidated. Similarly, if Baptism were given with the form “* T baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” the sacrament would be invalid if the minister intended to baptize in the name of the Blessed Virgin as of one of the Persons in the Godhead; if the addition was made through mistaken devotion to the Mother of God the sacrament would not be invalid. On the principles just stated Leo XIII decided that Anglican ordinations are invalid.

Except in case of necessity it is not lawful in the administration of the sacraments to use only probable matter or a probably valid form. An opinion contrary to this doctrine was condemned by Innocent XI, March 2, 1679. Justice and charity, which demand that the minister confer a sacrament validly, and do nothing to imperil its validity, require that he should use only certain matter and the certainly valid form as far as possible. Reverence also for the sacrament and for Christ, who instituted it, makes it necessary to take all due care that when a sacrament is administered it should be properly and validly administered. If, however, in a particular case only doubtful matter is at hand, and unless the sacrament is at once administered, the subject may be altogether deprived of it, then such doubtful matter may be used, since the reasons to the contrary then cease to be valid, because the sacraments were made for the benefit of man, not man for the sacraments.

As the matter and the form of a sacrament constitute together one composite sign of grace, there must not be such an interval between them as to destroy their unity. In the holy Eucharist the form requires that the matter should be physically present at the time when the words of consecration are uttered. In the other sacraments it is not necessary that the matter and form should be put at the same time in order that the sacrament may be valid; it is sufficient for the validity if there be a moral union between them so that according to a moral estimate they form one whole. Thus in Baptism, although the rubrics prescribe that the words should be said while the water is poured on the head, yet if a brief interval, say the space of a Pater or of an Ave, separate the matter and the form, the sacrament will still be valid.

The matter and the form should be applied by one and the same minister. Baptism would not be valid if one poured the water while another pronounced the words. In the Eucharist, however, and in Extreme Unction there are more than one form, each with its separate matter, and the sacrament would be valid if one minister consecrated one species or anointed one sense and another finished the rite. This, however, is only lawful in case of necessity, nor is it lawful for many ministers to make one sacrament at the same time, except when newly ordained priests celebrate Mass with the Bishop who has ordained them.

The sacraments should ordinarily be administered absolutely according to the manner in which they were instituted by Christ. If, however, in any particular case it is doubtful whether a sacrament was validly administered and there will be danger of grave spiritual loss to the subject unless it is repeated, it may and should be repeated conditionally. The condition should be expressed when the rubrics require it, as in the case of Baptism and Extreme Unction. Otherwise the condition may be implicit, and it will be sufficient if the minister intend to do his duty according to the institution of Christ and the laws of Holy Mother Church.

The Ritual expressly warns the minister that the conditional form for administering Baptism is not to be used at random or lightly, but with prudence, when after diligent inquiry there is a probable doubt whether the sacrament was validly conferred before. The same principle is to be applied to the conditional administration of the other sacraments.”

Except in the case of Matrimony, which is a contract and follows in this the rules affecting other contracts, a sacrament cannot be validly administered under a condition which regards a future and uncertain event. The reason is because such a condition would of its nature suspend the effect of the sacrament, and when the condition is verified the matter and form no longer exist and cannot now produce their effect. Thus Baptism conferred on a child under the condition, “If you attain the age of reason,” would be null and void. On the other hand, a sacrament conferred under a past or present condition will be valid if the condition be verified; it will be invalid if the condition be not verified. We have already seen when it is lawful to administer a sacrament conditionally. There will bean obligation to do so whenever justice and charity due to our neighbour require it in order to prevent his spiritual loss, or when reverence for the sacraments and for Christ, who instituted them, makes it necessary in order to avoid their invalid administration (Can. 732, sec. 2). ¹: St Thomas, 2-2, q. 186, a. 5; can. 499, sec. 1.

¹ St Thomas, 2-2, q. 186, a. 5; can. 499, sec. 1.

THE sacraments were instituted by Christ as so many channels or conduits by which he might convey to the souls of men the fruits of his passion and death. They are administered in his name and by his authority, and so Christ himself is the principal minister of the sacraments. However, he deigns to make use of men as his instruments for administering them, and it is of these secondary ministers who make the sacraments in the name of Christ that we have here to treat. In Matrimony, as we shall see, the parties to the contract themselves are the ministers to each other of the sacrament, and anyone who has the use of reason may confer Baptism validly. The minister of the other sacraments, at least for their lawful administration, must have the twofold spiritual power of order and jurisdiction which was given by Christ to his Church. We shall see, when treating of the several sacraments, how far order and jurisdiction are also required for their valid ministration. In the following sections we will lay down the conditions and dispositions which a minister of the sacraments should have to perform his office worthily.

While administering a sacrament the minister should attend to what he is doing and remember that he is engaged in a religious function. If he voluntarily allows his mind to wander on other and profane matters, he is guilty of irreverence toward God for whose worship the sacraments were instituted and should be administered. This irreverence, however, is not grave in itself, probably not even if a priest is voluntarily distracted during the consecration in Mass, so that voluntary distractions while administering the sacraments are only venial sins. Attention, then, or advertence of the mind to what is being done, is not necessary for the validity of a sacrament; only three things are necessary for its validity, as we saw above —the matter, the form, and the intention of the minister to do what the Church does.

Intention is an act of the will directing an action to a certain end. Divines distinguish between an actual, a virtual, an habitual, and an interpretative intention, wishes here and now to administer When a minister a sacrament, he has an actual intention to perform the rite. If he had such a wish and in consequence set about his task, but became distracted while administering the sacrament, he has a virtual intention. An habitual intention is a wish to do something, which wish has not been retracted but which does not issue in action. An interpretative intention is a wish which would be conceived if one thought of it, but for want of thinking of it is not elicited.

An intention of some sort in the minister is necessary for the validity of a sacrament; the Council of Trent anathematized anyone who should say that there is not required in ministers while they make and confer the sacraments at least an intention to do what the Church does.¹ Now the Church by her ministers and through the sacraments baptizes, confirms, absolves from sin, and so forth; so that the minister while making a sacrament must intend to baptize, confirm, absolve. However, it is not necessary to have an actual intention of doing this; distractions cannot always be avoided, and always to have an actual intention while engaged in conferring the sacraments would be an impossible requirement. Nor would an habitual intention suffice, for it does not exist while the action is put, nor has it any effect upon the action. Much less would an interpretative intention be sufficient. It remains, then, that a virtual intention is necessary and sufficient in the minister while he makes a sacrament.

¹ Sess. vii, c. 11.

Ambrosius Catharinus, Salmeron, Contenson, and other theologians thought that an intention to perform the external rite of a sacrament, even if the minister internally expressly withheld his intention to do what the Church does, would be sufficient for the validity of a sacrament. Such an intention to perform the merely external rite while internally withholding the intention to baptize, absolve, and so forth, is called an external intention, ‘The common opinion is that such a merely external intention is not sufficient, but that an internal intention or a positive wish to baptize, absolve, and so forth, is necessary for the validity of the sacrament. On December 7, 1690, Alexander VIII condemned the proposition that Baptism is valid when it is conferred by a minister who observes all the external rite and form of Baptism but inwardly in his heart makes this resolution, ‘‘ I do not intend to do what the Church does.” This decree would seem to settle the matter, for it seems to have been directed against Fr. Farvacques, O.S.A., who, in a little book published ten years earlier, had defended the opinion of Catharinus and Salmeron. A few theologians even subsequently to the decree of Alexander VIII have defended the same view, on the ground that the decree was aimed at the Lutheran error which asserted the validity of the sacraments even when administered in joke. No Catholic, however, defended the Lutheran doctrine at the time, and it had already been condemned by the Council of Trent. We must, then, at least say with Benedict XIV that the condemnation of the above proposition inflicted a serious blow on the opinion of Catharinus, and no theologian of note now defends it. The Church does not merely apply the matter and form when ministering the sacraments, but by means of those external rites she intends to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect—that is, to baptize, to absolve, and so forth. An intention, then, to do this—to baptize, to absolve, or an internal intention—is necessary for the validity of a sacrament.

It is not sufficient for the minister while making a sacrament to have a vague intention of conferring it on somebody or other, or of taking and applying some matter in general for the making of the sacrament. The intention must be definite in its scope and object, otherwise there is no reason why this matter should be taken rather than that, or why one person should be benefited rather than another. An intention, therefore, to absolve anyone in a crowd who may need it, or to consecrate five hosts out of a larger number on the altar would not be effective.

Neither ignorance nor mistake on the part of the minister about the nature or effect of a sacrament makes it invalid. Baptism conferred by one who knows nothing of its nature, or by one who denies baptismal regeneration, is valid, provided that the three essential elements of the sacrament are not wanting.

Difficulties may arise from the fact that a minister while making a sacrament had mutually contradictory intentions. Thus an heretical priest while saying Mass may have the intention to do what Christ instituted but not to offer sacrifice, as he denies that Mass is a sacrifice. In this and in similar cases divines give the following rules for discovering whether the sacrament is effected or not. When the contradictory intentions are present in the mind at the time of making the sacrament, that will prevail which is the stronger, and that is the stronger which would be chosen by the minister if he realized the contradiction. So that, in the example given, the heretical minister will actually say Mass if the intention to do what Christ instituted be the prevailing and stronger one; he will not say Mass if his intention not to offer sacrifice is the stronger. When the contradictory intentions follow one another, the last will ordinarily prevail, unless the former revoked all subsequent intentions.

Except in case of necessity the minister of a sacrament may not use probable opinions with reference to what belongs to the validity of the sacrament. As we saw when treating of the matter and form, it would be against the reverence due to the sacraments, against justice, and against charity, if the minister exposed the sacraments to the danger of nullity through following a merely probable opinion. He is bound to follow the safer opinion when he can do so in what relates to the validity of the sacraments. In questions, however, which only touch the lawfulness or the integrity of the sacraments, and when the Church supplies what is wanting in order that the sacrament may be valid, which she sometimes does, as we shall see later, there is no reason why the minister should not use probable opinions. The same doctrine applies also to the recipient of the sacraments.

Neither faith nor the state of holiness and friendship with God is necessary in the minister for the validity of the sacraments which he confers. This is of faith, and it was defined by the Council of Trent. The sacraments do not depend for their effect on the good or bad dispositions of the minister, as they derive their efficacy from the institution and the merits of Christ. They produce their effect ex opere operato, not ex opere operantis. However, one who has been consecrated and deputed to be a dispenser of the mysteries of God is bound to fulfil his office in a worthy manner. Holy things must be treated holily. The minister acts in the name of Christ; he becomes the instrument of Christ for the sanctification of the souls of others by means of the sacraments; he would be greatly wanting in reverence and decency if, while engaged in so holy a task, his own conscience were stained with grievous sin. An enemy of God himself, he is guilty of great presumption in undertaking such holy functions. A consecrated minister who solemnly administers a sacrament while conscious of being in a state of mortal sin certainly sins grievously. The question whether a lay person who in case of necessity baptizes another or contracts marriage in the state of sin himself sins grievously, as being an unworthy minister of the sacrament, is much disputed among divines. Many weighty authorities excuse such a minister from grave sin because he is not under so strict an obligation to put himself in the state of grace before administering a sacrament as is one who has been set aside and consecrated to that office. All citizens are bound to defend their country when threatened, but there is a special obligation to do so incumbent on those who, like soldiers, have undertaken that duty. Similarly, all should indeed treat the sacraments with proper respect, but consecrated ministers are specially bound to do so while fulfilling their office. So that it.is a probable opinion that a lay person who baptizes in sin in a case of necessity, or one who marries and so ministers the sacrament in sin to the other party, does not thereby sin grievously. For the same reasons it is also probable that even a consecrated minister who while in sin administers Baptism privately in case of necessity does not sin mortally, for he then acts as a private person, not as a consecrated minister.

A priest who says Mass in the state of mortal sin is thereby guilty of several grievous sins. He celebrates Mass unworthily, he receives Holy Communion unworthily, and he gives himself the sacrament though he knows that he is unworthy to receive it. Some add a fourth sin, which is committed precisely by handling and administering the Blessed Sacrament in a state of sin. It is probable, however, that this last act, though wanting in due reverence, does not amount to a grievous sin, All the more is it a safe opinion that deacons and subdeacons who exercise their functions in a state of sin do not sin grievously by so doing, nor do Bishops and priests who in sin consecrate or bless pious objects, or preach the word of God.

Divines are not agreed whether a priest would commit one sin or as many sins as he administered sacraments unworthily who in a state of sin should hear many confessions or administer many Baptisms or other sacraments at the same time. If there were moral interruptions between the several sacraments, there would at least be as many sins as interruptions. But if there were no such moral interruption, it is a probable opinion that a priest who at one time administers a sacrament to many only commits one big mortal sin. The sin takes its unity from the fact that he exercises his office on one occasion unworthily, an office which he was consecrated to perform in a worthy manner. It is not, then, necessary for a priest who has sinned by hearing confessions in sin to say how many persons he has absolved; it will be sufficient if he states how often he has heard confessions in mortal sin.

It will be sufficient for a priest who is in sin to make an act of contrition before administering any of the other sacraments, but before saying Mass and receiving Holy Communion it is necessary for such a one to go to confession. The Council of Trent, commenting on the precept of St Paul, “ Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread,” says that the custom of the Church has always interpreted these words as implying that no one who is conscious of mortal sin ought to approach Holy Communion without sacramental confession, however contrite he may feel. It is, of course, advisable that this should be done before a minister who is in sin administers any of the sacraments, though it is only of strict obligation before saying Mass and receiving Holy Communion.

All who have the cure of souls are bound in justice and in charity to administer the sacraments to the members of their flock when these need them or ask for them reasonably. The obligation is principally one of justice, and it arises from the implicit contract which those who have the cure of souls enter into on assumption of office. The obligation is a grave one if the subject is in extreme or grave necessity, and even when there is no grave necessity one who has the cure of souls would commit serious sin if he frequently refused the sacraments to those who ask for them reasonably. An occasional refusal in such cases would not be a grievous sin, as although the spiritual good of which they are unjustly deprived is considerable, yet the loss can without much inconvenience be made good at another time.

The obligation of justice is so strict that those who have the cure of souls are bound even at the risk of life to administer the sacraments to their flock in extreme or in grave necessity. This obligation, however, only extends to those sacraments which are necessary for salvation, such as Baptism and Penance; it does not extend to those which are not necessary, not even to the holy Eucharist, according to a very probable opinion. Mortal sin will be committed not only by frequent refusal of the sacraments to those who ask for them in a reasonable manner, but also by making one’s self difficult to approach and by an ungracious manner of yielding to reasonable requests, inasmuch as such methods deter the faithful from exercising their just rights.

Ministers of the sacraments who have not the cure of souls are bound in charity to administer the sacraments to such as are in extreme or grave spiritual necessity. This obligation is less strict than that which lies on those who have the cure of souls, so that those who have no such cure will only be bound at the risk of life to administer the sacraments which are necessary for salvation to those who are in extreme necessity. But in order that this grave obligation of charity may exist there must be moral certainty that the person in question is in extreme spiritual necessity, or in other words, that he is in proximate danger of damnation unless the sacraments be administered. There must also be a reasonable certainty that the attempt to administer the sacraments will be successful; it would be hard if a minister of the sacraments were bound to imperil his life for a mere probability of being able to help another in spiritual distress. Furthermore, before so grave an obligation can be imposed on anyone it must be morally certain that he who is in spiritual necessity is unable to help himself by making an act of contrition for his sins or of perfect love of God, and that there is no one else who is able and willing to succour him in his necessity. As all these conditions are seldom verified in any concrete case, it is apparent that those who have not the cure of souls will seldom be under a grave obligation of administering the sacraments to those who are in extreme necessity at the risk of life.

“ Let a man so account of us,” says St Paul, ‘‘ as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. Here now it is required among the dispensers, that a man be found faithful.”¹ As, then, the administration of the sacra ments is entrusted to the ministers of the Church, they must be faithful to their charge and administer them according to the intention of Christ and the rules of the Church. These rules are chiefly contained in the Ritual and in other liturgical books. The prescribed rites are of grave obligation in serious matters, for the Council of Trent anathematized those who should assert, “That the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed by every pastor of the churches into other new ones.”² Ministers are specially required to refuse the sacraments to such as are unworthy: ‘‘ Give not that which is holy to dogs,” said our blessed Lord.³ The minister should have positive reasons for judging that those who ask for the sacraments of Penance and Orders are worthy to receive them. For the dispositions of the subject enter into the substance and validity of Penance, and the duty of seeing that everything is present which is required for the validity of the sacraments belongs to the minister of them. Public officials of the Church are constituted by Orders, and the public good requires that only those who are worthy should be chosen. All lawful subjects who ask for the other sacraments are presumed to be worthy unless it is certain that they are unworthy.

With special reference to the holy Eucharist the Ritual lays down that, “‘ All the faithful are to be admitted to Holy Communion except those who are forbidden for just cause. Those who are notoriously unworthy are to be refused, such as the excommunicated, interdicted, and openly infamous, as are strumpets, those living in concubinage, usurers, wizards, sorcerers, blasphemers, and other public sinners of that kind, unless it is certain that they have repented and amended, and have made satisfaction for the public scandal which they have given ” (Can. 855). However, in the judgement of theologians, it will be sufficient if such public sinners openly go to confession; in this way, according to modern discipline, they will show their amendment and make satisfaction for the scandal which they have caused, unless more is required in special cases by the bishop or by other competent authority.

The Ritual proceeds: “ Let the minister also repel secret sinners when they ask in secret unless he knows that they have amended; but not when they ask publicly, and cannot passed by without scandal.” be In the latter case public injury oe 4 t would be done to the secret sinner, scandal would be given to others, and other inconveniences would follow, if the sacraments were refused; and these reasons justify the minister in co-operating materially with the sin of unworthily receiving the sacraments. Of course, if the minister only knows of the bad dispositions of the subject from sacramental confession, he can make no use of his knowledge out of confession.

¹ 1 Cor. iv 1, 2.

² Sess. vii, c. 13.

³ Matt. vii 6.

It is specially laid down in the new Code of Canon Law and in the synods¹ that the priest should strive to induce all who are going to marry to approach beforehand the sacraments of Penance and the holy Eucharist. If he does not succeed in this, he may nevertheless assist at the marriage even though he knows that one or both parties are not properly disposed to receive the sacrament, for he is not the minister of Matrimony, but only the witness authorized by the Church to assist at it and to bless the parties; to refuse to assist would commonly do more harm than good. Even if one of the contracting parties knows that the other is not in a fit state to receive a sacrament of the living like Matrimony, still he will as a rule be excused from sin in ministering the sacrament to him, because he is not a consecrated minister of the sacrament, and the advantages connected with marriage are a sufficient justification for co-operating materially with the sin committed by the other party by receiving the sacrament in a state of sin.

¹ 1 West., d. 22; can. 1033.

If one who is unworthy were to demand the administration of a sacrament out of contempt for the Faith or to show his hatred for religion, the minister would be bound to refuse it even at the risk of his life. He must protect the sacraments which have been committed to his care from so great an indignity—which indeed would redound on God himself—even at the risk of life. Whether a minister at the risk of his life would be bound to refuse a sacrament to one who was unworthy and who demanded its administration with threats of death in case of refusal, not indeed out of contempt or hatred of the Faith, but for some other reason, is a disputed point among theologians. It is at any rate a probable opinion that the minister would not be bound to expose his life to danger, but that he might administer the sacrament to save himself, as we saw above that he might administer it to a secret sinner to avoid scandal.

Innocent XI condemned the proposition that instant and grave fear is a just cause for simulating the administration of the sacraments.¹ From this it follows that not only formal simulation with the intention of deceiving others is wrong, as being a lie in action, but even material simulation of administering a sacrament, whereby the matter or the form of a sacrament is used without the making of the sacrament, is not justified by grave fear. The minister may not give an unconsecrated host to a sinner as Communion, nor fictitiously absolve a penitent even to avoid death. The reason is because by so doing he would abuse a holy rite, instituted by Christ, and thus be guilty of gross irreverence toward God. It is a less sin for a priest to celebrate unworthily than to pretend to say Mass and not consecrate. However, a priest who instead of absolving a penitent who is not worthy of absolution dismisses him with a blessing so as not to betray him to people who are looking on, does not simulate the administration of the sacrament in the technical sense, and he does nothing reprehensible. He does not make an irreverent use of the sacramental sign or of part of it without completing the sacrament, in which the essence of the simulation of the administration of a sacrament consists in so far as it is wrong and has been condemned by the Church.

According to Canon 731, it is forbidden to administer the sacraments of the Church to heretics and schismatics, even though they be in good faith and ask for them, unless they have first been reconciled with the Church after abjuring their errors.

¹ Prop. 29.

THE sacraments were instituted to sanctify the souls of men and thus to prepare them for heaven. Only living men, then, can validly receive the sacraments; dead men or other beings cannot receive them validly. Death takes place when the soul is separated from the body, but we do not know the precise moment when that separation takes place. Except putrefaction, there are no absolutely certain signs of death, and it is quite probable that the soul remains united to the body for some time after all apparent signs of life have disappeared. Under these circumstances recent medical men and divines hold that it is lawful to administer the last sacraments to one who has to all appearances been dead for an hour or two. This is especially the case when death is the result of some sudden accident. Men only, not women, are capable of receiving the sacrament of Orders, and only those who have committed actual sins after Baptism can validly receive the sacrament of Penance. As the sacraments were instituted for the Church of Christ, of which men become members by Baptism, this sacrament is a necessary condition for the valid reception of the others.

No special disposition or intention is required on the part of infants, who have not come to the use of reason, and of imbeciles for the validity of the sacraments which they are capable of receiving. As they have not the use of reason they are incapable of disposing themselves for the reception of the sacraments, and yet the Church has been accustomed to give them the sacraments. The practice of the Church in such matters has the very greatest authority, as the Angelic Doctor says: ““ The custom of the Church has the greatest authority, and it should always be followed in all things, because even the teaching of Catholic Doctors receives its authority from the Church. So that we must rather stand by the authority of the Church than by the authority of Augustine or Jerome, or of any Doctor soever.”¹+ With reference to infant Baptism the Council of Trent passed the following decree: “ If anyone saith that little children, for that they have not actual faith, are not, after having received Baptism, to be reckoned amongst the faithful; and that for this cause they are to be rebaptized when they have attained to years of discretion; or that it is better that the Baptism of such be omitted than that while not believing by their own act they should be baptized in the faith alone of the Church; let him be anathema.”²

¹ Summa, 2-2, q. 10, a. 12.

² Sess. vii, c. 13, de Bapt.

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

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

¹ Sess. vi, c. 7.

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

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

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

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

¹ Sess. vi, c. 6.

² Can. 731.

³ Analecta Ecclesiastica, 1898, p. 387.

⁴ De Syn. vi, c. 5, n. 2.

(St. Thomas, part 3, qq. 60-65; St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, book VI, nn. 1-94; Homo Apostolicus, tract 14, nn. 1-6.)¹

We shall deal first with the sacraments considered in themselves, then with the administration, and finally with the reception of the sacraments. Those things, however, which are treated by dogmatic theologians we shall touch upon very briefly, especially for this end, that there may be had a view of the whole doctrine, and that the connection between dogmatic and moral doctrine may appear.

¹ Cf. Billuart, Summa S. Thom., part 3, treatise III; De Smet, De sacramentis in genere; Rath, De Sacramentis in genere; Pourrat, La theologie sacramentaire; Schanz, Die Lehre von den Sakramenten der kath. Kirche; Billot, De Ecclesiae sacramentis.

Having handed down a summary notion of a sacrament, we shall speak first of the existence, essence, and division of the sacraments, then of their efficacy, and then of the effects of the sacraments.

(Summa Theologica, III, qq. 66-83.)

The general duties of the ministers and recipients of the Sacraments have been outlined in the previous Article. The principles therein given are the basis of the special duties that pertain to each of the seven Sacraments. In this and the remaining Articles, therefore, it will suffice to apply without explaining anew the rules already given and to add the special details proper to each Sacrament.

"In certain places some (heretics) baptize with due matter and form, applied simultaneously, but expressly warn those to be baptized not to believe that Baptism has any effect on the soul; for they say that it is a merely external sign of the aggregation of those of their Sect. And so they often turn Catholics into mockery concerning their faith about the effects of Baptism, which indeed they call superstitious. It is asked: 1. Whether Baptism administered by those heretics is doubtful because of defect of intention of doing what Christ willed, if it has been expressly declared by the minister, before he baptizes, that Baptism has no effect on the soul? 2. Whether Baptism so conferred is doubtful, if the aforesaid declaration was not expressly made immediately before Baptism was conferred, but it was often pronounced by the minister, and that doctrine is openly preached in that Sect? Resp. To the 1st, negatively; because, notwithstanding the error as regards the effects of Baptism, the intention of doing what the Church does is not excluded. To the 2nd, provision has been made in the first." S. I. C. 18 Dec. 1872. Cf. Benedict XIV, De Syn. Dioec., bk. 7, ch. 6, n. 9; Innocent IV, chap. 2, On Baptism, n. 9; Bellarmine, On the Sacraments in General, bk. 1, ch. 27, n. 13.

"How should Parish Priests conduct themselves in the celebration of the marriages of those who have notoriously fallen into Ecclesiastical censures? Resp. Care is to be taken according to one's strength that those bound by Ecclesiastical censures be reconciled with the Church in due manner; but if they refuse to be reconciled, and, unless the marriage is celebrated, grave evils seem thence to threaten, let the Parish Priest consult the Ordinary, who, having considered the account of things and circumstances, and having weighed all the things which are handed down by approved authors and especially by St. Alphonsus, bk. 6, tr. 1, ch. 2, n. 34, should declare those things which he shall judge in the Lord to be more expedient, the celebration of Mass always nevertheless excluded." S. Poenit. 10 Dec. 1860.

"Likewise, how should Bishops conduct themselves, if any of the above-mentioned persons bound by censure should present themselves, that he may act as Sponsor either in the sacrament of Confirmation or of Baptism? Resp. As in the preceding." S. Poenit. 10 Dec. 1860.

"Whether the Most Holy Eucharist can be ministered to those notoriously bound by censure before they have first, as is fitting, been reconciled with the Church? Resp. Negatively." S. Poenit. 10 Dec. 1860. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 563.

“Fifth, for the easier instruction of the Armenians themselves, both present and future, We reduce the truth of the ecclesiastical Sacraments to this very brief formula. There are seven Sacraments of the New Law: namely, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony. These differ greatly from the sacraments of the Old Law. For those did not cause grace, but only prefigured that it was to be given through the Passion of Christ; but these Sacraments of ours both contain grace and confer it upon those worthily receiving them. The first five of these are ordained to the spiritual perfection of each man in himself; the last two, to the governance and multiplication of the whole Church. For through Baptism we are spiritually reborn; through Confirmation we are increased in grace and strengthened in faith; and, having been reborn and strengthened, we are nourished by the divine food of the Eucharist. But if through sin we incur sickness of soul, through Penance we are spiritually healed; spiritually also, and corporally insofar as it is expedient for the soul, through Extreme Unction; but through Order the Church is governed and multiplied spiritually; through Matrimony it is increased corporally. All these Sacraments are completed by three things: namely, things as matter, words as form, and the person of the minister conferring the Sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. If any of these is lacking, the Sacrament is not completed. Among these Sacraments there are three—Baptism, Confirmation, and Order—which imprint upon the soul an indelible character, that is, a certain spiritual sign distinctive from the others. Hence they are not repeated in the same person. But the remaining four do not imprint a character and admit of repetition.

“Holy Baptism holds the first place among all the Sacraments, because it is the gate of spiritual life; for through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since through the first man death entered into all, unless we are reborn of water and the Spirit, we cannot, as the Truth says, enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. The matter of this Sacrament is true and natural water; nor does it matter whether it is cold or warm. The form is: ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’ Nevertheless, We do not deny that true Baptism is also completed through these words: ‘Such a servant of Christ is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’; or, ‘Such a one is baptized by my hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’ For since the principal cause from which Baptism has its power is the Holy Trinity, while the minister who outwardly delivers the Sacrament is the instrumental cause, if the act which is exercised through the minister himself is expressed together with the invocation of the Holy Trinity, the Sacrament is completed. The minister of this Sacrament is the priest, to whom it belongs by office to baptize. But in a case of necessity, not only a priest or deacon, but also a layman or woman, indeed even a pagan and a heretic, can baptize, provided that he observes the form of the Church and intends to do what the Church does. The effect of this Sacrament is the remission of all original and actual fault, and also of every punishment which is due for that fault. Therefore no satisfaction for past sins is to be enjoined upon the baptized; rather, those who die before committing any fault immediately attain the Kingdom of Heaven and the vision of God.

“The second Sacrament is Confirmation, whose matter is chrism composed of oil, which signifies the splendor of conscience, and balsam, which signifies the odor of good reputation, blessed by a Bishop. The form is: ‘I sign you with the sign of the Cross and confirm you with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’ The ordinary minister is the Bishop. And although a simple priest can administer the other anointings, only a Bishop ought to confer this one, because it is read only of the Apostles, whose place Bishops hold, that they gave the Holy Spirit through the imposition of hands, as the reading of the Acts of the Apostles makes manifest: ‘For when,’ it says, ‘the Apostles who were at Jerusalem had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John. When these had come, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for He had not yet come upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands upon them, and they received the Holy Spirit.’ In the place of that imposition of hands, Confirmation is given in the Church. It is read, nevertheless, that sometimes, by dispensation of the Apostolic See for a reasonable and very urgent cause, a simple priest administered this Sacrament of Confirmation with chrism consecrated by a Bishop. The effect of this Sacrament is that in it the Holy Spirit is given for strength, as He was given to the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, so that, namely, the Christian may boldly confess the name of Christ. Therefore the one to be confirmed is anointed on the forehead, where the seat of shame is, lest he be ashamed to confess the name of Christ, and especially His Cross, which indeed is a scandal to the Jews but foolishness to the Gentiles, according to the Apostle; for which reason he is signed with the sign of the Cross.

“The third is the Sacrament of the Eucharist, whose matter is wheaten bread and wine from the vine, with which a very little water must be mixed before consecration. Water is mixed for this reason: because, according to the testimonies of the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church long ago presented in disputation, it is believed that the Lord Himself instituted this Sacrament in wine mixed with water. Then also because this accords with the representation of the Lord’s Passion. For blessed Pope Alexander, fifth from blessed Peter, says: ‘In the offerings of the Sacraments which are offered to the Lord within the solemnities of Masses, let only bread and wine mixed with water be offered in sacrifice. For neither wine alone nor water alone ought to be offered in the chalice of the Lord, but both mixed, because it is read that both—that is, blood and water—flowed from the side of Christ.’ Then also because it accords with signifying the effect of this Sacrament, which is the union of the Christian people with Christ. For water signifies the people, according to that passage of the Apocalypse: ‘Many waters, many peoples.’ And Pope Julius, second after blessed Sylvester, says: ‘The chalice of the Lord, according to the precept of the canons, ought to be offered mixed with wine and water, because we see that in the water the people are understood, but in the wine the Blood of Christ is shown. Therefore, when wine and water are mixed in the chalice, the people are united to Christ, and the multitude of the faithful is coupled and joined to Him in whom it believes.’ Therefore, since both the Holy Roman Church, instructed by the Most Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and all the other Churches of the Latins and Greeks, in which every luminary of holiness and doctrine has shone, have observed this from the beginning of the nascent Church and observe it now, it seems exceedingly unfitting that any other region should differ from this universal and reasonable observance. We decree, therefore, that the Armenians themselves also conform themselves to the whole Christian world, and that their priests, in the offering of the chalice, mix a little water with the wine, as has been stated. The form of this Sacrament is the words of the Savior by which He effected this Sacrament, for the priest, speaking in the person of Christ, effects this Sacrament. For by the power of the words themselves, the substance of bread is converted into the Body of Christ and the substance of wine into the Blood; yet in such a way that the whole Christ is contained under the species of bread and the whole under the species of wine. Under every part of the consecrated Host and of the consecrated wine, when separation has been made, the whole Christ is also present. The effect of this Sacrament which it works in the soul of one worthily receiving is the union of man with Christ. And because through grace man is incorporated into Christ and united to His members, it follows that through this Sacrament grace is increased in those worthily receiving; and every effect which material food and drink accomplish with respect to bodily life—sustaining, increasing, repairing, and delighting—this Sacrament works with respect to spiritual life; in it, as Pope Urban says, we gratefully commemorate our Savior, are withdrawn from evil, are strengthened in good, and advance toward an increase of virtues and graces.

“The fourth Sacrament is Penance, whose quasi-matter is the acts of the penitent, which are distinguished into three parts. The first of these is contrition of heart, to which it pertains that he grieve for the sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning thereafter. The second is confession of the mouth, to which it pertains that the sinner confess integrally to his priest all the sins of which he has memory. The third is satisfaction for sins according to the judgment of the priest; this is performed chiefly through prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. The form of this Sacrament is the words of absolution which the priest pronounces when he says: ‘I absolve you,’ etc.; and the minister of this Sacrament is a priest having authority to absolve, either ordinary authority or authority from the commission of a Superior. The effect of this Sacrament is absolution from sins.

“The fifth Sacrament is Extreme Unction, whose matter is olive oil blessed by a Bishop. This Sacrament ought not to be given except to a sick person concerning whose death there is fear; he is to be anointed in these places: on the eyes because of sight, on the ears because of hearing, on the nostrils because of smell, on the mouth because of taste or speech, on the hands because of touch, on the feet because of walking, and on the loins because of the pleasure vigorous there. The form of this Sacrament is this: ‘Through this anointing and His most loving mercy, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have committed through sight,’ etc.; and similarly on the other members. The minister of this Sacrament is a priest. Its effect is the healing of the mind, and also of the body insofar as it is expedient. Concerning this Sacrament blessed James the Apostle says: ‘Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, that they may pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he is in sins, they shall be forgiven him.’

“The sixth Sacrament is Order, whose matter is that through the presentation of which the Order is conferred; thus the Presbyterate is conferred through the presentation of the chalice with wine and of the paten with bread; the Diaconate, through the handing over of the Book of the Gospels; and the Subdiaconate, through the presentation of the empty chalice with the empty paten placed upon it; and similarly as regards the others, through the assignment of things pertaining to their ministries. The form of the Priesthood is this: ‘Receive the power of offering sacrifice in the Church for the living and the dead, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’ And so concerning the forms of the other Orders, as is contained at length in the Roman Pontifical. The ordinary minister of this Sacrament is the Bishop. Its effect is an increase of grace, so that one may be a suitable minister.

“The seventh is the Sacrament of Matrimony, which is a sign of the union of Christ and the Church, according to the Apostle saying: ‘This is a great Sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church.’ The efficient cause of Matrimony is regularly mutual consent expressed through words of the present. A threefold good of Matrimony is assigned. The first is offspring to be received and educated for the worship of God. The second is fidelity, which one spouse ought to preserve toward the other. The third is the indivisibility of Matrimony, because it signifies the indivisible union of Christ and the Church. Although separation from the bed is lawful because of fornication, it is nevertheless not lawful to contract another Matrimony, since the bond of a lawfully contracted Matrimony is perpetual.”

“Canon 1. If anyone shall say 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, the 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.

“Canon 2. If anyone shall say that these same Sacraments of the New Law do not differ from the sacraments of the Old Law except because the ceremonies are different and the external rites are different: let him be anathema.

“Canon 3. If anyone shall say that these seven Sacraments are so equal among themselves that in no respect is one more worthy than another: let him be anathema.

“Canon 4. If anyone shall say that the Sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but superfluous; and that without them or the desire for them men obtain from God the grace of justification through faith alone, although all are not necessary for each individual: let him be anathema.

“Canon 5. If anyone shall say that these Sacraments were instituted only for nourishing faith: let him be anathema.

“Canon 6. If anyone shall say that the Sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify, or do not confer grace itself upon those placing no obstacle, as though they were only external signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of Christian profession by which the faithful are distinguished among men from unbelievers: let him be anathema.

“Canon 7. If anyone shall say that grace is not given through Sacraments of this kind always and to all, so far as concerns God’s part, even if they receive them rightly, but sometimes and to some: let him be anathema.

“Canon 8. If anyone shall say that grace is not conferred ex opere operato through the Sacraments of the New Law themselves, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for obtaining grace: let him be anathema.

“Canon 9. If anyone shall say that in the three Sacraments, namely Baptism, Confirmation, and Order, a character is not imprinted upon the soul, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible sign, whence they cannot be repeated: let him be anathema.

“Canon 10. If anyone shall say that all Christians have power in the word and in administering all the Sacraments: let him be anathema.

“Canon 11. If anyone shall say that in ministers, while they effect and confer the Sacraments, at least the intention of doing what the Church does is not required: let him be anathema.

“Canon 12. If anyone shall say that a minister existing in mortal sin, provided that he has observed all the essentials which pertain to effecting or conferring the Sacrament, does not effect or confer the Sacrament: let him be anathema.

“Canon 13. If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily employed in the solemn administration of the Sacraments can either be contemned, or omitted without sin by ministers at pleasure, or changed into other new rites by any Pastor of the Churches whatsoever: let him be anathema.”

“56. In sin there are two things, the act and the guilt; but when the act passes away, nothing remains except the guilt or obligation to punishment.—57. Hence in the Sacrament of Baptism or in the absolution of a priest, properly only the guilt of sin is removed, and the ministry of priests frees only from guilt.—58. A penitent sinner is not vivified by the ministry of the absolving priest, but by God alone, who, suggesting and inspiring Penance, vivifies and raises him up; but through the ministry of the priest only the guilt is removed.” Propositions of Michael Baius condemned by Saint Pius V.

“12. If, per impossibile, the one confessing were not contrite, or the priest absolved not seriously but in jest, nevertheless, if he believes himself absolved, he is most truly absolved.” Proposition of Martin Luther condemned by Leo X. D. 752.

“28. Baptism conferred by a minister who observes the whole external rite and form of baptizing is valid, even though inwardly in his heart he resolves within himself: ‘I do not intend what the Church does.’” Proposition condemned by Alexander VIII. D. 1318.

“In certain places some heretics baptize with due matter and form, applied simultaneously, but expressly admonish those to be baptized not to believe that Baptism has any effect upon the soul; for they say that it is a merely external sign of aggregation to their sect. Thus they often turn Catholics to ridicule concerning their faith in the effects of Baptism, which they call superstitious. It is asked: 1. Is Baptism administered by those heretics doubtful because of a defect of the intention of doing what Christ willed, if it was expressly declared by the minister before he baptized that Baptism has no effect upon the soul? 2. Is Baptism conferred in this manner doubtful if the aforesaid declaration was not made expressly immediately before Baptism was conferred, but had often been pronounced by the minister, and that doctrine is openly preached in that sect?—Response. To the first: Negative; because, notwithstanding error concerning the effects of Baptism, the intention of doing what the Church does is not excluded. To the second: Provision was made in the first.” Holy Office, 18 December 1872. Cf. Benedict XIV, De Synodo dioecesana, bk. 7, ch. 6, no. 9; Innocent IV, ch. 2, De baptismo, no. 9; Bellarmine, De Sacramentis in genere, bk. 1, ch. 27, no. 13; C. 659.

“Those concerning whom there is doubt whether they have been baptized are baptized with these words prefixed: ‘If you have been baptized, I do not baptize you; but if you have not yet been baptized, I baptize you,’ etc.” Alexander III, chapter De quibus, 2, De Baptismo et eius effectu.

“If anyone shall come to us from any heresy whatsoever, let nothing be innovated except that which has been handed down, that a hand be imposed upon him unto Penance; since the heretics themselves, properly speaking, do not baptize one another when coming to them, but only admit them to communion. It is not to be asked who he is who baptized, because he who has been baptized could obtain grace, the Trinity of names—the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit—having been invoked. The name of Christ avails greatly, so that whoever and wherever he has been baptized in the name of Christ may immediately obtain the grace of Christ. What we have received from the Apostles, this we follow.” Decree of Stephen I against the Rebaptizers.

“Concerning the Africans, because they use their own law, so that they rebaptize, it has been determined that if anyone shall come from heresy, they shall question him concerning the Creed; and if they shall ascertain that he was baptized in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, only a hand shall be imposed upon him, so that he may receive the Holy Spirit. But if, when questioned, he shall not answer this Trinity, let him be baptized.” First Council of Arles, 314, canon 8, on the Baptism of heretics.

“Concerning those who at times call themselves Cathari, that is, pure, but come to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, it has seemed good to the holy great Synod that, hands having been imposed upon them, they thus remain in the clergy.… Concerning the Paulianists who thereafter fled to the Church, it has been established that they be wholly rebaptized. But if any were in the number of clerics in time past, if indeed they shall appear free from fault and reproach, after being rebaptized let them be ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church.” First Synod of Nicaea, year 325, chapters 8 and 19, on the Baptism of heretics.

“On the very first page of your letter you indicated that very many baptized by the Arians were hastening to the Catholic faith, and that certain of our brethren wished to baptize them again; this is not lawful, since both the Apostle forbids this to be done and the canons contradict it, and the general decrees sent to the provinces by my predecessor Liberius of venerable memory after the Council of Rimini was annulled prohibit it. We join them, together with the Novatians and other heretics, to the assembly of Catholics through the invocation alone of the sevenfold Spirit by the imposition of a Bishop’s hand, as was established in the Synod; and the whole East and West also observe this. It is by no means fitting that you too deviate henceforth from this path, if you do not wish to be separated from our college by a synodal sentence.” Decrees of Liberius and Siricius on the Baptism of heretics, in Siricius, Epistle I to Himerius of Tarragona, ch. 1.

“Since the Church in many places, and especially in the Teutonic regions, long labored under heresy and schism, and, if all those who were ordained by those heretics and schismatics had to be annulled, certain Churches would seem to be wholly stripped of their clerics, We, following the decrees of the Holy Fathers concerning those who were ordained under Acacius and Bonosus and the Donatists, have decreed by statute that all Bishops who were ordained under this schism shall remain in their honors, unless they are usurpers or criminals. But with regard to the other Orders, the power shall rest with the Bishops, so that those whose life appears approved may remain in their grade.” Decree of Paschal II at the Lateran Council, year 1116.

“That those coming from the Novatians or Montenses be received through the imposition of hands alone, because, although baptized by heretics, they were nevertheless baptized in the name of Christ.” Innocent I, Epistle 2 to Victricius of Rouen, ch. 11.

From the Nicene canon, Paulianists coming to the Church are to be baptized, but not Novatians; “The manifest reason declares that this was therefore distinguished with respect to these two heresies, because the Paulianists by no means baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; but the Novatians baptize with those same tremendous and venerable names, nor among them has a question ever been raised concerning the unity of divine power, that is, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Innocent I, Epistle 17 to the Bishops of Macedonia, ch. 5.

“…We likewise by no means reject the Sacraments which are celebrated in it, through the cooperation of the inestimable and invisible power of the Holy Spirit, although they are administered by a sinful priest while the Church receives him; nor do We detract from ecclesiastical offices or blessings celebrated by him, but with benevolent spirit embrace them as though from a most just man, because the wickedness of a Bishop or priest harms neither the Baptism of an infant, nor the conferral of the Eucharist, nor the other ecclesiastical offices celebrated for subjects.” Profession of faith of the Waldensians prescribed by Innocent III.

“The fourth blasphemy of impious men of this kind (the Fraticelli), breaking forth from the poisonous fountain of the aforesaid Waldensians, holds that priests who have even been rightly and lawfully ordained according to the form of the Church, but are weighed down by any crimes whatsoever, cannot effect or confer the ecclesiastical Sacraments.” Error condemned by John XXII in a Constitution issued in the year 1318.

“4. If a Bishop or priest exists in mortal sin, he does not ordain, does not consecrate, does not effect, does not baptize.” Articles of John Wycliffe condemned at the Council of Constance.

“22. Likewise, whether he believes that a wicked priest, with due matter and form and with the intention of doing what the Church does, truly effects, truly baptizes, and truly confers the other Sacraments.” Articles concerning which persons suspected of the errors of Wycliffe and Hus are to be questioned.

“How ought Pastors to conduct themselves in celebrating the marriages of those who have notoriously incurred ecclesiastical censures?—Response. Care must be taken with all strength that those bound by ecclesiastical censures be reconciled with the Church in the due manner; but if they refuse to be reconciled, and grave evils seem likely to threaten unless the marriage is celebrated, the Pastor shall consult the Ordinary, who, having taken account of the matters and circumstances and having considered all the things handed down by approved authors, and especially by Saint Alphonsus, book 6, treatise 1, chapter 2, no. 54, shall declare those things which he shall judge more expedient in the Lord, the celebration of Mass, however, always being excluded.” Sacred Penitentiary, 10 December 1860. The same Sacred Penitentiary responded on 15 July 1856, the same care having been employed and the same circumstances standing: “In such a case the Pastor can lawfully assist at the marriage of a public and notorious excommunicate who is tolerated. A Bishop likewise can, when these circumstances concur and suitable precautions have been employed, give a Pastor permission to assist at such a marriage.”—C. 1525 ff.

“Likewise, how ought Bishops to conduct themselves if any of those mentioned above who are bound by a censure should present themselves in order to act as sponsor either in the Sacrament of Confirmation or of Baptism?—Response. As in the preceding.” Sacred Penitentiary, 10 December 1860.

“Can the Most Holy Eucharist be administered to those notoriously bound by a censure before they have, as is fitting, been reconciled with the Church?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Penitentiary, 10 December 1860; A. S. S., vol. 1, p. 563.

What is a sacrament? - As regards the force of the name, sacrament, in Greek mystery, is the same as a sacred, hidden thing. As regards the thing, sacrament, insofar as it comprehends the sacraments of the Old Testament and of the New Testament, is defined: A visible sign of invisible grace. But insofar as it is restricted only to the sacraments of the New Testament, it is defined: A sensible sign which, from the institution of Christ, has the power of signifying and causing grace. Hence the sacraments of the Old Testament differ much from the sacraments of the New Testament. For the former did not cause grace, but only figured that it was to be given through the passion of Christ; but our sacraments both contain grace and confer it upon those worthily receiving them. - Sacraments are distinguished from sacramentals, which are certain sacred things, sacred prayers, or actions instituted by the Church, which do not have the power of causing grace of themselves, but only, from the prayers of the Church, of exciting pious movements in us; and thus consequently they have the power of remitting venial sins and temporal punishment, and also of obtaining for us other spiritual and temporal goods, by way of impetration, by reason of the prayers of the Church. Sacramentals are: the Lord's Prayer, holy water, the use of eulogiae, Agnus Dei, consecrations, blessings, general confession, alms, etc. Sacred anointings, which are not sacraments, instituted by the Church, are counted among sacramentals. - Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Trent s. 7, c. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8; Roman Catechism n. 2, 14; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 1-4; q. 87, a. 3; Suppl. q. 29, a. 1; L. 90-94; La Croix 218 ff.; Ferraris v. Peccatum n. 52 ff.; Voit 112-117; E. M.

Agnus Dei are blessed and consecrated by the Roman Pontiff. They have power against demons and against all evils of the elements; they are a protection for women giving birth, and for all in prosperous and adverse cases, and they free from unexpected death.

How many are the sacraments of the New Testament? - There are seven: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, Matrimony. Namely, as in bodily life we are born, grow, are nourished, are healed when sick, are fortified against enemies, are governed, and are multiplied, so also in spiritual life. For through baptism we are spiritually reborn; through confirmation we are increased in grace and strengthened in faith; through the Eucharist we are nourished with divine food; through penance we are spiritually healed from the sickness of sin; through extreme unction we are strengthened in agony against the devil; through order the Church is governed; through matrimony it is multiplied. Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Trent s. 7, c. 1; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 65, a. 1-3.

Were all the sacraments instituted by Christ, and when? - R. To the first: In the affirmative, and this is of faith from Trent s. 7, c. 1. But it is far truer that all were instituted immediately by Christ, by himself, and not some mediately through the Apostles or the Church.

R. To the second: Christ more probably instituted Baptism before his passion, when he was baptized in the Jordan, John c. 3, v. 5; Matthew 3:15-17; penance after the resurrection, when he gave to the Apostles the power of remitting sins, John c. 20, v. 22, 23; Trent s. 14, c. 1, 14; the Eucharist at the Last Supper, Trent s. 12, c. 1; order at the Last Supper, when he conferred on the Apostles the power of consecrating, 1 Corinthians c. 11, v. 24-26; Trent s. 22, c. 1, c. 2, and after the resurrection when he gave to them the power of remitting sins, John l. c.; matrimony at the wedding of Cana, or when he established its indissolubility and perpetuity, Matthew c. 19, v. 5, 6, 9, for the matter is not certain. Nor is it established at what time he instituted confirmation, whether after the institution of the Eucharist at the supper, in that discourse in which he promised to all that he would send the Holy Spirit, John 14, 17, or after the resurrection, when Christ conferred on the Apostles full episcopal power in the Church, saying to the Apostles: As the Father has sent me, I also send you.... Receive the Holy Spirit, John 20:21, 22. Nor likewise is it established at what time he instituted extreme unction. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 64, a. 2-4; 4 D. 3, q. 1, a. 5, s. 2; Roman Catechism p. 2, on Baptism, n. 19.

Do all the sacraments, and always, confer grace? - All the sacraments of the New Testament contain grace and have the power of conferring it on those not placing an obstacle, and they give it always and to all who rightly receive them. Trent s. 7, c. 6, 7. An obstacle is had if the necessary dispositions are lacking in the one receiving. It is also called fiction, because it prevents the sacrament from effecting that which it signifies. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 3; q. 69, a. 9 ad 3. - Hence sacraments are called formed or unformed according as they produce grace while they are received, or, with an obstacle intervening, suspend their effect, namely grace, until the obstacle is removed. Whence it appears that sacraments can be at the same time valid but unformed, and can be received at the same time validly but illicitly. Validly, when nothing is lacking from those things which pertain to the essence of the sacrament; illicitly, when, from fault, something is lacking from the necessary dispositions in the one receiving. - Decree of the Holy Office Lamentabili, July 3, 1907, propositions 39, 40, 41.

Do unformed sacraments, when the obstacle is afterwards removed, revive? - For a sacrament to revive is to furnish the grace which it would have furnished from the beginning if there had not been an obstacle. But the obstacle is removed by supplying those necessary dispositions which were lacking from the beginning, e.g., imperfect contrition, if it is a question of baptism received by an adult without any contrition for his own sins, and meanwhile he has not committed a new grave sin. Otherwise either perfect contrition is required, with the vow of the sacrament of penance, or imperfect contrition with the sacrament itself of penance. And then baptism destroys original sin and at the same time all actual sins committed before baptism. But the sacrament of penance destroys sins committed after baptism, and the sin of fiction, or of depraved disposition, with which the sacrament of baptism was received, at least insofar as this depraved disposition persevered after baptism, since it impeded its operation.

Now baptism revives, because it cannot be repeated. St. Augustine l. 1 Contra Donat. c. 13; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 69, a. 10, and others commonly. The same consequently must be said of confirmation and of order. St. Thomas 4, d. 49, art. 2. The same also must be said by proportionate reason of extreme unction and of matrimony, which during the same infirmity and the same marriage likewise cannot be repeated. - But concerning penance and the Eucharist it is much disputed. The reason for doubting is that if attrition is lacking in penance, the matter of the sacrament is lacking; and consequently the sacrament is neither formed nor unformed, since it is invalid, namely since it is altogether not. But the Eucharist from its institution can frequently be repeated, and therefore it does not seem that there was need to attribute to it this efficacy, so that assistance may be given to human frailty.

But St. Thomas, 4 dist. 17, q. 3, a. 4, qc. 1, speaking of a penitent who has made a valid but unformed confession, says: "although then he does not perceive the fruit of absolution, nevertheless when the fiction recedes he will begin to perceive it; as also happens in the other sacraments." But the general reason for revival is that it is only by accident that they do not produce their proper effects of grace, namely because of the obstacle; and therefore those effects remain suspended while the obstacle remains, but when this has been removed they must be applied to the soul. - Lugo d. 9, n. 50, 55; La Croix 207; L. 6, 87, 444, 707; H. A. Exam. Ord. n. 4.

What grace do the sacraments cause? - Sacramental grace, which the sacraments cause, is not grace entitatively diverse from common or non-sacramental grace, but it is sanctifying, habitual grace, insofar as it is given through such a sacrament, and gives a right to such special and more abundant helps, and comprehends these special helps themselves, actually conferred in their own time, according to the diversity of the end for obtaining which each sacrament was instituted. Florence, Decree for the Armenians. But the sacraments which from their primary institution cause the first sanctifying grace are called sacraments of the dead, as baptism and penance. Those which from their primary institution cause the second sanctifying grace, as the five other sacraments, are called sacraments of the living. But, since all the sacraments of the New Testament contain and confer grace on those not placing an obstacle, Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Trent s. 7, c. 6, 7, the sacraments of the dead by accident confer second grace if someone receives them already in the state of grace, and this is certain.

On the contrary, the sacraments of the living by accident confer first sanctifying grace, if someone simply attrite receives them in the state of grave sin, in good faith falsely thinking himself to be rightly absolved or perfectly contrite; and this again is certain concerning extreme unction, very probable concerning the others. The reason is that all the sacraments cause grace for those not placing an obstacle; but the obstacle to grace is not sin existing in the soul, but affection toward sin. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 62, a. 1-4; q. 72, a. 7 ad 2; q. 79, a. 3.

Do the sacraments cause equal grace in all? - Sacraments cause grace by force of the sign itself, or ex opere operato, not by the merit of the minister or of the recipient, or ex opere operantis. Hence they of themselves effect grace equally in all; yet this by accident, from the greater merit and better dispositions of the subject, can be greater, as happens in the effects of other causes which act physically and necessarily. For greater merit and better dispositions of this kind, in order to the effect of grace ex opere operato, have themselves as more fully removing every obstacle. Trent s. 6, c. 7; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 69, a. 8.

Do all the sacraments imprint character; what is the nature of character? - Only three sacraments imprint character, which therefore are customarily called characteristic, namely baptism, confirmation, and order, by which we are made subjects, soldiers, and ministers of the Church. Character is a certain spiritual sign, distinctive from the others, impressed on the soul and indelible. Hence they cannot be repeated without grave sin of sacrilege. For they would be repeated in vain, and consequently not without grave irreverence, since it would be to mock Christ himself, who instituted the sacrament. Sacramental character is not incompatible with grave sin; therefore sacraments, even unformed ones, although they do not produce grace, nevertheless imprint character in the soul. The remaining four sacraments do not imprint character and admit repetition. Hence sacraments are divided into unrepeatable and repeatable. Penance and the Eucharist are simply repeatable; extreme unction and matrimony indeed are repeatable, but not in the same infirmity and the same marriage. Therefore they hold a middle place between the unrepeatable and the repeatable, and cannot be repeated without grave sacrilege. - Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Trent s. 7, c. 9; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 63; Lugo, de Poenit. d. 16, n. 558.

Are the sacraments necessary? - Baptism for the non-baptized, and penance for those who after baptism have fallen into grave sin, are necessary by a necessity not only of precept but also of means, in reality or in desire. Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Trent s. 5, Decree on original sin; s. 14, c. 1, 4, 5; can. 1, 2, 6, 7. The Eucharist is necessary by necessity of precept. Trent s. 13, c. 9. The sacraments of order and matrimony are altogether free to individuals. Trent s. 7, c. 4. But whether confirmation and extreme unction are necessary from precept is not certainly established, as will be explained in its own place. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 61.

By what are the sacraments perfected? - "All Sacraments are perfected by three things, namely by things as matter, by words as form, and by the person of the minister conferring the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does; and if any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not perfected." Florence, Decree for the Armenians.

Things and words are required so that they may intrinsically constitute the sacrament, or the sensible sign signifying and causing grace, as matter and form. But since the proximate matter and form, which is contained in words, do not exist of themselves, but are contained in human actions, therefore a minister is furthermore required for substantially perfecting the sacrament, and indeed with the intention of doing what the Church does; for by this intention the ultimate signification of that sign is completed. For even with the thing and word, or matter and form, posited, that whole action still does not have perfect sacramental signification; for it can still be a sacramental action or some action, e.g., one mocking the sacrament itself, according to the intention of the one acting. But the sacraments "effect that which they figure" and signify, St. Thomas 3 p., q. 62, a. 1 ad 1, and therefore if they signify nothing, they effect nothing.

What and how many kinds is the matter of the sacraments? - The matter of a sacrament is some thing, or quasi-thing, or some action, determined from the institution of Christ for confecting the sacrament. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 5. - This matter is distinguished into remote and proximate. Remote matter is the thing itself to be used in the sacrament, e.g., water in baptism, chrism in confirmation, etc. Proximate matter is the application and use of the thing in the sacramental action, e.g., washing in baptism, anointing in confirmation, bread and wine insofar as they are subjected to the words of consecration in the Eucharist. Therefore proximate matter is matter which, together with the form, constitutes the sensible efficacious sign of grace. A thing or action of this kind has the character of matter in a sacrament, because it is more indifferent and has less perfect signification, and therefore must be determined to signify by something else.

What is the form of the sacraments? - The form of the sacraments is certain words determined from the institution of Christ for perfecting the sacrament by perfecting the signification of the thing or matter. For what things demonstrate more obscurely, words signify more clearly. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 6.

Can a sacrament be confected without matter or without form? - Matter and form are altogether necessary for the validity of a sacrament; therefore, if either is lacking, the sacraments cannot be confected. The reason is that a sacrament is and has its power from the institution of Christ. Therefore it cannot be confected except in that mode in which Christ instituted it. This is furthermore established from Florence, Decree for the Armenians, from tradition, and from the practice of the Church. C. Non ut 5 de Bapt.

Must matter and form be certain? - In confecting a sacrament outside the case of necessity, certain matter and form must be used, insofar as they can be had. The reason is that probability of invalidity does not remove the danger, which is both against the reverence owed to the sacrament, and often against charity toward the neighbor, and often also against justice. This is furthermore established from proposition 1 condemned by Innocent XI.

Outside the case of necessity. For since the sacraments exist for men, they can and must be conferred, although certainty concerning the validity of the sacrament is not had, whenever there is present not only extreme necessity, but also grave necessity or utility, especially if it is prudently feared that, the present occasion being passed over, they will no longer be conferred afterwards. The reason is that since irreverence or contempt is situated in some human action which of itself is insulting, all irreverence and contempt of the sacrament indeed ceases if a cause is present which by the common opinion of men removes every appearance of contempt. Insofar as they can be had: for where it is a question, for example, of a disposition necessary for the sacrament of penance, scarcely any judgment can be had about it other than prudent and probable.

Often it is against charity and against justice to use uncertain form or matter; for neither would be the case if the one receiving consented. But although then harm to the neighbor and any malice against charity and justice would be absent, nevertheless irreverence toward the sacrament and sacrilege both of the minister and of the recipient would not be absent; for holy things are to be treated holily. But the harm which can be brought upon the neighbor by uncertain matter or form can be most grave, as in the baptism of an infant; simply grave, as in extreme unction of the dying; light, as in absolution of venial sins; and also none, as in the ordination of a woman.

What has been said about doubtful matter and form is likewise to be said about a subject perhaps incapable. But the matter is explored concerning baptism and penance, and the truer opinion is concerning confirmation and extreme unction. Roman Ritual on the Sacrament of baptism and extreme unction. - L. 28, 162, 432 IV, 449; Lugo, de Poenit. d. 14, n. 110, 111; La Croix 105.

You will resolve: When danger of death is urgent, baptism and penance can and must be conferred even with the lowest degree of probability. Therefore one dying is to be baptized even with rose-water, or on the foot, Roman Ritual on Baptism of children, or on the fingers or hair. But confirmation and extreme unction can and must be conferred if it is truly probable that neither matter nor form is lacking, and scandal is absent; for scandal also must be removed, while the eternal salvation of another is preserved. - From the Roman Ritual, on the Sacrament of extreme unction, a sick person is to be anointed concerning whom it is doubted whether he still lives. From St. Alphonsus 719, likewise a child concerning whose use of reason there is doubt is to be anointed under condition. In that danger it is also lawful to confer extreme unction with oil of catechumens. And if one about to die cannot confess and communicate, it is lawful to confer on him even extreme unction with the lowest degree of probability, e.g., if he has been destitute of senses in the act of sin, in drunkenness, in a fight; since then the sacrament becomes one of necessity. Likewise in the same danger it is lawful to confer confirmation with blessed oil without balsam.

But not by imposition of hands alone, because of the novelty of the thing and the wonder and scandal of bystanders. - L. 82, 103, 107, 111, 162, 702, d. 2, 408, 732, 751.

It is never lawful to confer order, especially the priesthood, with doubt about its value, because no necessity and utility of the recipient is had in it, and on the contrary there is had a most grave danger to the Christian republic. - Cf. 345, 348.

Does a change of matter and form invalidate the sacrament? - There can be a twofold change in the matter and form of the sacraments: substantial and accidental. A substantial change will be in the matter if this is physically corrupted, so that it seems to have lost its former nature; or if it can no longer serve its natural use; or if according to the common estimation of men it cannot be called the same as that which was determined by Christ: e.g., if wine has become vinegar, if ink is made from water, if wine and water are mixed in equal quantity. For it is judged neither wine nor water, but a mixture from water and wine, which can serve neither baptism nor the Eucharist. - But a change will be accidental if the matter, neither physically nor morally speaking, loses its former nature, nor ceases to serve its natural use: e.g., if in a small quantity you mix water with wine or wine with water, the wine does not invalidate the Eucharist, nor the water baptism. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 4; Lugo, de Euchar. d. 4, n. 4; La Croix 261; L. 103, 207, q. 2.

A substantial change will be in the form if the sense of the words intended by Christ is so changed that it no longer signifies either the sacramental action which is perfected by the minister or the sacramental effect, e.g., if someone in baptism says: I absolve you; I wish to baptize you.

The change will be accidental if the form still signifies the same thing, e.g.: This is my body, with a grammatical error. Generally, errors of grammar change the form only accidentally; for the signification is regularly judged the same.

Every substantial change in the matter and form of a sacrament invalidates it, because it is no longer the rite instituted by Christ, but another. But if it is voluntary, it constitutes grave sin; for it brings grave injury upon the author of the rite. But no accidental change in the matter and form invalidates the sacrament, because the same rite still remains; yet it induces grave or light sin according as it is notable or of little moment. - La Croix 40, 46; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 8; q. 74, a. 3, 4, 5; q. 77, a. 8; Suppl. q. 29, a. 9 ad 3; 4 d. 2, a. 2, q. 2, 3, 4.

In how many ways can the form be changed? - The form can be changed: By addition; and the form is void if it changes the sense, or contains error against the form itself, e.g., I absolve you from your involuntary sins; I baptize you in the name of the Father greater, and of the Son lesser, and of the Holy Spirit created. If the sense is not changed, nor is error had against the form itself, the form is valid, e.g., I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit with this cold water, although it is hot. La Croix 64. If equivocation is had, the matter depends on the intention of the one pronouncing, e.g., I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. If the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary is added from mere devotion, the form is valid; but if it is added so that baptism is conferred also in that name, it is not valid. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 8.

By detraction; and the form again is void if words are taken away which signify the sacramental action, e.g., these words, I baptize you, or the subject, e.g., by saying I baptize; but otherwise if the pronoun of the minister is omitted, for it is tacitly present, e.g., I baptize you in the name, etc.

By corruption of words, which also voids the form, unless perhaps it happens either by a natural defect, e.g., in the tongue-tied, or by some natural haste, or by lack of skill, if nevertheless it does not altogether remove the sense; since in these cases corrupted words by common use are received and understood as complete, e.g., I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Daughter and of the Holy Spirit, with wrong endings, which form is valid because it does not remove the sense and is received as correct, since it is understood as corrupted, not diverse; or, I baptize you in the name of the Mother and of the Daughter and of the Holy Spirit, which form is not valid, because it altogether removes the sense and is received as altogether another and diverse one. Thus also it is not valid if it is said, I am baptized you, etc. Ordination is valid if the Bishop, through error, when several are touching the instruments at the same time in priestly ordination, pronounces the form in the singular: Receive, etc. Holy Office, January 16, 1901; Monitor Ecclesiasticus v. 12, p. 482 f. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 7; L. 110; de Cons. Dist. 86.

By transmutation of words; if they are altogether synonymous, the form is valid; if they are not synonymous, the form is not valid; if they are doubtful, the form will also be doubtful. Thus in baptism, I wash or I lave for I baptize, is valid; for it is a synonymous word. But I anoint is not valid, because it is not synonymous. Likewise I regenerate is not valid, or is doubtful; for it is not plainly synonymous, since it signifies the sacramental effect, but does not also signify the sacramental action. In penance, I cleanse you, for I absolve, more truly is not valid, for it is not synonymous. Likewise, Christ baptizes you, etc., absolves you, etc., more truly seems not to be valid, because the action of the minister is not expressed.

By translation of words from one language into another, which does not render the form void; for the signification is altogether the same, even if various idioms are used in one and the same form, e.g., io ti battezzo, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. L. 109; La Croix 30.

By transposition of words, which of itself makes only an accidental change; for the same signification altogether remains, e.g., if you say: You I baptize in the name, etc. L. 110. Yet transposition of words can altogether pervert the sense, or render it ambiguous, and then the form will be invalid or doubtful, as in the consecration of bread: mine is this body; this body is mine; this mine is body; this body, is mine. Yet the form would be valid if it were said: this, body is mine. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 8 ad 3; Lugo d. 2, n. 112.

By interruption of words; if this is notable, it harms the form, St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 8 ad 3; if small, it does not harm. St. Thomas ibid. Which interruption is long, which brief, must be judged by prudent estimation. Lugo d. 2, n. 112; Sporer n. 91. Commonly a brief interruption is judged to be one Our Father or Hail Mary.

But concerning a brief interruption of the syllables of the same word, some judge that it harms the form, others that it does not harm, others that it harms if the interruption was made by another word interjected; but by no means if it was made by some action interjected, e.g., breathing, coughing, yawning. L. n. 11; La Croix 33.

By substitution of other signs in place of words, e.g., nods, writing, etc., which, excepting matrimony, which consists in a contract, voids the form; for the form is in words. Florence, Decree for the Armenians; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 6; La Croix 37.

You will resolve: The form is valid, although it is not lawful, if a small interruption is made, e.g., I baptize you, and there is interposed: this water is too cold; or: sacristan, turn the page; in the name of the Father, etc. L. 11.

What sort of union must there be between matter and form? - In order that a sacrament be valid, there must be between matter and form, e.g., between the pouring of water and the pronunciation of the words, such conjunction that, according to the moral estimation of men, with the nature of each sacrament considered, one is understood to be referred to the other.

The reason is that from matter and form one sign must coalesce. But in a moral composite, such as a sacrament is, moral unity suffices, excepting the Eucharist, which altogether requires them to exist physically together, since the pronoun this, here, cannot be verified unless the matter is present. Nor indeed does it matter which is placed first, excepting penance.

L. 8. - It suffices in baptism, confirmation, extreme unction, and order, if, when one of them has been placed, whether matter or form precedes, the other is placed immediately or soon afterwards, e.g., if someone in the conferral of the order of priesthood touches the chalice and paten after the Bishop has pronounced the words: Receive power, etc. Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 33, n. 2. Soon afterwards: for a brief delay interposed does not harm, namely a delay which is shorter than one Our Father. L. 8. Cf. Lugo, de Sacr. d. 2, n. 99. - In matrimony, the consent of one can follow the consent of the other as long as this is judged morally to remain, as in other contracts. Busembaum 10. In penance, absolution can be deferred for a rather long time, just as in judgment a sentence after the examination of the cause. Busembaum ibid. "In penance," says St. Alphonsus 9, "that union suffices which the judicial act requires, since some distance of time is accustomed to intervene between accusation and sentence, although in this sacrament such distance ought not to be as great as occurs in forensic judgment. But Croix l. 6, n. 8, with Tamburini, says that a penitent is validly absolved after an hour from Confession." The reason is that this judgment is far simpler than forensic judgment is accustomed to be, and because the sentence has the character of form with respect to the acts of the penitent, which are as if matter. Therefore with that same long distance which is accustomed to be in forensic judgments between their various acts, there would no longer be a moral union of them in this judgment. Cf. 748. - Roman Ritual on the Form of baptism; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 6 ad 2; Suarez d. 2, s. 2.

Note: If a sacrament consists of several parts, as the Eucharist, extreme unction, order, with a notable delay interposed between them, so that the action of the minister can no longer seem one, one must altogether cease in the Eucharist, begin again from the beginning in extreme unction, and in order always cautiously supply what was incautiously omitted. L. 724; St. Thomas Suppl. q. 29, a. 2 ad 3. Cf. 336.

Must matter and form be united and applied by one and the same minister, and with regard to the same subject? - R. In the affirmative. The reason is that if one placed the matter and another the form, or the same minister applied matter and form to one subject and another subject, the words of the form would be false: I baptize you, etc.; for while another poured the water, he himself would not baptize; or while he himself poured the water upon one, he would nevertheless assert that he baptizes another. - L. 114; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 67, a. 6.

What if several ministers confect a sacrament, or the sacrament is conferred on several subjects? - R. To the first: If two ministers, for example, place the whole matter and form, whether of the whole sacrament, as if they baptize or consecrate together, or of a part of the sacrament, if the sacrament consists of several parts, as are the Eucharist, extreme unction, order, the sacrament is valid, because nothing is lacking in the being of the sacrament. But in the former case he confects the sacrament who first completes the sign; and if each completes the sign at the same moment of time, each, as far as in himself lies, confects the sacrament. L. 120; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 67, a. 6; q. 82, a. 2. But this is grave, excepting the ordination of priests. In the latter case also it is grave, excepting grave necessity.

In the East, on one altar several priests sometimes consecrate the same bread and the same wine. Then as many Masses are said as there are priests, and the fruit of the Mass is multiplied as many times. Benedict XIV, de Sacrif. Miss. l. 3, c. 16, n. 10.

R. To the second: A sacrament which one and the same minister confers upon several at the same time is valid beyond doubt, because then the form is virtually multiple. This has place, for example, in baptism and in penance, namely when someone under one form baptizes several, absolves several. It is indeed lawful in the case of extreme necessity, e.g., in fire, shipwreck, etc., Roman Ritual on Baptism of children; but in other cases, whether it is grave or light is disputed; for a notable change does not certainly appear. "Yet all say that he would not be excused at least from venial sin" without necessity. L. 29.

How are the words of the form to be pronounced? - Since sacraments are signs, and by signifying grace they effect and sanctify, the words of the form are of themselves consecratory both of the matter and of the subject. Consequently they are to be pronounced in a consecratory manner, in the present time, whether indicative, as in baptism; or imperative, as in ordination; or deprecative, as in extreme unction. If the words are uttered in another mode, namely merely historically, or promissorily, or interrogatively, or by way of sermon for instructing or exciting, the form is void. And thus this form is not valid: you are absolved from your sins; I will absolve you from your sins; do I absolve you from your sins? Würzburg Theologians 109 ff.; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78, a. 1.

Are the sacraments to be repeated in doubt about the valid application of matter and form? - A threefold rule must be established as regards practice: 1. Sacraments can be repeated whenever there is a prudent doubt about their value. The reason is that if perhaps the sacrament were not valid, those who approach to receive it would be deprived of its fruit. But that prudent fear of so great an inconvenience is a sufficient reason why a sacrament be repeated is clear from the very well-known axiom: Sacraments exist for men. Roman Ritual on Baptism of children, c. 3, n. 3; Rubrics of the Missal, tit. 5, n. 2; L. 28, 136.

2. Sacraments generally cannot be repeated without grave sin when a prudent doubt about their value is not present. The reason is that they would be repeated without cause, and therefore grave injury would be inflicted on them. Catechism of the Council of Trent on Baptism n. 57. - 3. Sacraments must be repeated whenever, when a prudent doubt about their value has arisen, charity, justice, and religion demand it, that is, whenever from justice, charity, and religion they ought to have been confected or administered. The reason is that the nullity of the sacrament, if perhaps it were present, would turn to the harm of the neighbor and sometimes to contempt or irreverence of Religion. But then they are to be repeated only conditionally, so that the reverence of the sacrament may be provided for. - L. 27 f.

You will resolve: 1. Sacraments that are more necessary and that are conferred only once are more easily to be repeated, namely baptism and order, even if much greater probability stands for the value of the sacrament against reasons of the lowest degree of probability in the opposite direction. - 2. Absolution is to be repeated with a penitent guilty of mortal sin if there is prudent doubt about the due pronouncing of the form. But if the penitent has not brought necessary matter of Confession, it will not be necessary to repeat the form, since Communion can be permitted to him even without absolution. - 3. A minister who doubts lightly and does not know why he fears, or only does not reflectively remember that he has pronounced the words of the form, of himself sins mortally if he repeats the form, or even repeats one word three or four times. The reason is that he changes the form and introduces a new rite concerning the gravest action of all. Besides, he exhibits Christ, whom he represents, as speaking ridiculously. Yet in practice the scrupulous who repeat the form are usually excused from mortal sin, indeed often even from venial sin, because, too agitated by scruples and perplexity, or without advertence, they act so foolishly. - 4.

If in Mass after consecration a doubt arises for you concerning the due pronouncing of the form, or concerning total omission, you neither ought nor can repeat anything, since otherwise you are not accustomed to omit these things; for one must judge from things commonly occurring, unless however you doubt very probably, as the Rubric says. - L. 224, 107 q. IV.

What as regards celebration of Mass in particular? - It is to be noted from St. Thomas "that although a priest does not recollect that he said some of those things which he ought to have said, nevertheless he ought not to be disturbed in mind because of this; for one who says many things does not recollect all things which he said, unless perhaps he apprehends something in saying under the aspect of already said; for thus something is made memorable. Hence if someone attentively thinks about that which he says, but nevertheless does not think that he says it, he afterwards does not much recollect that he said it; for thus something is made subject to memory, insofar as it is received under the aspect of past.... Yet if it is probably established for the priest that he has omitted some things, if indeed they are not of the necessity of the sacrament, I do not think that because of this he ought to resume by changing the order of the sacrifice, but he ought to proceed further. But if he is made certain that he has omitted something of those things which are of the necessity of the sacrament, namely the form of consecration, since the form of consecration is of the necessity of the sacrament just as the matter also is, the same seems to be done as was said in the defect of matter, namely that it be resumed from the form of consecration and the rest be repeated in order, lest the order of the sacrifice be changed." 3 p., q. 83, a. 6 ad 5. This doctrine of St. Thomas agrees with the rubric of the Roman Missal, de Defectibus in celebr. etc., tit. 5, de Defectibus formae, n. 2: "If the celebrant does not remember that he said those things which are commonly said in the consecration, he ought not on account of this be disturbed. Yet if it is certainly established for him that he omitted something of those things which are of the necessity of the sacrament, i.e., the form of consecration or a part, let him resume the form itself and pursue the rest in order. But if he very probably doubts that he omitted something, let him repeat the form at least under tacit condition. But if they are not of the necessity of the sacrament, let him not resume, but let him proceed further." Note the difference which is had according to the rubric cited here for the twofold case in which it is certainly established for the priest that he has omitted something of those things which are of the necessity of the sacrament, or he only very probably doubts that he has omitted something of this kind. For in the first case it is said that "let him resume the form itself and pursue the rest in order." But in the other case it is said: "let him repeat the form at least under tacit condition."

Now as regards the first case, in which the priest must resume the form itself and pursue the rest in order, a question can be raised: 1. Whether he must resume and pursue the rest in order in the case in which it is certainly established for him that he omitted the form of one consecration only, or also in the case in which this is certainly established for him concerning both forms of consecration. 2. From where he begins to resume. 3. What that means: let him pursue the rest in order; whether all things after the form has been resumed are to be repeated in order, or whether he must pursue in order all things which remain from that point of the Mass at which the priest has detected his error.

As regards the first question, if an essential defect occurs in the form of only one consecration, certainly the consecration is to be repeated, even if that defect occurs from the malice of the minister, and after the consumption of the species not duly consecrated, the matter being placed which was not consecrated, and, if it was from malice, by repenting of the former fault. The reason is: 1. that the sacrifice may be perfected; 2. because the Rubric is to be understood at least concerning the case of an essential defect of one consecration; 3. because there is the same reason of unsuitable matter as of matter without form. Moreover according to the Rubric tit. 3, n. 5 and 6, it is said: "If the celebrant should notice after consecration that the host is corrupted, or is not wheaten, even after the consumption of that host, let him place another, make the oblation, and begin from the consecration, namely from those words, Who the day before, etc. But if this happens after the consumption of the blood, new bread and wine with water must again be placed, and the oblation first having been made, the priest is to consecrate, beginning from those words, Who the day before, etc., and at once consume both, and pursue the Mass, lest the sacrament remain imperfect." Likewise tit. 4, n. 4 and 5, it is said: "If the celebrant after the words of consecration notices that wine had not been placed, but water, the water having been deposited in some vessel, let him again put wine with water in the chalice and consecrate, resuming from the aforesaid words, In like manner, etc. If he notices this after the consumption of the Body or of water of this kind, let him place another host again to be consecrated, and wine with water in the chalice, offer both, and consecrate and consume, etc." Or, the Rubric adds ibid., "if Mass is celebrated in a public place where several are present, to avoid scandal he will be able to place wine with water, and, the oblation having been made as above, consecrate and at once consume, and pursue the rest." Therefore the same is to be done if the essential defect should occur not by reason of matter, but by reason of form.

If an essential defect occurs in the form of both consecrations, and is noticed before the consumption of either species, it seems that each matter is again to be consecrated. The reason is that it is said absolutely in the Rubric, and altogether generally, that the form is to be resumed "if it is certainly established for him that he omitted something of those things which are of the necessity of the sacrament, i.e., the form of consecration, or a part"; nor is any distinction made between a defect of only one consecration and of both. Suarez, de Sacram. d. 85, s. 1, par. Secundo etiam constat, etc., thinks the same. "If the celebrant," says the distinguished Doctor, before consumption "from defect of intention or form consecrated neither species, he will be held secretly to repeat and to consecrate before he consumes, and as soon as he can, not by force of a precept of perfecting a sacrifice substantially begun, because this in reality does not yet oblige; but by force of the precept of not pretending something false in this ministry, and consequently of not persevering in the fiction begun; nor of consuming drink and food by way of a sacrament which is not a true sacrament, nor of giving others occasion of adoring mere bread and wine." But if the same essential defect of both forms is noticed after consumption, it does not seem that the consecration is to be repeated. And indeed the reason which the Rubric adduces for supplying a defect of either matter after consumption is "lest the sacrament remain imperfect," tit. 3, n. 6, "because the precept concerning the perfection of the sacrament is of greater weight than that it be consumed by fasting persons," ibid. n. 5. Now when the essential defect of both consecrations has occurred, no sacrament was really made, neither perfect nor imperfect, but the whole was feigned; and therefore then the precept concerning integrating or perfecting the sacrament does not oblige. From another side, the precept of not consuming the sacrament when the fast has been broken obliges. Therefore in that case this precept seems to be observed before the other. And the distinguished Doctor l. c. affirms the same.

As regards the second proposed question, there are various opinions. But the more common opinion is that only those words are to be repeated which constitute the whole form, which according to the Rubric, tit. 5, n. 1, are: This is, etc. This is the chalice, etc. The reason is that the Rubric says: let him resume the form itself. Yet the same Rubric 10, n. 3, seems to indicate that it is to be resumed from the words Who the day before, etc.; In like manner, etc. - Suarez l. c., par. II; but you will ask finally; Gavantus and Merati on the cited rubric.

As regards the third proposed question, St. Thomas l. c. seems at least to suggest that the priest must pursue the rest in order in such a way that he repeats them in order. But according to the Rubric, nothing seems to be repeated from accidentals which are not of the necessity of the sacrament. The reason is that the rubric does not say: let him resume the form and the rest in order, but it distinguishes very carefully and says: let him resume the form, and let him pursue the rest in order, namely let him pursue from that point of the Mass at which he has arrived. And thus if the matter happens immediately before or after consumption, as is said in the same Rubric in the defect of matter, so also in this defect of form, let him consecrate and at once consume, tit. 3, n. 5, 6. Besides the cited Rubric absolutely says: "but if they are not of the necessity of the sacrament, let him not resume, but let him proceed further." Therefore whether only essentials, or essentials and accidentals together, have been omitted, it will suffice to repeat only the essentials. Suarez l. c., par. Sed quaeres tandem, etc., also thinks thus.

Finally note, as regards accidental defects, that the general rule is: after they have already been committed, regularly speaking, they are not to be supplied by repeating something, or by saying or doing in a reversed order that which had to be done earlier. Regularly, because if sometimes the delay were so small that, no other action having been interposed or prayer said, the priest notices the defect committed, then repetition could be made and the defect supplied. For in that case the order of the sacrifice is not inverted, but on the contrary care is taken that all things be perfected in due order. But except from this rule an accidental defect indeed, but a very grave one, if the bread is leavened, or if water is not mixed with the wine; although this cannot be supplied after consecration, nevertheless before consecration it must altogether be guarded against. - Rubric de defect. etc., tit. 4, n. 7; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 6 ad 4; Suarez, de Sacr. d. 83, s. 2; Reuter, Neo-Confess. p. 3, c. 13, n. 268; La Croix l. 6, p. 2, n. 443 ff.; Diana tr. 1, de Celebr. missar., r. 236.

These things which have been said about the celebration of Mass can be adapted to the other sacraments. Therefore, if someone does not remember that he omitted something, or if he does not remember that he said or did something from those things which had to be said or done, he ought not be disturbed, and let him pursue the rest in order. If he certainly or very probably remembers that he omitted something, if he does not remember it at once, it is not necessary to resume everything again, nor to supply anything in a reversed order; but let him resume or supply what is substantial, and pursue the rest in order. But if something has been omitted concerning which it is disputed whether it is substantial or accidental, what was incautiously omitted is to be cautiously supplied. C. 3 in fine de Presb. non bapt. Are all things then to be repeated entirely? One must see what part was omitted which must be supplied. If the part is separated from and independent of the others, as the last imposition of hands in the priesthood, only this is to be supplied, Holy Office, May 27, 1840. If it is not independent of or separated from the others, as the second imposition of hands, or the handing over of instruments in the priesthood, and chrismation in confirmation, the whole essential rite certainly is to be supplied. S. Penitentiary, March 31, 1888; S. C. C., May 28, 1796. And even an accidental rite omitted is to be supplied if it is a rite of greater moment, as for example in baptism the omitted ceremonies are to be supplied. Cf. Enchiridion Morale 440. - St. Thomas Suppl. q. 29, a. 2 ad 3.

Who is the minister of the sacraments? - Christ himself is principally acting in the sacraments; the ministers of the Church are only instrumentally operating in the sacraments. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 64, a. 4, 5. - In matrimony the contracting parties themselves are the ministers. - In the other sacraments, the power of order and jurisdiction is regularly required, excepting the Eucharist, in which no jurisdiction is regularly required. Without the power of order, no sacrament is valid, excepting baptism. Without the power of jurisdiction, the sacrament is valid, excepting the sacrament of penance, which is invalid; but it is conferred illicitly and it is a grave sin if it is conferred without faculty, at least presumed or interpretative, e.g., if a simple priest, not a pastor, administers baptism, viaticum, extreme unction, or a bishop confirms or ordains outside his own diocese. Clement I de Privil.; Trent s. 6, c. 5 de R.; s. 7, c. 10.

Is attention required in the administration of the sacraments? - Attention is the application of the mind to those things which are being done, or it is the act of the intellect by which a man considers that which he does. - For the validity of the conferral of sacraments, no other attention is required except that which is found in every truly human act. Therefore the sacraments can commonly be validly ministered even by a distracted minister, or one thinking at the same time about other business. The reason is that the morality of the act proceeds not from actual attention, but from at least the virtual intention of the one acting. Besides, attention often does not depend on the will of man; but Christ could not require a condition sometime impossible in the minister of the sacraments. - For the licit conferral of the sacraments, such attention is required that every voluntary distraction be absent.

The reason is that the reverence owed to the sacrament requires that it be treated with attention. But voluntary distraction ordinarily does not exceed venial sin, according to the common opinion of theologians, unless someone exposes himself to the danger of gravely erring in the form. Yet more probably and more commonly they except the Eucharist, in whose confection they judge every voluntary distraction a mortal sin because of the greater dignity of the sacrament. But La Croix l. 6, p. 2, n. 443; Mazzotta and others deny this not improbably. Not improbably, namely provided the danger of erring is absent. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 64, a. 8 ad 3; 4 d. 6, q. 1, a. 2, q. 1 ad 4; L. 14; l. 4, n. 75.

Is intention required in the administration of the sacraments? - Intention is an act of the will tending toward some end, or an act of the will by which someone intends to do or omit something. - For the validity of a sacrament, there is required in the minister some true and serious will at least of doing that which the Church, namely the Catholic Church, does. For those things which are done in the sacraments can be done in diverse ways, and are determined to sacramental action only through the intention of the minister. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 64, a. 8; Trent s. 7, c. 11.

Hence St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 4 ad 7, says: "The efficacy of sacramental words can be impeded by the intention of the priest." - Yet actual intention is not required, but virtual suffices. The reason is that actual intention, although best and desirable, is sometimes morally impossible; but virtual intention sufficiently flows into the action of the minister, so that this can be called truly human and deliberate. - Habitual intention does not suffice, nor interpretative. The reason is that for a human act some will is required, by force of which the act is placed.

Now neither habitual nor interpretative intention is of this kind: not the first, because it is neither actually elicited by the will, nor, although once elicited, does it persist in some effect or in a series of actions; not the second, because it is neither actually elicited nor ever was actually elicited, but would only be elicited if the mind were thinking about the thing to be done. Suarez d. 16, s. 2; Lugo d. 8, n. 28, 35. "A coerced intention of the minister, or one extorted by fear, also suffices, except in matrimony. Likewise error of the minister about the person of the recipient does not invalidate the sacrament, excepting matrimony." L. 19; E. M.

Note: For casting away scruples in this matter it is to be noted that implicit intention suffices. Hence St. Alphonsus 18 says: "Viva, etc., rightly say that the minister who in the customary way places the actions required for the sacrament, unless he positively excludes the due intention, imprudently doubts about it, because at least he wishes to do what he is otherwise accustomed to do, and what other ministers do. Add that through this, that he recognizes that action to be sacred and not to be placed in vain, he intends in exercise to place it according to its end. Therefore there is no need that the minister by mouth or in heart should say reflectively that he intends to confect the sacrament, but it suffices that he be present in mind and attentively do what he does." And at n. 25 the same holy Doctor says these things: "He ought not repeat the consecration who has brought smaller hosts to the altar, about which, while consecrating the larger, he did not explicitly think, nor uncover them."

If someone intends to do what another schismatic or heretical Church does, if this truly makes a sacrament, it is valid, from Trent sess. 7, de Bapt., c. 4; Sporer n. 121; L. l. 6, n. 21. Hence, the rite of ordination in England having been publicly changed, so that from it there would be excluded the power of consecrating and of offering sacrifice, by defect of intention, indeed by contrary intention, presbyteral and episcopal ordinations performed according to the Anglican rite are invalid. Leo XIII, Const. Apostolicae curae, Sept. 13, 1896.

It is necessary that the intention precede the sacramental action, which takes its force from the intention; i.e., that it be elicited before you begin to apply the matter and to pronounce the form. Therefore, if someone, without the intention of baptizing or confirming, washes or anoints, and immediately after the washing or anointing, having conceived this intention, pronounces the form, he accomplishes nothing. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 64, a. 8; 4 d. 6, q. 1, a. 2, q. 1.

Is internal intention required, or the intention of doing the rite which the Church intends? - Here one intention is internal, another external. Internal intention is had whenever the minister, when he perfects the sacrament, wills to effect that which is to be effected by that sacrament; external intention is had when he seriously performs the whole external rite, and as if as a minister of the Church.

Therefore if he has both wills, the sacrament is valid. If he has neither, it is not valid, as if he baptizes or absolves for the sake of jest, Trent sess. 14, de Poenit., c. 9; or for the sake of example or devotion, as if a pastor washes an infant just born, not in order to baptize him, but in order to teach the midwife the rite of baptizing; or if a nurse, while washing a child in the morning according to custom, says: I wash you in the name of the Father, etc. If he has internal intention only, it is still valid, as if someone washes the head of a dying infant, the child of unbelievers, as if making a cleansing or a medicine for him, and meanwhile says in a low voice: I baptize you, etc. If he has only external intention, the question is not yet entirely settled. The first opinion denies it, that is, denies that internal intention is required. The reason is that from Trent there is not required in the minister the intention of doing what the Church intends, but only of doing what the Church does; and therefore it suffices that the minister seriously apply the due form to the matter, as the Church does. Moreover, it seems difficult to admit that the minister can, by a hidden motion of soul, frustrate a rite which he seems seriously to perform in the name of the Church. Hence, if a newly ordained priest, for the sake of practice, were to go through the whole Mass without the intention of confecting the sacrifice, he certainly would not confect it, because both internal and external intention are lacking, for externally he does not present himself as seriously celebrating in the name of the Church. If, on the contrary, he were to celebrate publicly and pronounce the words of consecration, while within himself not willing to confect the sacrifice, he would still confect it. But the second opinion, common and to be held in practice, affirms it. It is proved from Trent sess. 7, c. 11, where there is required the intention of doing what the Church does; therefore the intention merely of seriously applying the form to the matter, as the Church does, does not suffice, for in reality this intention, while the external action is placed, is inseparable from the action; but beyond this there is required the intention of doing the sacramental rite which the Church does; otherwise both Trent and Florence would have required in vain, besides matter and form, the intention of the minister of doing what the Church does. The Church does not perform only the external rite; and therefore the minister who uses the external action alone does not do what the Church does. Hence if it is his purpose, e.g., while consecrating, to consecrate only this host out of two hosts, and not that one; while ordaining, not to ordain those who perhaps are not his subjects; if he absolves under this tacit condition, if you shall restore; he does not consecrate, does not ordain, does not absolve. Likewise, if someone has eleven hosts before him, and intends to consecrate only ten, not determining which ten he intends, he does not consecrate. Therefore external intention does not suffice, but internal intention is required. Moreover, this is established by the same reason by which the necessity of the minister's intention for confecting the sacrament is proved. This intention is necessary so that the minister act not in his own name, but in the name of Christ, bearing his person. L. 23, 26; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 64, a. 8, 10; Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 7, c. 4, n. 9; l. 8, c. 11, n. 2; E. M.

Does ignorance or error of the minister invalidate the sacrament? - If the minister has at least an implicit and virtual intention of doing what the true Church does, the sacrament is valid, even if by error he thinks his heterodox Church to be the true Church, even if he does not have an explicit intention of confecting the sacrament, provided he does not exclude this intention, even if he does not understand the form, even if he errs concerning the true meaning of the form, e.g., if he thinks these words: This is my Body, signify only the mystical presence of Christ, even if he falsely thinks that either the matter or the form is not suitable, e.g., if someone, in consecrating bread, judges the words, which shall be given up for you, to be necessary and omits them. The reason is that our ignorance or error does not change the truth of the thing. Therefore if sacraments are perfected by three things and only by three things, namely by things, words, and a minister with the intention of doing what the Church does, the truth of the sacrament stands notwithstanding the ignorance and error of the minister. Moreover, if it were otherwise, it would follow that, since Protestants do not believe that a sacrament is effected by matrimonial consent, their marriage would be null, which is false. L. 21, 22; E. M.

Must the intention of the minister be determined to certain matter and person? - Resp. In the affirmative. The reason is: as regards the matter, because otherwise it would remain in a state of indifference; for it cannot be drawn out of that state and determined to the sacrament except through the intention of the minister. As regards the person, because the effect of the sacrament cannot be applied in general, but to some subject; otherwise no application would be made. Namely, according to the nature of the matter at issue, the object or term of the action must be determined; for if, for example, you were to say, I give, but did not determine what, or to whom, you have an act void of all force. - But the Eucharist is to be excepted, which is not confected in a subject, and consequently determination of the person is not required for the validity of consecration.

1. Sidonius, a missionary, once conferred baptism with muddy water, once with water simply blessed. Likewise, he consecrated the Eucharist once in kneaded flour, once in bread made from the tuberous nightshade; once in wine growing sour, once in wine to which carbonate of lime had been mixed. He once administered Extreme Unction with chrism, once with the oil of catechumens.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

R. Baptism conferred with muddy water is valid, because muddy water is true water and can still serve for its own use of washing. Yet it is illicit outside a case of necessity. For water to be used for baptism must be pure and consecrated. — I. M. 396–398; Enchir. Moral. 396.

Baptism conferred with water simply blessed, and not consecrated, is also valid, because true water is not lacking; but it is gravely illicit outside a case of necessity, because a very grave prescribed ceremony is omitted. I. M. 432. But as regards the liceity of blessed water in place of consecrated water, in a case of necessity, these Decrees are had: “Concerning the doubt set forth by the Capuchin missionary in the diocese of Trebigne ... whether baptism is conferred licitly with the use of blessed water, this Supreme Inquisition has been of the opinion that it is conferred validly, but that, in the absence of the font of water prepared for baptism, natural water must be used.” S. O., 6 April 1741; S. C. de P. F., 17 April 1758. “If there is grave necessity, and if baptismal water cannot be consecrated, and if there is lack of holy oil, baptism can licitly be conferred even with blessed water alone. Nevertheless let missionaries beware lest they do this, unless there exists a true and grave cause to be discerned, as is altogether fitting, by the Ordinary of the place.” S. O., 11 December 1250. “When baptismal water is not had, there must be used, when it can be done, blessed water according to the formula in the new editions and in the appendix of the Roman Ritual; otherwise natural water must be used.” S. O., 22 June 1883. I. M. 432; Enchir. Moral. 432.

The Eucharist consecrated in kneaded flour is invalid. Kneaded flour, or raw bread, is neither bread in common acceptance, namely perfect bread, as bread is commonly understood, nor can it serve for the natural use of bread. Wherefore, although raw and baked bread have physically the same nature, nevertheless the common acceptance is not the same, nor is the use the same.

Likewise, the Eucharist consecrated in bread made from the tuberous nightshade, commonly potatoes, is invalid. For the bread which is the matter of the Eucharist is bread from wheat, namely common bread, as it is commonly accepted for common use.

But the Eucharist is validly consecrated in wine growing sour, if the wine has only some beginning of acridity; but it is lightly illicit. Likewise it is validly consecrated, but the consecration is gravely illicit, if the wine is already judged to have entered the limits of corruption, although it has not yet been substantially changed. But the consecration will be invalid if, for example, by contact with the air, it has already become vinegar, since then the wine is already substantially corrupted. I. M. 507.

Finally, the Eucharist consecrated from wine to which bicarbonate of lime has been mixed is invalidly consecrated if that carbonate has been mixed into the wine in such a quantity that the acids proper to the wine have been wholly destroyed by chemical composition. For then a substantial alteration of the wine is had. But it would have to be said otherwise if it had been mixed in slight quantity, so that acids still remain in the wine, especially tartaric, citric, acetic, and tannic acid.

Extreme Unction conferred with chrism and the oil of catechumens is indeed illicit outside a case of necessity; but it is only probably valid, and therefore, if conferred in a case of necessity, it must be repeated conditionally if this can be done. For in confirmation and extreme unction the matter must first be blessed, so that the sacrament may be valid; but it must be blessed by the proper minister, and each in its own rite. Nevertheless, if the matter has been blessed by the proper minister, but by another rite, to many it is probable that the sacrament is valid. Liguori, book 7, no. 163, doubt 2; no. 709, doubt 2; G. 146; I. M. 864; Enchir. Moral. 864.

It is worthwhile here to add what Benedict XIV has in Notification LXXVII concerning wine for Masses. “1. Once the better wine used to be kept for Masses: ‘With diligent care the best wine must be sought,’ said the great Pontiff Innocent III, book 4, chapter 30, Mysteries of the Mass ... And nowadays choice wines are used at tables and banquets, and the vilest wines are kept for the altar.

“2 ... Wine ‘with the point,’ which means wine which is beginning to turn sour and has not become vinegar, is not unsuitable and insufficient matter ... but it is indecent, and it is not used without sin ... Only that priest remains exempt from sin who is obliged to celebrate, and who has no authority to have the wine changed, as happens among regulars; in which circumstances, provided the wine has not become vinegar, but is simply ‘with the point,’ the sin is charged to the superior or the minister who has the duty of providing the wine for Mass ...

“3. Passing to half-wine, it is known to everyone that a kind of half-wine is made by taking the pure wine from the vat, leaving in it the stalks with some little must, for example about half a corba, and adding to it water in greater quantity, such as a corba and a half, and letting it boil for about twenty-four hours. This liquor, which among us is called half-wine, and in other places small-water wine, and in the Latin language lora or lorea, is insufficient and unsuitable matter ...

“5. Then another kind of half-wine is made, which is also called long wine, when, after the pure wine has been drawn off, and a greater quantity of must has been left in the vat, such as three or four corbe, water is added to it either in equal or in somewhat greater quantity, and sometimes with some old wine put into it ... and this kind of half-wine, or long wine ... the authors commonly conclude in stronger terms, is not decent matter, and that there is no place for using it in Mass, except in a case of hard necessity ...”

But, as is drawn from many authors cited by Benedict XIV in the following numbers 6 and 8, concerning the sufficiency of this wine as regards the validity of the sacrifice, judgment will have to be made from the quantity of water mixed in, from the greater or lesser pressing made of the grapes, and from the greater or lesser substance of wine. Wherefore, since the matter is doubtful, it will be wholly illicit to use such wine in the sacrifice of the Mass. Hence in number 7 Benedict XIV continues thus:

“7. And therefore, consistently with the opinion of all the aforesaid theologians, we ordain and will that in the sacristies, for Masses, the first wine be given, excluding any second or half-wine, even though, according to the style of this our city and diocese, and of many others, in making the first wine a quantity of water is poured in; the first wine not ceasing by this infusion to be true wine and to be usual wine, as Passerini well notes in his Commentaries on the third part of St. Thomas, question 74, article 5, commentary 7, no. 10: If only so much water is used as is commonly accustomed to be used according to the custom of the country for this purpose, that it may be better boiled down or preserved, no sin is incurred from the use of such wine in consecration; and whatever may be the case about the reason alleged by him, for such a quantity is small and is converted into wine, certainly the other reason is good: and besides, such wine is the common and usual wine of the country. Quarti, on the Rubrics of the Missal, part 3, title 4, doubt 3: In some places wine is accustomed to be made with an infusion of water in the must, or in the clusters, before they are pressed out. It is asked whether it can validly and licitly be consecrated? I answer by distinguishing: if little water is poured into the must, it is certain that true wine is made; consequently it can be consecrated validly and licitly. It is proved, because it is usual wine, and in many places, where wine is customarily made in the said manner, scarcely any other is found. And speaking of these wines of ours of Bologna, Rosignoli notes in tome 15, de Euchar., question 4, article 2, no. 6, where, after he had said that the true matter is wine from the vine substantially not corrupted or notably changed, he adds: For if they were altered precisely in some manner, as if they were heated, and even if they were moderately cooked, as is customarily done in Piceno and Umbria, if they were mixed with a moderate amount of water, as is accustomed to be done at Bologna, etc., certainly they would not cease to be matter fit for consecration.”

The following decision of the Sacred Congregation also pertains to the matter: “In some regions of Spain there flourishes a very ancient custom by which many priests prepare for themselves wine for the sacrifice of the holy Mass, either by first evaporating the must by fire, or by drying grapes in the rays of the sun; this custom seems to be honored by the declaration of the Holy Office of 22 July 1706 concerning wine made from raisins. — Whether it is licit, for confecting the sacrifice of the holy Mass, to use wine obtained from must which before vinous fermentation has been condensed by fiery evaporation? — R. It is licit, provided that a boiling down of this kind does not exclude alcoholic fermentation, and that the fermentation itself can be obtained naturally and in fact is obtained.” S. O., 7 August 1896.

2. Sabbas, a priest in Spain, when conferring baptism, sometimes used this form: I have baptized thee in the name, etc.; judging it to be altogether the best in the Case, since, after the words I thee had been uttered, he had already through distraction poured all the water on the head of the infant.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

R. “Baptism conferred by a verb of the past tense to signify a past action, and not also the action which is exercised by the minister at the time when he baptizes with the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity and with washing, immersion, or sprinkling of natural water, is not true baptism. — If the one baptizing were to use a verb of the past tense to signify the act which is exercised by the minister himself when he baptizes, and the other requisites were present, it would be baptism, if among that nation or clergy there were a usage of taking that word of the past tense to signify a present action. — It is also baptism if, from ignorance of the language, by breaking the words, without the intention of introducing error or heresy, someone utters the word of the past tense for the present, if there is such likeness between the word of the past and of the present that there is an easy slip from one word into the other, and prudent men commonly judge that the one baptizing supposed the word of the past tense to be corruptly uttered for the present, and, when the word has been uttered, conceive that the present action is sufficiently signified.” S. C. de P. F., 27 March 1631, Collect. of the same Sacred Congregation, no. 519. Hence it is clear that the baptism conferred by Sabbas was invalid because of substantial corruption of the form. The action of pouring the water, already completed, when he was uttering the verb I baptize, was still, morally speaking, present, and it had to be signified by the present verb I baptize; otherwise, since according to the Roman Ritual the water is to be poured when the invocation of the three Persons is made, the minister ought not to say, I baptize thee, but I shall baptize thee. That is, the form essentially must signify the present action of baptizing, which is exercised here and now by the minister. I. M. 320, 413.

3. “The form of baptism of the schismatic Armenians having been reported, which is had in their Rituals as below, namely: Now my hand baptizes in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; or: Now my hand baptizes in the name of the Father; now my hand baptizes in the name of the Son; now my hand baptizes in the name of the Holy Spirit; the Sacred Congregation declared the said form of baptism to be true and legitimate.” S. O., 8 September 1633, Collect. S. C. de P. F., no. 520. Certainly the form of baptism is valid when uttered in the present tense in a consecratory manner, whether indicative or imperative. — I. M. 326.

4. “Cornelius, a priest, was absolving a penitent after the confession had been completed. But after he had uttered the first words, I absolve thee, looking back he noticed that the penitent had already departed from the sacred tribunal; wherefore he called him back, saying: What is this? Why did you not wait? Return and kneel until I have absolved you. But when he had returned, the confessor added the remaining words, namely, from thy sins.

“Another time, when he was baptizing an infant, and had already said, I baptize thee, immediately turning to some boys who were talking, he interrupted the form, crying: Be silent, chatterers; be silent, worst boys, absurd boys! And afterward he proceeded: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spi (here suddenly he sneezes and coughs) rit Holy.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

R. 1. Cornelius absolved validly, because the interruption of the words and the interposition were not so great that the following words, from thy sins, would not be judged, in the moral estimation of men, to be joined with the preceding words, I absolve thee. Nevertheless, if he had repeated the words of absolution as a precaution under condition, he would not have been condemned. But why under condition? Because according to many doctors the words I absolve thee probably suffice for the form of absolution. Therefore probably the penitent was absolved before the interruption; therefore, if the words had been repeated, this would have had to be done under condition. Elbel, no. 13.

2. Cornelius likewise baptized validly; for the interruption vitiated the form only accidentally, because the sense is not taken away where only a small interruption of words is interposed, since it removes neither the intention of the speaker nor the understanding of the words, as St. Thomas says, part 3, question 60, article 8, ad 3. But the interruption was indeed brief, whether in correcting and rebuking the boys, or even in coughing and sneezing. Therefore it can in no way stand in the way of the validity of baptism. Voit, no. 23.

3. Cornelius acted illicitly in calling back the penitent in this way, with the latter’s annoyance and the scandal of others. It was by no means necessary to call him back, since he was certainly morally present. It would therefore have been enough to complete the form of absolution already begun, and no longer to think about the penitent.

4. He also acted illicitly in the baptism, and indeed of itself gravely, by reason of scandal or of grave injury inflicted upon the sacrament. For there was no such urgency that he should rebuke the boys in that way. Was there danger in delay, so that he could not first have completed the sacramental form? Voit, ibid.” Thus Gury, 154, 155.

“A great interruption of words,” says Lugo, d. 2, no. 111, “impedes the validity of the sacrament, because the sense of the sentence is taken away; but a moderate interruption does not impede it, because morally it is the same sentence, and this even if other words are interposed, as if someone says, I baptize thee, and, asking for water, says, give water, and immediately continues, in the name of the Father, etc. But how great and of what kind the interruption or interposition of words must be in order to take away the sense is a moral matter, and depends on the arbitration and judgment of prudent men.” That is, that is prudently judged a great interruption which is prudently judged to take away the sense of the sentence. And St. Thomas, loc. cit.: “If there is so great an interruption of words that the intention of the one pronouncing is intercepted, the sense of the sacrament is taken away, and consequently its truth; but it is not taken away when the interruption is small, which does not remove the intention of the one uttering and the understanding of the words.”

Now the resolution of Father Gury concerning absolution is not without difficulty. For first, if Cornelius absolved validly, as he simply affirms, because a small interruption was present and the understanding of the words remained entire with the intention of the one uttering them, how then could Cornelius repeat the absolution as a precaution? In order that it be said that Cornelius could have done this as a precaution, it is necessary that it be said that Cornelius probably did not absolve, and that probably the form was interrupted. Besides, if Cornelius ought to have repeated the absolution as a precaution, why is this same thing not asserted with more urgent reason concerning baptism? For the delay interposed between the words of the form of baptism and the words of absolution was almost the same. Therefore either in each case the form ought to have been repeated, or in neither. Finally, granted repetition of the form of absolution, it would then have had to be repeated under condition not only because the words I absolve thee alone probably suffice, but also because, since they probably do not suffice, the form in such an opinion would in the Case probably have been interrupted. Thus indeed it would have to be said consequently. But in truth, in each case, it plainly appears that the intention of the one pronouncing was not intercepted; on the contrary, it was continued by the continuation of the form, nor was the understanding of the words taken away in the Case; for any prudent man assisting at such an administration of the sacrament would well have understood the truth of the form. — I. M. 320, 748.

5. “Sidonius, a priest, while saying Mass, when he had come to the words of consecration of the bread, by a slip of the tongue or by distraction said: This is the Chalice, and immediately, noticing the error, mentally retracted the word Chalice, and uttered the remaining part of the form, namely, my Body. Afterward he doubted whether he ought to have repeated the form, and even now, whether he is bound to celebrate another Mass for the stipend accepted.

Question. Was the consecration valid?

R. The matter can be subjected to controversy. At first sight, that form seems invalid, because these words convey no sense. It was not enough that the priest should correct the error mentally, or by intention remove the word Chalice, which had crept in by a slip of the tongue. For the words of the form must be taken materially, and they are worth only as much as they sound. But in the Case they sound nothing. Therefore they are worth nothing, that is, they signify nothing. Therefore the form had to be repeated.

“Nevertheless the reasons which can be adduced for the opposite opinion are by no means to be despised. For words are worth only as much as human usage bears. Now in human usage, if by a slip of the tongue an undue word flows from the mouth, it is immediately corrected by the change of the word alone, and the beginning of the sentence is not repeated. Therefore, when the undue word Chalice had been uttered, the form could sufficiently be corrected by the celebrant by changing only the undue word. Therefore the consecration was valid, at least probably, just as baptism conferred thus is valid: I baptize thee in honor ... in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But because of the doubt, the priest ought to have repeated the form under condition. But when the sacred action had been completed, he ought not to have celebrated another for the stipend accepted. Indeed he would not have to celebrate another Mass even if that prior consecration were certainly invalid, because probably the consecration of one species suffices for the essence of the sacrifice. Thus La Croix, book 6, part 2, no. 15. Nevertheless the more common and more probable opinion holds that each consecration is required for the essence of the sacrifice. St. Liguori, 306.” Thus Father Gury, 148, 149, 254.

But it must be noted first that if Sidonius only mentally retracted the word Chalice, so that externally the slip of the tongue and error could not be noted, then it seems absolutely more probable that the consecration was not valid. For when someone errs in some word and then corrects the word erroneously uttered, this appears externally, and the right sense of the proposition is understood by the hearers. But if someone, disguising the error committed, seriously continues the sentence by correcting the mistaken word, then the correction is not understood, and the erroneous or equivocal sentence remains among the hearers. Besides, it is indeed to be feared lest in the Case it be valid to say that the sacrifice probably was valid for excusing Sidonius from celebrating another Mass. For it does not appear clearly enough here that there is question of the right use of probabilism, since there is not question merely of the subjective liceity of an action, but also of the objective truth of the thing, namely, of the certain fruit of the sacrifice. This can be confirmed by the Response of the Holy Office, 27 January 1897. Cf. I. M., vol. 1, no. 116; A. S. S., vol. 32, p. 562.

6. “Henry, a priest, driven by scruples even to madness, seems to himself never to express the words of consecration sufficiently. Wherefore he is accustomed to say them aloud, while those assisting at the sacred action wonder and are stunned, and he repeats the individual words three or four times in the following manner: This, this, this is, is, is Body, Body, Body my, my, my.

Question. What is to be judged concerning Henry?

R. Henry sinned of itself gravely by treating the form of the Eucharist so injuriously; by accident, however, by reason of madness, he will easily be excused from grave sin.” Thus Father Gury, 158, saying nothing about the validity of such a form. But it is valid. “Thus Clericatus, de Sacram. in gen., decision 8, no. 8. The reason is that that repetition of individual words did not take away the substantial sense of the form, as will easily appear to one weighing it well.” Elbel, 14.

7. To Bishop Titius, after the solemn blessing of the baptismal font had been completed on Holy Saturday, an infant was brought to be baptized. But in conferring baptism it happened by chance that the bishop indeed uttered the words, I baptize thee, etc., yet did not at the same time pour the water, because through the forgetfulness of the sacristan it had not yet been put into the vessel. As soon as the master of ceremonies noticed this, he immediately filled the vessel with water taken from the sacred font, which the bishop poured on the head of the infant, the words of the form not having been repeated.

Another time the same Titius, when through the days of Pentecost in the same cathedral church he was administering the sacrament of confirmation to a multitude of boys, was so disturbed by the noise which the fall of a certain little boy caused, while he was in the act of anointing one of them with chrism, that he completed the anointing on his forehead, yet without uttering the words of the form. At the same time, having turned his face, he asked what had happened; and after he had received notice of the matter and had learned that the crowd excited by that noise had quieted down, he uttered the sacramental words, the anointing not having been repeated, then proceeding to confirm the others.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

Since every part of Christian doctrine requires the Pastor's knowledge and diligence, so especially the discipline of the Sacraments, which both by God's command is necessary and is most abundant in utility, demands a singular faculty and industry of the Parish Priest, so that by an accurate and frequent perception of it the faithful may become such that the most excellent and most holy things may be imparted to them worthily and salutarily, and that Priests may not depart from that rule of the divine prohibition: Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine. Catechism of the Council of Trent, part 2, on the Sacraments, c. 1, n. 1.

189. • Since there is such dignity and utility of the Sacraments for the sanctification of souls, for whom Christ the Lord did not hesitate to pour forth His Blood and to undergo the torment of the cross, it is especially helpful that preachers of the divine word frequently have discourse to the people concerning them, namely by explaining their institution, necessity, pre-eminent dignity, and wonderful efficacy, and by accurately teaching the faithful concerning the dispositions necessary for receiving abundant graces through them. - Hence the Council of Trent, sess. 24, c. 7, on Reform, has these words:

That the faithful people may approach the receiving of the Sacraments with greater reverence and devotion of soul, the holy Synod commands all Bishops that not only, when these are to be administered to the people by themselves, they first explain their force and use according to the capacity of those receiving them, but also that they take care that the same be piously and prudently observed by individual Parish Priests...; and also that during the solemnities of Masses, or the celebration of divine things, on individual feast or solemn days, they explain the sacred utterances and admonitions of salvation, and strive, useless questions having been put aside, to insert the same into the hearts of all, and to instruct them in the law of the Lord.

We must treat 1º of the nature and division; 2º of the matter and form; 3º of the Minister; 4º of the subject of the Sacraments.

190. • I. DEFINITION. A Sacrament is a sensible sign instituted by Christ to signify and confer grace.

Hence three things are necessarily required in every Sacrament, namely: 1º a sensible sign; 2º divine institution; 3º the force of producing the grace promised by Christ.

All Sacraments are perfected by three things: 1º by things as matter; 2º by words as form; 3º by the person of the Minister confecting the Sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. This is clear from the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union.

The Sacraments, besides sanctifying grace, produce grace which is called sacramental, that is, they confer helps for obtaining the special end for which each Sacrament was instituted, if the due conditions are not lacking. The Sacraments operate ex opere operato, that is by force of the divine institution, independently from the work of the one operating, namely of the Minister and of the subject of the Sacraments.

Hence the Sacraments are distinguished from sacramentals, which are certain sacred things or actions instituted by the Church, such as lustral water, blessings and consecrations, the Agnus Dei, etc.

191. • II. NUMBER. The Sacraments are seven, as is clear from Trent, sess. 7, Can. 1: If anyone shall say that the Sacraments of the new law were not all instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, or that they 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.

III. Division. The Sacraments, according to various properties, are distinguished thus:

1º Necessary, or not necessary. Again the necessary are so either by necessity of means, or by necessity of precept. Necessary by necessity of means ¹ are Baptism, which is the gate of the Church and of the kingdom of heaven, and Penance for those who have fallen into mortal sin after baptism; necessary by necessity of precept are all the others, with the last two excepted, which are not necessary for private persons, but only for the community.

¹ ** In the strict sense that alone is necessary by necessity of means which not only has in itself the character of a means to the end which is intended, but furthermore is necessary in the very character of a means, because it cannot otherwise be supplied. You have this in those words of Paul (Heb. XI, 6): For he that comes to God must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to those who seek Him. For approach to God without the movement of a man (an adult) is impossible; and again such movement is impossible without knowledge of this kind. But in this sense baptism will be called necessary by necessity of means if you understand baptism either of water or of desire; otherwise, both about baptism and about Penance, this mode of speaking is used here in a broader sense.

2º Impressing, or not impressing, a character upon the soul. Baptism, Confirmation, and Order impress a character; the others do not impress one. Trent, sess. 7, Can. 9. 3º Formed, or unformed, according as they produce grace when they are received, or, an obstacle intervening, suspend their effect until the obstacle is removed ².

² ** That sacraments can be valid but unformed is certain doctrine. But whether it is to be attributed to all sacraments that, when the obstacle has been removed, they produce their effect, see St. Alphonsus, Lib. 6, n. 87.

4º Sacraments of the living or of the dead, according as they already suppose sanctifying grace, or first grace, and only increase it; or from their primary institution confer the same.

192. Questions. - QUESTION 1º. Can the Sacraments of the dead confer second grace?

Resp. Affirmatively. This can be done in a twofold case: 1º when venial sins alone are subjected to the keys, which frequently happens; 2º when a penitent, guilty of mortal sin, approaches the Sacrament of Penance with perfect contrition; because perfect contrition with the vow of the Sacrament justifies a man even before reception of the same: then therefore the Sacrament confers not first but only second grace ³...

³ ** The same thing can also happen with the sacrament of baptism, to which an adult can approach after already having obtained justification by an act of charity. And indeed it can reasonably be held, according to the doctrine of St. Thomas (1. 2, q. 89, art. 6), that this mode of justification happens not rarely among children among unbelievers: When the use of reason, he says, shall have begun in a child,... the first thing which then occurs to a man to be thought about is to deliberate concerning himself: and if indeed he has ordered himself to the due end, by grace he will obtain remission of original sin. Cajetan exhibits this ordering of oneself to the end thus (in the cited place): If he shall have judged an honorable good, confusedly, as that age is accustomed to do, to be something to be sought by himself, he has deliberated well concerning himself, placing his end in true beatitude, although imperfectly and inchoatively.

QUESTION 2º. Can the Sacraments of the living sometimes confer first grace?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, not indeed per se, as is clear from their institution, but per accidens, or by means of Charity infused by force of the Sacrament in a subject not placing an obstacle. For it can happen that someone guilty of mortal sin, ignorant of this in good faith, approaches a Sacrament of the living attrite; but in these circumstances the Sacrament of the living infuses grace into the soul, and therefore destroys sin. For the Sacraments always confer grace upon those not placing an obstacle, as is clear from Trent, sess. 7, Can. 6; but an obstacle is not placed by him who approaches attrite in good faith. Therefore, etc. - Thus commonly. - St. Thomas, part 3, qu. 72, art. 7. - Suarez. - St. Ligorius, n. 6 and 268, discoursing on the Eucharist: Sometimes, he says, per accidens it can confer even first grace, namely if someone, ignorant that he is in mortal sin, or believing that he has contrition, approaches Communion with attrition alone; then from attrite he is made contrite.

193. • QUESTION 3º. Is attrition required or sufficient, so that the Sacraments of the living may confer first grace?

Resp. Affirmatively to both: 1º it is indeed required, because first grace cannot be infused except through the destruction of mortal sin; but the destruction of mortal sin cannot be done without detestation of the same, namely without contrition or at least attrition; 2º it suffices, because from what has been said the Sacraments of the living can sometimes confer first grace: but this could not be done if attrition did not suffice, since the sinner would always approach the sacrament already justified by perfect contrition. - St. Ligorius, n. 6, etc.

QUESTION 4º. In what does the character of a Sacrament consist?

Resp. Although it is of faith that a character is impressed in Baptism, Confirmation, and Order, nevertheless Theologians do not agree in what precisely it consists. For us it will be enough to know, as the Council of Trent teaches, that the Character is a certain spiritual and indelible signet, preventing the Sacrament from being able to be repeated (Sess. 7, can. 9).

194. • QUESTION 5º. Is original sin destroyed in Baptism which is indeed valid, but unformed because of a defect of disposition in the baptized adult?

Resp. Negatively. The reason is that no sin dissolving one from the friendship of God is condoned except through reconciliation with God, that is, through justification. But this cannot be done unless first grace is infused; but this first grace is not infused if the dispositions are lacking. Therefore. But when the obstacle has been removed, either by perfect contrition with the vow of the Sacrament (namely of Penance), or by this Sacrament with attrition, the sacramental grace of Baptism revives, or the suspension ceases, and it destroys original sin and at the same time all actual sins committed before Baptism. But the Sacrament of Penance destroys sins committed after Baptism and the sin of fiction, or of the evil disposition with which the Sacrament of Baptism was received, at least insofar as this evil disposition persevered after Baptism. - See what is to be said, n. 232, Q. 2º.

195. • QUESTION 6º. What are the effects of sacramental grace proper to the individual Sacraments, besides sanctifying grace common to all?

Resp. 1º The effect of Baptismal grace is to remit every fault and punishment of fault, to illuminate the mind, to diminish concupiscence, and to make the soul fruitful for Christian works. But this habitual grace brings to the baptized person the right of obtaining helps by which he may attain these effects.

2º The effect of the grace of Confirmation is strength for constantly professing the Faith where there shall be need, and for defending it when opportunity has been given. And therefore it brings to the soul a right to helps by which it may accomplish this.

3º The effect of the grace of the Eucharist is to nourish the spiritual life, to increase grace, to generate disgust for worldly things, to draw one toward union with God, and therefore to bring a right to graces by which those communicating may be able to attain all these things.

4º The effect of the grace of Penance is to remit sins committed after baptism, and to confer strength for avoiding sins and for persevering in the state of grace, and a right to helps suitable for accomplishing these things. 5º The effect of the grace of Extreme Unction is to remove the remnants of sins, to alleviate the soul of the sick person, to strengthen confidence, to render the inconveniences of illness less troublesome ⁴, to bestow strength for repelling final temptations, and to confer a right to helps proportioned to these things.

⁴ ** Another effect proper to this sacrament can, indeed should, be added, namely restoration to former health.

6º The effect of the grace of Order is to render the Ministers of Christ fit for the sacred ministries, so that they may perform these with due piety, and to confer a right to helps suitable for these things.

7º The effect of the grace of Matrimony is to restrain disordered concupiscence, to bestow strength for sustaining the burdens of the conjugal state, for preserving conjugal fidelity, and for educating offspring in a Christian manner, and therefore to confer a right to helps necessary for fulfilling these things. - Common.

202. • DEFINITION. Attention is the application of the mind to those things which are being performed, or it is the act of the intellect by which a man considers that which he does.

Division. A twofold attention is distinguished: one internal, which consists in the advertence itself of the mind to that which is being done; another external, which excludes every action physically incompossible with internal attention. - See what was said above, n. 91; and t. 1, n. 544.

Principles. - I. For the validity of the conferral of the Sacraments no other attention is required except that which is found in every truly human act. Therefore the Sacraments can be validly ministered even by a distracted Minister, or one thinking at the same time about other affairs. The reason is that, in order that an act be and be considered human, not actual attention, but the procession of the act itself from an act of rational will is inspected. Moreover attention often does not depend on the will of man; but Christ could not require in the Minister of the Sacraments a condition that is sometimes impossible. - Thus St. Ligorius, n. 11, and others commonly.

II. For the licit conferral of the Sacraments attention is required, so that every voluntary distraction be absent. The reason is that the reverence due to the Sacrament demands that it be treated diligently, and that the danger of erring be avoided. Nevertheless voluntary distraction, according to the common opinion of Theologians, ordinarily does not exceed venial sin, unless someone exposes himself to the danger of gravely erring in the form. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

They more probably and more commonly except the Eucharist, in the confection of which they judge every voluntary distraction, on account of the greatest dignity of the Sacrament, to be mortal sin. - St. Ligorius, ibid. - Nevertheless Lacroix, lib. 6, part 2, n. 443, Mazzotta, and others deny this not improbably.

203. • DEFINITION. Intention is an act of the will tending toward some end, or an act of the will by which someone intends to do or omit something.

DIVISION. It is manifold, namely: 1º actual, virtual, habitual, and interpretative; 2º internal or true, or external, which regards only the external act; 3º determinate, or indeterminate or in the confused; 4º absolute, or conditioned. Recall the definitions given throughout, for example in the Treatise on Human Acts, where voluntary action is treated, tom. 1, n. 5.

Principles. - I. For the validity of a Sacrament there is required in the Minister some true and serious will at least of doing that which the Church does. - This is clear from the Council of Trent, sess. 7, Can. 11.

II. Nevertheless an actual intention is not required, but a virtual one suffices. The reason is that actual intention, although best and to be desired, is sometimes morally impossible; but virtual intention sufficiently flows into the action of the Minister, so that this action can be called truly human and deliberate. - Thus all.

48. Therefore it is not lawful to follow a probable opinion, but we must wholly choose the safer in all those things which are necessary, by necessity of means, to salvation, where the fact itself, or the truth of the thing, alone is considered. Hence we must embrace the safer religion. Proposition 4 condemned by Innocent XI; L. I, n. 43. - In the conferral of the sacraments the minister is bound to follow the safer sentence, unless necessity is present or the Church supplies; for again there is question of the truth of the thing. But the sacraments would not be had unless those things were really placed which Christ instituted for their validity. Proposition 1 condemned by Innocent XI. Unless necessity is present: "for in extreme necessity we can well use any opinion whatever, not only probable but even slightly probable, for the validity of the sacrament... provided the sacrament is conferred under condition; because the condition sufficiently repairs the injury to the sacrament if perhaps it is conferred invalidly; and, on the contrary, necessity is a sufficient and just cause for conferring the sacraments conditionally." L. I, n. 49. Unless the Church supplies: for "we can licitly use a probable opinion where the Church is presumed to supply, as can happen in the sacrament of matrimony for convalidating a contract only probably valid, if perhaps that contract is null because of an impediment which the Church removes by supplying, and in the sacrament of penance for supplying the jurisdiction of the confessor, if perhaps it is lacking." L. I, n. 50.

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.

— A Sacrament of the New Law is a sensible thing which, from the stable institution of Christ, has the power of effecting the sanctity or grace which it signifies.

No one is ignorant that there have been and still exist several usages, even ecclesiastical ones, of the word sacrament. But we assume the word in the technical usage of this book in the definition.

It is defined by faith in Trent, Session VII, canon 1, that there are seven sacraments, neither more nor fewer, truly and properly such, namely baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order, and matrimony, and that all and each were instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord.

This definition does not prevent Christ, the author of the sacraments, from having been able to commit the ultimate determination of the elements of a sacrament to the Church. Concerning this matter dogmatic theologians are to be approached. This power of the Church is also the reason why moral theologians, solicitous for practical security, are accustomed, more than dogmatic theologians, to define the conditions of validity circumspectly and severely. The same power imposes on us also a diligent attention to the sacramental decrees which are issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, through which the supreme authority of the Church is accustomed to express its mind in this matter.

As a sensible thing assumed for signifying, a sacrament is in the genus of sign. But it is proper to this sign that by signifying it operates, and indeed operates that which it signifies.

But it signifies sanctifying grace, whether first grace, when it first gives or restores it; or second grace, when it increases the same; then sacramental grace, special to the individual sacraments, that is, a special right to helps accommodated to the end of each sacrament.

But it signifies these things by means of the very title to having these things, which it places in the soul. This title, in three sacraments, constitutes a real, spiritual, indelible quality. That quality is called character, which, according to St. Thomas (3 p., q. 63, art. 3, c.), "is specially the character of Christ"... a certain participation of the priesthood of Christ, derived from Christ himself. But the sacraments by which it is imprinted are baptism, confirmation, and order. As often as these sacraments are validly conferred, that character is imprinted, although an obstacle can stand in the way of the further effect of grace.

Not only in these but in all sacraments, very many theologians, after St. Thomas, distinguish that which is sign only, or signifies and is not signified: the sacrament itself; that which is reality and sacrament, because it is simultaneously signified and further signifies, as character; finally, that which is reality only, or which is merely signified and does not signify: sanctifying and sacramental grace.

But what is the proper character of the three sacraments which imprint character, and what, in the other sacraments, is the title demanding grace, does not plainly agree even among those who think that in all sacraments there is reality and sacrament.

Moreover, a sacrament is a stable sign, or a sign instituted permanently in the Church militant. Wherefore the washing of feet at the Last Supper, the breathing by which Christ risen gave the Holy Spirit to the apostles, and the words of Christ to Magdalene and to the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven you," although they signified the spiritual effect of grace, are not sacraments, since perpetual institution is lacking.

Finally, it effects or operates grace ex opere operato, that is, by its use and application through its own efficacy, and not ex opere operantis, or not from the act and disposition of the minister, which, even when it is required for the effect of the Sacrament, is not the cause, but the condition without which not.

— Properly speaking, the following are not sacraments:

1. The figures and sacraments of the Old Law: various purifications and consecrations of priests; the paschal lamb, and especially circumcision; both because they were not instituted by Christ and because they did not effect true sanctity. And although, from the received opinion of theologians, circumcision at one time took away original sin through true grace, it did this either ex opere operantis, in adults, or not ex opere operato simply and rigorously; for it did not contain grace as cause, because the fountain of grace had not yet flowed forth, that is, the merits of Christ had not yet been acquired through his passion; nor did it formally confer grace insofar as it was circumcision and from its own institution, but insofar as it was a profession of faith; nor did it confer it by force of its application and use, for it did not give it to everyone not placing an obstacle. But circumcision was a sign of incorporation into the people heir of temporal promises, which were a figure of the spiritual promises made to those who are children of Abraham not by flesh but by spirit, that is, to the Christian people.

2. Sacrifices both of the Old and of the New Law, because they are formally instituted not for conferring grace ex opere operato, but for exhibiting and rendering worship to God. Although the Sacrifice of the New Law, or the Mass, obtains grace ex opere operato for him for whom it is offered.

3. Martyrdom, because although it confers grace ex opere operato, it is not specially instituted for this end.

4. Sacramentals, as the blessing of an abbot, because precisely from their use and ex opere operato they do not confer grace.

5. Acts of virtues, because they do not confer grace but merit it, and they are not all sensible.

— Therefore the sacraments are divided:

1. Into sacraments of the living, which, instituted for nourishing or increasing grace, of themselves demand a subject already living or endowed with sanctifying grace; and of the dead, which, instituted for conferring first grace, do not require in the subject an antecedent state of grace. The sacraments of the dead are baptism and penance; extreme unction is of a certain mixed character; the other four are of the living. Yet in a true sense, even first grace derives from the eucharist, insofar as, before the reception of the eucharist, no one obtains grace except from some desire for it, "either through himself, as adults, or by the desire of the Church, as little ones" (St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 79, art. 1 ad 1).

2. Into sacraments necessary by necessity of means or of precept, and not necessary. Necessary of themselves for all are baptism and eucharist; necessary after grave sin is the sacrament of penance; necessary in a qualified way are confirmation and extreme unction; of simply free use are order and matrimony.

Necessity is considered with respect to individuals; for those which are of free option to individuals, that is, order and matrimony, are most necessary to the Church.

3. Into sacraments repeatable or not repeatable. Strictly, the latter are those which imprint character (c. 732, §1). From the present discipline, extreme unction cannot be repeated in the same danger of death.

4. Into formed sacraments, which are as it were completed by the effect of grace, and unformed or not formed sacraments, which, validly administered, nevertheless, because of a defect of disposition in the subject, do not confer grace on the subject. At least some, with the obstacle removed, revive or confer grace: this is certain concerning the sacraments which imprint character. Concerning the others the matter is less clear, but, with the eucharist excepted, it can probably be affirmed. Cf. below, n. 208.

— On the Matter and Form of the Sacraments. Sacraments can be taken by way of a physical composite or by way of an artificial composite. In the former way, they are compared by scholastic doctors with physical substances which consist of matter and substantial form. Matter is the more determinable part; form is the determining and perfecting part. Matter itself is distinguished as remote: the sensible thing, as, in baptism, water; in the eucharist, bread and wine; in extreme unction, blessed oil; and as proximate, or the same matter as employed in the sign: the very action of washing or immersing, of anointing, in baptism and extreme unction; the sacramental species remaining after the conversion, in the sacrament of the eucharist. Form is the words or what is put in their place, as, in matrimony, the sign of consent.

Here we are treating of the former account.

In the other way, or when sacraments are taken by way of an artificial composite, the matter and form themselves, or the things and words together, have themselves after the manner of matter, but the signification after the manner of form.

— On the Union of Matter and Form. A question to be solved presents itself spontaneously: what conjunction of matter and form is essential to a sacrament? This is the general rule. As much conjunction as is required that one sign be constituted, so much conjunction is required. But a sign which must signify commonly is to be judged from common estimation. Therefore there must be such conjunction between matter and form that, according to the moral estimation of men, with the nature of the individual sacraments considered, one affects the other, that is, that the words are judged to fall upon such a thing and to compose one sign with it. Hence:

Physical "simultaneity" is required in the eucharist alone, so that the words may be true: "For this is my body," etc.

Moral simultaneity strictly so called is necessary in baptism, confirmation, extreme unction, and order: that is, so that one sign may be constituted, the words must be pronounced and the matter must be applied morally at the same time. This is had without doubt if you have begun to pronounce the words before the application of the matter has had its end, or have begun to apply the matter before you have ceased to pronounce the form; indeed, if, without interval, the pronouncing follows the ablution or anointing, or the ablution or anointing follows the pronouncing. But if the matter is separated from the whole form by one Pater Noster, validity itself is already denied by St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 9.

In penance, which is by way of judgment, absolution can be delayed for a rather long time. And provided the circumstances demonstrate the connection between accusation and sentence, there is no reason why we should assign a maximum interval. Yet there are those who deny that so great a distance can intervene as can separate, in forensic judgment, the instruction of a case and its definition. This stricter opinion seems to be supported by the extrinsic authority alone of St. Alphonsus (l. 6, n. 9).

Finally, in matrimony, which is made by way of contract, and in which matter and form are found in mutual consent, it suffices, as in other contracts, that the consent of the one reach the morally persevering prior consent of the other.

— On the Truth or Integrity of Matter and Form.

1. The very value of the sacrament prevents matter or form from being changed substantially; but an accidental change will often be illicit. In this matter, the common estimation of men must be very much attended to. Matter is changed substantially when, according to common use and estimation, it differs in name and in reality from that which Christ prescribed. Thus raw material is not called bread, nor is that held as elemental water which is contained in the juice of a plant. Corruption of the form is to be called essential or accidental according as the same sense remains or does not remain. But it is corrupted essentially not only when the very sentence is formally changed, but also: a) when individual words are materially corrupted, so that they express nothing or something different; this occurs more easily in the base or root, that is, in the beginning, than at the ending, as if you should say matris instead of patris; b) if, because of an excessive interval, the words no longer seem to coalesce into one sentence; c) if not one single person pronounces the whole form, but several, one one part and another another part of the whole form. - On the contrary, the form may be able not to perish if you either omit, add, substitute, transpose, or, from defect of language, pronounce less well certain sounds which are plainly indifferent to the sense. Cases will be given concerning the individual sacraments.

2. A good intention does not avail to restore a signification which has been taken away by a change. But a signification which of itself is ambiguous can, from a manifest intention, be determined to one thing, so that the same material corruption may be held accidental if it appears to have proceeded from unskillfulness or distraction, while if done from a depraved intention or deliberately, it would have been substantial. Thus Pope Zacharias resolved the case concerning baptism. Cf. c. Retulerunt, 86, d. 4, Cons.

3. Without doubt, under one pronunciation of the form, several are validly baptized or absolved at the same time; and licitly indeed, in a case of urgent necessity; outside this, some hold it prohibited under mortal sin, others under venial sin. Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 29; d'Annibale, III, 235. - If while one applies the matter another pronounces the form, for example, "I baptize you," he utters a falsehood and therefore says it in vain, as the Holy See itself declared. Cf. n. 225. Nevertheless in extreme necessity this might be attempted under condition, because the person saying and the person doing perhaps are morally one, since the application of the matter and the pronunciation of the form are done in the name of the one Christ. But the sacrament stands if several ministers perform the whole, for example, if they absolve or consecrate together, or if one perfects one part, another another part, of a composite sacrament; for example, in extreme unction, one, with the congruent form, anoints the hands, another the feet (d'Annibale, l. c.); or, in the sacrament of order, one, after the litanies, imposes hands; another, toward the end of the Mass, by the third imposition of hands confers the power of forgiving and retaining sins.

— I. A Sacrament of the New Law is a sensible thing which, from the stable institution of Christ, has the power of effecting the sanctity or grace which it signifies.

We know by defined faith that there are seven sacraments properly such.

A sacrament is a sign which by signifying operates that which it signifies: that is, sanctifying grace, whether first or second, and sacramental grace. But these are signified by means of the title to having them, which it places in the soul. This title in three sacraments, baptism, confirmation, and order, is character, or a real, spiritual, and indelible quality. That it be imprinted, valid conferral of the sacrament suffices. A sacrament is said to be efficacious ex opere operato, insofar as it operates not from the act and disposition of the minister or subject, but by its use and application.

II. Sacraments are: of the living and of the dead, according to the primary end of their institution; necessary to individuals and not necessary; repeatable and not repeatable; formed, which are as it were completed by the effect of grace, and unformed, which, validly administered, because of a defect of disposition in the subject, do not confer grace on him. Those which imprint character, with the obstacle removed, revive or confer grace. The same can probably be affirmed concerning the other sacraments.

III. Sacraments consist of a more determinable part, or matter, and a determining and perfecting part, which is form. Matter is remote: the sensible thing; or proximate: the same as employed in the sign. Form is the words, or that which is put in the place of words, and of itself, in matrimony, any sign of consent.

Between matter and form so great a conjunction is required that, according to the moral estimation of men, they constitute one sign, through simultaneity which, according to the nature of the sacrament, can be required as physical, thus in the eucharist; or suffice as broadly moral, as in penance and matrimony; or as strictly moral, as in the other sacraments. A substantial change of matter, when it differs in name and reality from that which Christ prescribed, or of form, when the sense becomes none or another, stands in the way of the value of the sacrament; but an accidental change will for the most part be illicit. Intention cannot restore a signification taken away; but a manifest intention can effect that ambiguity be brought to the right signification. The matter must be applied by the minister pronouncing the form, if the form expresses the action of the minister. But the sacrament is valid if several, concelebrating, express the whole, or if, in extreme unction, one perfects one part, another another part, of a composite sacrament.

— Who can be called a Minister of the Sacraments. In the broad sense, anyone who ministers a sacrament at least validly is called a minister of a sacrament: thus a layman baptizing, thus baptized persons contracting matrimony. But properly a minister of a sacrament is one who, having received the power of order, is deputed to confer that sacrament, although perhaps some condition must be added either for the value itself or for liceity. Thus a priest has been ordained for absolving sins; yet he needs jurisdiction in order to confer valid absolution. He has also been ordained for baptizing; yet of itself the license of the Ordinary or pastor is required that he baptize licitly.

Moreover, a minister can be deputed simply, or principally, as though to a proper office, or secondarily and in a supplementary manner. The first is the ordinary minister, the other the extraordinary minister. Thus a deacon is the extraordinary minister of baptism and of the holy eucharist.

— Conditions of Value. On Intention. No faith or probity of the minister is necessary for the value of a sacrament; but, besides the power to be explained afterward, there is required and suffices an intention, or will, at least virtual and absolute, or one equivalent to this, and determined to a certain matter and person, of doing not merely the external ritual act, but the sacrament, or at least that which the Church does or which Christ instituted. Thus holds the common opinion from Trent, session 7, canon 11, against Catharinus, who was content with the will of the external act. No faith or probity is necessary, because the sacraments operate not from the disposition of the minister but from divine power, according to the institution and merit of Christ. - Intention at least virtual is required, because no act human and free in itself proceeds from habitual or interpretative intention, and administration must be done through a human act; virtual intention suffices, because this is referred to free and efficacious will, and because actions done from such a will are imputed as human when they are done by a man who, being master of himself, can impede the efficacy; and, because of easy distractions, indeed the moral impossibility of always having an intention strictly actual, it would have been too hard and full of scruples if actual intention were essential. Concerning the various account of the voluntary, cf. what was said in I, 46. - Absolute intention is required, by which a condition concerning the future is excluded, because, in conditioned administration, there is no will at the moment at which the external sign is placed; but when the condition arrives, the sign or operating cause is no longer had. Nevertheless matrimony must be excepted, because it is made by way of contract and follows the laws of contract. Now contracts can be made conditionally, and, when the condition has been fulfilled, pass into absolute ones. - Finally determined intention is required, lest the will lack an object and, being applicable to no thing or person, be shown vain. Cf. G. Boed, L'intention de faire ce que l'Eglise fait dans le ministre du sacrement (N. R. Th., 1923, pp. 453, 533 ff.).

Therefore one drunk or dreaming does not confect a sacrament, although he previously intended the confection, because the act is not in itself human; nor does the priest who, having bread before him, merely recites the deed and words of Christ consecrating, because he has no intention of the sacrament. Concerning the deed of Athanasius as a boy and of Genesius the mime to whom baptism is said to have been conferred in a play or comedy, it is not sufficiently established historically; but manifestly he effects nothing who intends merely to play. A pagan baptizing must have the intention of performing a rite which, not indeed from his persuasion but from that of Christians, is sacred. But the will of a matrimonial contract suffices in a heretic, even if he stubbornly denies the sacrament of matrimony, because the contract itself is the sacred rite of baptized persons who marry. Indeed, if he does not wish to do what the Roman Church does, or does not wish to confer or receive grace, falsely thinking Catholics to be deceived, the sacrament will be valid, because the will of making a true contract is judged the more powerful; and the general intention of doing those things which Christ instituted prevails over an intention which proceeds from error. If by a prevailing will he did not wish to do what the Roman Church does, the administration would not be valid. Also, because of positive exclusion of the will of doing what the Catholic Church does, Anglican ordinations were null. Cf. Leo XIII, Constitution Apostolicae curae, September 13, 1896. - One distracted while he consecrates or absolves must repeat nothing under condition: the act remains human.

— "He who in the usual way places the actions required for a sacrament cannot prudently doubt concerning the required intention, unless he positively excludes it. The reason: because he wishes to do what he sees others doing, and others are accustomed to similar things" (Lacroix, p. 2, n. 58). Omission of the required intention in a Catholic man "is an almost impossible case" (Ballerini-Palmieri, Op. theol., tr. 10, s. 1, c. 2).

— If someone has had several contrary intentions, the matter is to be decided from the intention which, after examination has been made, must be judged principal and prevailing.

This is especially to be considered in weighing the force of conditions or clauses which are repugnant to the nature of matrimony.

— Voluntary distraction in the sacramental action itself, although it does not harm the value, is nevertheless a much graver fault than distraction which is admitted during prayer. Nonetheless, with grave danger of notable error excluded, it is only venial. Many, with St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 410, but with others contradicting, except the consecration of the eucharist.

— On Conditioned Administration. 1. Equivalent to absolute, as to the effect, is the placing of a condition which regards an essential element: if you are not baptized, if you are capable, I baptize you; if you truly are sorry, I absolve you. - Wherefore he sins only venially who irrationally places a condition of this kind; but as often as a reasonable doubt, according to the nature of the sacrament, is present concerning such an element, reverence for the sacrament requires that, if it is conferred, it be conferred in no other way than under such a condition.

2. If a sacrament is to be conferred, it is generally gravely illicit, because of connected inconveniences, to place a condition which does not regard an essential element, especially if it is not easily certain. Thus it would be grave for one ordaining to place the condition, "if the one to be ordained is worthy, impeded by no censure or irregularity"; for the consequences of a vain or doubtful ordination are most grave. Canon 942 itself excepts the case of extreme unction to be administered to a sick person concerning whose contumacy in manifest mortal sin there is doubt. For this conditioned administration, by which reverence for the sacrament is cared for, is without inconvenience. Matrimony also is excepted, which, for a just cause, can be contracted under a condition concerning the present or suspensive concerning the future, but not under a resolutory condition.

3. The placing of a condition which regards an essential element does not always suffice to make the administration of the sacrament licit. Thus it is scarcely ever lawful, unless perhaps when better matter is not found for completing the sacrifice, and it is not to be proposed for adoration, to confect the sacrament of the eucharist with doubtful bread or wine.

4. Conditioned administration is to be done, however, with the case just mentioned excluded, if denial of the sacrament exposes a man to danger of grave harm, or deprives him of a great good. And this is especially valid when it does not stand through him that he does not avert the danger or remove the doubt: as if there is question of baptizing a man who is destitute of the senses; of anointing a man who perhaps is dead. But the more necessary a sacrament is to salvation, the more easily conditioned administration will be prescribed, or at least permitted.

5. Of itself it suffices that the condition be conceived mentally. Before the Code, the heresy of rebaptizers caused that, by positive law, pronunciation of the condition was prescribed in baptism. This law is indeed confirmed by no canon, but since it seems to be contained in the Ritual itself, concerning the sacrament of baptism, and liturgical laws are not revoked by the Code unless expressly (cf. c. 2), this obligation must be said to remain.

— On Conditioned Repetition of a Sacrament. 1. Unless the minister is excused by scruples, especially since time for deliberating scarcely suffices for one anxious, it is grave, because of the joined irreverence, to repeat a sacrament under condition when no reasonable doubt concerning the value of the conferred sacrament subsists. - Yet to repeat one word of the form in vain is not judged grave. - But one who is conscious to himself of a depraved custom of uselessly repeating the form or part of the form must strive, under grave sin, which rarely will be committed because of excusing scruples, to amend it.

2. The more necessary the sacrament is, say baptism, or the more harmful its nullity is, say presbyteral or episcopal ordination, the lesser cause suffices for it to be repeated licitly.

3. But when a reasonable doubt stands, the necessity of the recipient or harms to others to be guarded against, for example, when there is question of ordination, impose the obligation of repeating the sacrament. But where there is question of baptism or of ordination, repetition will be licit, although not prescribed, if some apparent reason or authority of Doctors troubles the mind, although the doubt is supported by no intrinsic reason or suitable authority. Cf. Lugo, Resp. mor., l. 1, d. 33, n. 3. Hence c. 732, §2: "But if a prudent doubt exists whether they truly or whether they validly have been conferred," namely the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and order, "let them be conferred again under condition."

— That he may administer the sacraments licitly, it is necessary that the Minister:

1. be immune from censure. This is required under grave sin in him who offers himself spontaneously. Insofar as one excommunicated or suspended can administer the sacraments when asked by others because of utility, cf. below, n. 211.

But insofar as by a canonical penalty they are prohibited from exercising order, those become irregular who place an act of it (c. 985, 7°);

2. be immune from irregularity, if there is question of exercising the power of order, unless grave harm excuses;

3. be immune from mortal sin. Some demand the state of grace because of the gravity and sanctity of sacramental action, which is done in the person of Christ and operates sanctity, so that it is most gravely unbecoming to exercise the same in the state of mortal sin. Thus Lugo, De sacramentis in genere, d. 8, n. 150. But others, as Suarez, De Sacramentis, p. 1, d. 10, sect. 4, and St. Thomas himself, as Ballerini-Palmieri think, tr. 10, s. 1, c. 2, locate the grave unbecomingness in this: that a "person specially deputed and consecrated from office to that function," and therefore furnished with special graces and bound by a special obligation to minister the sacraments worthily, without due sanctity acts as public minister of Christ and of the Church in a holy action, such as a sacrament is.

Therefore the latter, contrary to the former, do not condemn every administration in mortal sin as of grave fault, but only the confection and solemn administration of a sacrament for conferring which the minister has been deputed by the very order received.

Hence, according to a probable opinion, they do not sin gravely who, in the state of mortal sin: a) do not confect the eucharist but merely minister it, which Lugo, n. 155, holds against Suarez; b) exercise sacramentals, bless water or nuptials, consecrate altars, churches, vessels, and preach: these actions do not tend proximately to the sanctification of the soul. Yet it would be mortal to consecrate chrism or bless the oil of the sick in mortal sin, because he who constitutes valid matter of a sacrament begins to sanctify; c) a deacon and subdeacon ministering in their own order in the sacrifice, because they confect no sacrament; d) laypersons baptizing in necessity, or conferring matrimony upon themselves: but as recipients, they must be in the state of grace; e) a priest baptizing not solemnly; f) a deacon baptizing solemnly but without commission at least legitimately presumed; with commission, he is in the condition of a minister consecrated for that; h) a bishop conferring minor orders or even the subdiaconate, because it is not certain that these are sacraments.

In this opinion it is more easily explained why he probably sins only by one sin who in one course baptizes, confirms, or absolves several while entangled in mortal sin.

But the state of grace, unless there is question of confecting the eucharist in the celebration of Mass, must not be procured through use of the sacrament of penance: it is enough that with sincere persuasion the minister judge himself contrite. And if there is danger in delay, and he cannot confess or become contrite so quickly, administration will be done without irreverence (cf. Lugo, d. 8, n. 151); but he who foresaw the case and neglected to fortify himself will be culpable in the cause (d'Annibale, III, 248 [6]).

— The minister sins mortally who, in the administration of a sacrament, with danger to its value, abandons the safer opinion (St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 57); or, outside necessity, uses doubtful matter or form. For he treats the sacraments unworthily.

— The minister sins gravely who does not merely dissimulate the administration of a sacrament, which sometimes can be done laudably, but falsely simulates it. Hence proposition 29 among those reproved by Innocent XI: "Urgent grave fear is a just cause for simulating the administration of a sacrament." But here simulation strictly so called must be distinguished from the other, more broadly so called.

Simulation strictly so called consists in a feigned utterance of the form over matter of itself apt. This, unless the circumstances betray that nothing is being done seriously, in which case not even simulation is had, is "a sacrilegious lie, since the minister abuses the sacred thing itself, namely a sacred rite instituted by Christ, as a means of uttering a lie" (Lehmkuhl, II, De Sac. in genere). Proposition 29 must be understood of this simulation alone. Cf. Palmieri, Op. theol., IV, 694.

Simulation more broadly so called is had when, in place of the due form or matter, something else representing the appearance of them is employed. And it is formal or material, according as the deception of another is intended or this merely follows and is permitted. And of itself that deception in religious matters is illicit.

Thus it is certain that it is wicked for a non-consecrated host to be offered as consecrated to someone ignorant; or for someone to celebrate Mass while omitting the form of consecration. Certain other things are permitted for a grave cause: a) lest he manifest to others an indisposed penitent, a priest could pray something and make the sign of the cross, which bystanders will take as absolution: here the denial of absolution is merely dissimulated. Nor does he lie who stands before a confessor to speak about another's business; for he himself has properly spoken nothing with others; b) for avoiding scandal or infamy, in a most rare case, a priest could pronounce the words "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ" and not offer the host to someone sitting at the sacred table; c) for a grave cause, they permit that a feigned consent be given in Matrimony. If a lie is absent, not even the sacrament is simulated, since the matter and form are contained in true consent.

— He sins gravely or lightly, according to the moment of the matter: a) who pronounces the words of the form corruptly, inarticulately, indevoutly; b) who accidentally changes the matter or form; c) who, contrary to the custom of the Church, without cause changes or omits ceremonies. If this happens from contempt, it will be mortal; if from negligence, it is often mortal when, in a grave matter, it is opposed to a precept strictly such. "In confecting, administering, and receiving the sacraments, the rites and ceremonies which are prescribed in the ritual books approved by the Church are to be accurately observed." Thus c. 733, §1. The words and received usages teach us which dispositions of the Ritual oblige under grave sin, or under light sin; which are merely directive. Thus the rubrics of the Missal within Mass are judged almost all preceptive; outside Mass, the more common opinion holds them as merely directive. Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 399.

— The obligation of ministering the sacraments can flow from justice or charity.

1. Those who are engaged in a pastoral office, from ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, must, under grave sin and from justice, minister the sacraments to their subjects reasonably asking. For they must from office provide not only for necessity but also for the fitting progress of their subjects. And besides the great detriment which subjects may suffer, the very danger already of turning them away from frequent use of the sacraments makes the sin grave.

The same are bound, in common necessity, such as sinners in general suffer, with grave inconvenience to themselves; but in grave and in extreme necessity of their subjects, even with evident danger of life, since the execution of the office undertaken extends to that point. The degrees of necessity were declared in volume II. Yet it is enough to administer the necessary sacraments with danger of life when, without new danger, other aids cannot be supplied. But the necessary sacraments are: baptism, penance, and, in defect of this or for those who, not yet absolved, are destitute of the senses, extreme unction. If success or necessity is only probable, the obligation for the pastor indeed remains with probable danger of life; it does not seem to stand with morally certain death: as if you seem likely to perish before you reach the infant to be baptized, or you probably presume him to have been baptized, or if an adult can easily elicit perfect contrition, or another is present who can and wishes to furnish that. Cf. Cappello, op. c., n. 67, 3. Wherefore Benedict XIV (Syn., l. 13, c. 19, nn. 2, 6) does not condemn the pastor who, if a suitable vicar assists the sick, reserves for himself the care of the healthy; for it is expedient that someone be at hand whom they will not flee from fear of contagion. A prevailing reason of the common good, as if, with you perishing, the salvation of many would be endangered, can excuse a pastor.

Hatreds also to be avoided against the Catholic Church can prevent you from being obliged or able to provide even for someone's extreme necessity, for instance that of an infant dying without baptism. Cf. d'Annibale, II, 82 (3).

When there is question not of public attack upon the faith, but of sacraments, such as Penance, which are customarily administered by priests with care of souls rather than by prelates, the obligation of mediate prelates is less personal and is regularly fulfilled through others.

Corollaries. a) They sin gravely who often show themselves morose and difficult; who wish to hear confessions of subjects only on a few days within the month, much more those who wish to hear them only in Easter time; who establish inopportune times for the distribution of the most holy eucharist. Once or twice to deny the sacrament to one who is in no necessity is not judged grave.

b) A pastor requested by name must himself minister to the subject, unless he has been impeded, or the subject would willingly go to another. Yet he must not comply with an irrational petition; wherefore, with the sacramental seal saved, he must by no means waste time with a scrupulous person or a little devotee.

2. Other ministers are bound according to the laws of charity alone: therefore under grave sin in grave necessity of neighbor, but they will be excused by grave inconvenience of their own. With probable danger of life they must administer sacraments absolutely necessary only in extreme or quasi-extreme necessity and insofar as success is morally certain.

N.B. Grave common necessity is deservedly equated to extreme necessity: both because common harm prevails over private harm, and because grave common necessity brings with itself the extreme necessity of many.

— The obligation of denying the sacraments to one asking unworthily also presses the minister, according to the following rules.

1. Religion, lest the sacred thing be profaned; charity, which forbids scandal and participation in another's sin; and fidelity in the entrusted function of dispensation compel the minister prudently to have regard to the worthiness of the one receiving the sacrament.

2. The rules are reduced to two chief heads: a) where the petition is made in secret, the sacraments are to be given to the worthy and denied to the unworthy. For no other reason here occurs of itself to be considered. Except the prohibited use of sacramental secrecy; b) where the petition is made publicly, the publicly unworthy and the manifestly infamous are to be kept away, but not occult sinners. For nothing prevents a public sinner from being treated according to his merit. And it is easily understood why, even after grace has been recovered, the same man cannot ask for the sacrament with detriment to the public good, or before scandal has ceased. Reasons again drawn from the public good, besides the right not to have reputation injured, are most powerful for declaring why occult sinners who ask publicly are not to be repelled. For to bestow the sacrament on one merely unworthy, who of himself, up to the last moment, can make himself worthy by an act of contrition, is not intrinsically illicit, but is material cooperation in another's sin, which reasons drawn from the good of men, for whose sake the sacraments exist, are able to excuse. Now it seems wicked that, from private and fallible knowledge of unworthiness, any minister could afflict the faithful with public disgrace, with danger of hallucination and error from ignorance, levity, or passion of soul. And even if he acted according to the merit of the cause, the minister nevertheless would seem to give and deny the sacraments according to his pleasure, which would furnish occasion for many offenses and disturbances, and would give rise to the gravest scandal of turning the faithful away from frequenting the sacraments themselves.

An insufficient reason for the concession of a sacrament would be sought from preserving the reputation of the one asking. For the unworthy man who dares to approach the sacrament ought to ascribe to himself the harm of reputation arising from repulse. Cf. Cappello, De Sacramentis, I, nn. 72, 76.

Therefore if only a few are present who would not wonder at the matter, the benign rule itself already seems to cease.

Nor should you confuse denial of a sacrament with delay commanded for a just and public cause, as if someone approaches irreverently, or is ordered first to care for cleanliness or decency itself in clothing.

— It remains that we briefly explain the rules themselves.

1. What inquiry into the qualities of the subject is permitted or prescribed to the minister?

a) He who asks entrance into the Church possesses no special right; but the approach to the Church is not open except to those who approach spontaneously and give a founded hope of Christian life. Wherefore before the baptism of an adult, inquiry must be made concerning his consent, knowledge, and competent disposition;

b) Once baptism has been received, a Christian has the right of receiving the sacraments which regard his own sanctification; and the presumption of probity favors him. Wherefore where the minister is not a judge but merely a dispenser, the sacraments are of themselves to be denied to no one living as a Catholic, unless unworthiness is certain. In Penance, on the contrary, the minister, because of the office of judge, must prudently be made more certain concerning the disposition of the penitent.

The case of Order and Matrimony is special. For it belongs to the public good that Order not be conferred on one who is feared likely to be an unworthy minister; nor is every cause of unworthiness infamous; nor is repulse made openly, at the altar. Wherefore a candidate who asks for order is judged to permit that a special inquiry be made concerning him, which the conferrer of the function prudently institutes concerning every candidate, and the bishop can, from informed conscience, or because of causes known to himself, even secret ones, deny him ascent. But observe that here worthy reception of the sacrament is not considered, but the worthy exercise of sacred functions. The right conclusion of matrimony contributes very much to the common good of the city and of the Church. Wherefore, besides impediments of divine law, the Church prudently orders the matrimony of the faithful through other impediments and laws, and commits to the pastor, to whom belongs the right of assisting at matrimony, that he diligently investigate, both by the public pronouncement of banns and by private investigation, whether perhaps something stands in the way of the matrimony. He prudently questions the spouses themselves concerning impediments, concerning free consent, especially that of the woman, and concerning sufficient doctrine. But where nothing stands in the way, he is forbidden to deny his presence, which is not that of a minister but of an authorizable witness; indeed, for avoiding greater evils, he must sometimes assist at marriages little to be approved. But the spouses themselves, although they confer the sacrament one on the other, are not ministers of the Church. From charity indeed one must impede the sin of the other, but grave inconvenience excuses them so that they can enter a matrimonial covenant with an unworthy person. Therefore no investigation is made concerning the worthy reception itself of the sacrament except for baptism and penance.

— 2. Who are the publicly unworthy who must be repelled? And how long are they to be kept away?

a) Strictly, publicly unworthy is only he whose present sin or unworthiness is already commonly known; less strictly, he who is not yet infamous, but whose iniquity has notoriety of law because of the sentence of a judge or confession of a delict in judgment (c. 2197, 2°), or can no longer be hidden by any subterfuge. Otherwise he is occult. But he asks a sacrament occultly who asks before the minister alone, or before a few others of whom no account is to be taken.

Therefore publicly unworthy are no longer all, in our regions, who are alleged in the Ritual by way of example, money-lenders, blasphemers, etc.; for, at least from presumed confession, their unworthiness regularly has ceased when they ask for the sacraments. Nor, of themselves, are those publicly unworthy who follow the parties of liberals or socialists: for the account of liberalism and socialism is equivocal, and in some good faith can be admitted. But publicly unworthy will almost always be the notoriously excommunicated, interdicted, prostitutes, concubinarians, those exercising a notoriously illicit profession, or an office prohibited by public decree. Such also are those liberals or socialists who glory in the sacraments received, as though in a motive of impenitence and perseverance in error. Code c. 855 calls publicly unworthy "the excommunicated, the interdicted, and the manifestly infamous."

b) Lest what is holy seem to be given to dogs, the Roman Ritual keeps the publicly unworthy from the eucharistic table "unless their penance and amendment are certain, and they have first satisfied for public scandal." Canon 855 repeats this in almost the same words. Therefore those from whom only amendment must be demanded are to be distinguished from those who besides must give public satisfaction or reparation. Public approach to the sacrament of penance of itself suffices for proving amendment. And that approach can easily be presumed. Others must separate from a concubine, leave a brothel, dismiss an office, or repair public scandal. And if it is commonly certain that someone, notwithstanding confession, has often relapsed, generally he will have to be proved for some time before he is admitted to the holy table. But it will belong to the confessor to warn such persons concerning their obligation, lest they expose themselves to repulse.

c) Indeed, in doubt concerning amendment and satisfaction furnished, it is judged that the eucharist should rather be denied to a public sinner of this kind. Thus from St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 48; d'Annibale, III, 262, and Lehmkuhl, II, 56. On the contrary, where a greater evil is to be feared from denial, all the circumstances are to be weighed, and, if there is opportunity, recourse should be had to the local Ordinary. No one fails to see that the greatest prudence is needed today in our regions.

d) In the article of death, it will be enough that the confessor take care, after a faculty has been sought from the sick person insofar as there is need, that the faithful know the dying man has satisfied, as he could, the obligations present. Yet the sick person's own retraction before two witnesses will be preferable. And if a concubine, or an adulterous party, for example one who after merely civil divorce married another, is staying in the very house of the sick person, the eucharist certainly cannot be brought to him openly.

N.B. The stricter indications of the Ritual, which in our regions are outside use, can be very useful in foreign missions, so that missionaries may know what they can opportunely demand, without excess, from neophytes of little cultivation.

What if one asks publicly whose delict is not yet strictly public, or is public in another place but not in the place where he asks for the sacrament?

Because of the scandal of the faithful to be feared, probably the sacrament is not to be denied unless, because of divulgation soon to happen, a greater offense of the people would arise from the sacrament conceded.

— Can the minister because of fear of death give the sacrament to an unworthy person?

By no means, if the sacrament is sought in contempt of religion. With contempt excluded, the matter is disputed. Palmieri, t. 4, n. 689, and d'Annibale, III, 264, permit the conferral, because it is not intrinsically illicit; Lehmkuhl, II, 53, denies it, because the good effect, or the life preserved for the minister, follows not equally immediately, but by means of the profanation of the sacrament. But since the very conferral of the sacrament is not yet its profanation, for the recipient could dispose himself by interior contrition, and since profanation has for its cause not indeed the action of the minister but the disposition of the recipient, Palmieri seems to have resolved the case rightly. Thus also Cappello, I, 71. St. Alphonsus adhered first to the benign opinion, then to the stricter.

— Exclusion of Heretics and Schismatics. Not indeed from the general rule by which sacraments are to be denied to the unworthy, but from the proper account of their separation from the Church, which possesses the sacraments as its own good, "it is forbidden to minister the sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics even erring in good faith, unless first, their errors rejected, they have been reconciled to the Church" (c. 731, §2).

This rule gives place to no exception when there is question of persons in good health. It is indeed circumscribed, with the text itself attended to, to those who have the age at which formal reconciliation is demanded by the Church, that is, who have completed 14 years of age (Holy Office, November 1878 and March 8, 1882, in Coll. de P.F., ed. 1, nn. 660 and 1680; ed. 2, n. 1566). But reverence owed to our sacraments will command that even adolescents of a lesser age be kept away if they are foreseen afterward to be going to adhere to a non-Catholic sect.

Nevertheless the necessity of consulting, in danger of death, the salvation of a soul permits that the sacraments of necessity, strictly or broadly so called, namely penance and extreme unction, be administered to dying non-Catholics, at least conditionally, if they are destitute of the senses, or, if present to their senses, if they seem prudently to be left in good faith. And one destitute of the senses will be helped more certainly by extreme unction than by sacramental absolution, because it does not require acts of the subject as the quasi-matter of the sacrament. Yet scandal or wonder of the people must be guarded against, if extreme unction cannot be ministered sufficiently secretly.

Nor does there stand in the way a particular response of the Holy Office, May 17-20, 1916, and published only in a diocesan periodical, by which it was denied that these sacraments could be conferred on material schismatics constituted in the article of death and in good faith asking either absolution or Extreme Unction, but it was required "that, in the better way in which it can be done, they reject errors and make profession of faith." For that response gives a general rule concerning schismatics alone, with whom one can more easily sin by a certain indifferentism, and who, because of the very petition, seem able rather conveniently to be brought to abjuration of errors; nor does it contemplate the case in which, dangerously for the eternal salvation of the soul, good faith would be disturbed.

— In the administration of the sacraments, the proper vestments to be used are stole and surplice, but not the rochet, which is an insignia of canons and is distinguished from the surplice by lesser breadth and narrow sleeves.

The stole is not to be used except in the confection of sacraments and sacramentals, and in functions for which its use is prescribed by the Roman Ritual. In the act of preaching it is not used except in places where such use is in force.

— Canon 736 also prescribes gratuitous administration of the Sacraments, forbidding that for any cause or occasion, whether directly or indirectly, the minister ask anything for the administration of sacraments except the offerings defined by the provincial Council or by a meeting of the bishops of the province and approved by the Holy See.

Nevertheless offerings admitted by custom seem able to be received. Thus Cappello, I, 96, arguing from c. 463, §1, concerning Pastors, which, because of parity of reason, he extends to others.

— I. Valid administration of the sacraments. 1. Besides power, in the minister there is required and suffices an intention at least virtual, absolute or without a future condition, with matrimony excepted, of doing not only the external rite, but also the sacrament, or at least that which the Church does or which Christ instituted.

From several contrary intentions the prevailing one resolves the matter. Voluntary distraction of the minister does not harm the value, but is a venial sin among the graver ones, especially if there is question of consecration.

2. No faith or probity of the minister is necessary.

3. If an added condition concerns an essential element, it brings in no doubt concerning the value; and it must be added when, notwithstanding the danger of nullity, the spiritual necessity or utility of the recipient counsels administration of the sacrament. Of itself it is enough that the condition be conceived mentally; nevertheless in baptism it must be expressed. But it is never lawful to confect the eucharist with doubtful bread or wine, with the case indicated in n. 184 excepted.

It is generally gravely illicit, because of connected inconveniences, to administer a sacrament under a condition which regards a non-essential element, especially if it is not easily certain. Except matrimony and extreme unction conferred on a sick person concerning whose contumacy in manifest mortal sin there is doubt, because reverence for the sacrament is thus cared for without inconvenience.

4. Conditioned repetition of a sacrament without reasonable doubt concerning the value of the conferred sacrament is objectively gravely illicit because of the joined irreverence; but the more necessary the sacrament is, the more harmful the nullity, the lesser cause permits repetition. But when reasonable doubt stands, the necessity of the recipient or harms to others to be guarded against impose the obligation of repeating the sacrament.

II. Licit administration. - 1. It requires a minister: a) immune from censure. Nevertheless, unless he is one to be avoided or judicially condemned or declared, one excommunicated or suspended can accede to one asking for a sacrament. In danger of death the faithful can ask absolution from any excommunicated person; and, if other ministers are lacking, also the other sacraments and sacramentals; b) immune from irregularity, if there is question of exercising the power of order, unless grave harm excuses; c) immune from mortal sin, and this under grave sin, at least when there is question of the confection and solemn administration of a sacrament, for conferring which the minister has been deputed by the very order received.

2. It forbids under grave sin that, without necessity of the faithful, a sacrament be exposed to danger of nullity: it is an unworthy treatment of the sacrament.

3. It forbids under grave sin simulation of a sacrament, which is had strictly when the form is feignedly uttered over matter of itself apt: it is a sacrilegious lie. Simulation broadly so called, by which, in place of the due form or matter, another thing representing the appearance of them is employed, of itself indeed is illicit in religious matters, even if the deception of another is merely permitted. Nevertheless it is lawful for a grave cause to give consent feignedly in matrimony.

III. Administration is owed from justice, to subjects reasonably asking, by those who from ordinary or delegated jurisdiction are engaged in pastoral office. And those who often show themselves morose and difficult would sin gravely. In common necessity, they are bound with grave inconvenience to themselves; in grave and extreme necessity of their subjects, they must, even with evident danger of life, administer the necessary sacraments, unless they are excused by a prevailing common good.

The obligation of a mediate prelate to minister parochial sacraments is less personal, and regularly is fulfilled through others.

Other ministers are bound according to the laws of charity.

IV. Administration is prudently to be denied to the unworthy, because of religion, charity, and fidelity in the entrusted function of dispensation. Wherefore, where the petition is secret, the sacraments are to be given to the worthy and denied to the unworthy, with sacramental secrecy saved. But where the petition is made publicly, only the publicly unworthy and infamous are to be kept away. For the occult unworthy person, with whose sin the minister merely materially cooperates, cannot be repelled without danger of error and of public offense, which would turn the faithful away from the sacraments.

Is the one asking worthy: this is to be inquired into before baptism and sacramental absolution. Is he fit: this is examined before ordination, just as before matrimony investigation is made lest something stand in the way. For the other sacraments, the baptized person asking is presumed worthy.

Today the publicly unworthy are the notoriously excommunicated, the interdicted, and the manifestly infamous. But they are to be kept away until their penance and amendment are certain, and they have first satisfied for public scandal. In the article of death, the retraction of the sick person before two witnesses is preferable, although it is enough that the faithful know the dying man has satisfied the present obligations as he could.

Heretics and schismatics also are to be repelled, even those erring and asking in good faith (c. 731, §2), except in the necessity of danger of death.

Can the minister because of fear of death give the sacrament to an unworthy person? This is controverted, but seems to be admitted when it is not asked in contempt of religion.

V. Sacraments are to be administered gratuitously, except for offerings duly defined.

VI. The vestments to be used in the administration of sacraments and confection of sacramentals are of themselves stole and surplice.

— Principles. I. For valid reception of a sacrament these three things are commonly required and suffice:

1. radical capacity, which all and only wayfaring men have with respect to baptism; and all baptized by baptism of water have with respect to the remaining sacraments. Nevertheless extreme unction demands dangerous illness, and, like Penance, use of reason by which sins could have been committed; Order demands the male sex; Matrimony demands diversity of sex and habitual use of reason, together with freedom from another bond, and excludes those laboring under perpetual impotence.

2. in adults, reception voluntary at least in this sense, that it is not physically coerced while the interior will resists; and besides, according to the very common opinion, will at least habitual and implicit. For just as an adult is not justified without his own consent, so, without the same consent, he is not initiated and consecrated to God through a sacrament. Yet because one who receives a sacrament, as such, does not act, virtual will which renders the act human is not of itself necessary. But according to the nature of the sacrament, as will be said afterward, habitual expressed will, or even virtual will, must be present.

Yet for little children and those perpetually insane, the intention which the minister has in the name of Christ and of the Church suffices. For these are saved and sanctified without their own consent. Wherefore the defect of consent in them stands in the way only of matrimony, whose essential matter and form are placed in consent itself;

3. the intention of the minister sufficiently determined so that it affects such a person of the recipient.

— What if an adult approaches feignedly or simulatedly to receive a sacrament, that is, if he accepts the external rite voluntarily, while internally he does not will the sacrament?

And it is sufficiently certain that nothing is obtained by that sacrilegious reception of sacraments which do not imprint character; indeed, there is plainly no reception of the sacrament of penance and matrimony, where acts of the recipient enter the essence of the sacrament. The more common opinion also denies that baptism, confirmation, and ordination are valid for him who dissents in heart while by mouth or by the very approach he asks for the sacrament. Nevertheless Cardinal Gasparri holds the opposite opinion as truer: both because Innocent III, c. 3 De baptismo (III, 42), approves those who hold that the character of Christianity is received by one who externally indeed does not resist, though he approaches baptism feignedly; and because one so approaching wills that the minister place upon him the matter and form of the sacrament, with the due intention: but in these the sacrament consists; then the interior will of not receiving the sacrament is elided by the opposite will by which the act of approaching is commanded. Indeed an intention expressly terminated to the external rite alone does not suffice in the minister, who must sanctify instrumentally; but it is not proved necessary in him who must merely receive the sacrament. Cf. Gasparri, De sacra ordinatione, c. 3, s. 2, art. 1.

— II. Corollary and Applications. 1. A sacrament which someone coerced by fear wishes to receive is beyond doubt valid. Except matrimony, at least from the positive disposition of the Church. She also does not wish to impose obligations connected with sacred orders upon a cleric who, coerced by grave fear, received sacred order.

— 2. When there is not question of sacraments which of themselves demand a human act of the recipient, the will which is required in the recipient is rather that of one not opposing than that of one positively consenting. For every action is done by the minister; the effect is obtained ex opere operato, unless the contrary will of the recipient stands in the way of that efficacy.

But practically the sacraments which impose a burden must be distinguished from others by which a benefit is conferred without burden. For the former it is certainly required that there have been a positive will which at least implicitly is terminated to that sacrament. When there is question of ordination, a will once expressed and not retracted alone seems able to contain this positive intention. Wherefore for ordination habitual expressed will is necessary in the adult recipient. Many demand the same for the valid reception of baptism.

Yet there are those who are content with the will, which is had in every contrition or attrition, of doing what is necessary for salvation.

Confirmation, viaticum, and extreme unction bring grace without burden. Wherefore whoever wish to live or die Christianly in no way resist reception of these sacraments. Therefore their implicit habitual will amply suffices, not only that these sacraments be validly, but also that they be licitly bestowed on the sick who are destitute of the senses and are not to be presumed indisposed in soul. For the eucharist one must also beware of danger of exterior irreverence; and, since its necessity is less but its dignity greater, a positive presumption of the good state of the soul seems necessary, so that it may be licitly bestowed on a man who is deprived of the use of reason but seems likely to receive it with exterior decency.

He who is by no means alien from receiving a sacrament does not for that reason have the will of receiving the sacrament at any time, without consciousness of himself, at least when the time is not determined by necessity itself. Wherefore one can at least doubt concerning the value of a sacrament which without necessity is conferred on someone outside the present use of reason. Therefore, outside probable danger of death, one must wait until someone has come out of sleep or temporary insanity; and what we were saying just now about viaticum is not valid concerning the dispensation of the eucharist outside danger of death. Cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 65, note, to whom Ballerini, IV, 701, partly contradicts, and deservedly indeed when implicit habitual intention suffices.

He who takes a host which he does not know to be consecrated generally receives materially only, but not sacramentally and with fruit, the thing which is the sacrament, because sufficient will is generally lacking. Thus St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 80, art. 3 ad 3; d'Annibale, III, 257, note 2.

— 3. Matrimony, which has the character of contract, demands habitual expressed will, or will which, formally conceived, afterward has not been retracted. Indeed virtual consent is required when it is celebrated personally and between parties present.

In Penance, virtual will is needed with respect to the acts of penance; for receiving absolution alone, implicit habitual will suffices. Cappello, De Sacramentis, I, 83 and 85, 4°.

— On the Insane. 1. Those who after use of reason have fallen into insanity are to be treated as adults, whose will or disposition is to be estimated from the time before the use of reason was lost. Except matrimony, which requires the present use of reason.

2. As to those who are perpetually half-witted or doubtfully insane, the probable utilities of the subject are to be composed with reverence for the sacred sign, yet in such a way that in an ambiguous matter this prevail: the sacraments are for men.

Hence it is never lawful to give them Order. Matrimony is not permitted to them, just as to the insane in lucid intervals, except for a grave cause, to be proposed to the Ordinary. The eucharist will not be given to them too frequently; Penance and Extreme Unction will be ministered only conditionally. Finally, the sacraments which certainly are valid in children will be conferred absolutely on those who ask according to their manner; conditionally on others.

The deaf and at the same time mute from birth, if they have been suitably instructed, are capable of all sacraments just like adults. Those who have lacked instruction most probably do not have the expeditious use of reason. Wherefore, according as hope of competent instruction is still had or is lacking, they seem to be treated as children or as perpetually almost insane. Therefore to those themselves who in no way ask for the sacraments, baptism and confirmation are to be administered conditionally; and sometimes absolution itself will be given under condition. To those dying, extreme unction will be conceded conditionally, which will be able to profit them more certainly than penance; and, with danger of irreverence excluded, after conditioned absolution, at least viaticum will be able to be given.

— On Error. In matrimony, error about the person, when someone thinks that he gives fidelity to Titius and only Caius is present, is regarded as substantial. In the others it suffices that the will affect that capable individual, even if perhaps you absolve a woman as a man, or promote willing Sempronius, as absent Gracchus, by sacred order.

— II. That baptism and penance may be received licitly and fruitfully, there is required and of itself suffices, besides the will of receiving the sacrament, the disposition of faith, hope, and attrition: because they are sacraments of the dead. The remaining sacraments, which are called of the living, demand the state of grace.

To approach a sacrament of the living with habitual venial sin is of itself not a sin; to approach with actual affection for venial sin will be a venial sin if the present disorder regards the very reception of the sacrament, as if someone presents himself irreverently; if it does not regard the reception, the circumstances are to be considered. It will be no sin if someone seeks in the sacrament a remedy for putting off the disordered affection; it will be sin if he neglects to put off the affection when he can do this easily enough. Cf. Cappello, De Sacramentis, I, n. 88.

The state of grace is to be procured by confession for the eucharist, not for the other sacraments, from a special precept, at least of ecclesiastical law (c. 856).

In what way extreme unction holds, in some manner, a middle place between the sacraments of the living and of the dead will be said in its proper place.

Acts of faith and hope are sufficiently contained in attrition itself or contrition, so that special solicitude is not to be borne concerning the disposition of faith and hope.

Rather, let the minister know this: whether or not the recipient holds those things which are to be believed by necessity of means and which must be known for receiving this sacrament fruitfully. Nevertheless, by an act of faith or hope, a sin contrary to faith or hope, if any has been committed, will have to be retracted.

— In foreign missions those can create difficulty who, doubtfully adult, are not yet sufficiently instructed and ask baptism. If instruction can be completed without notable inconvenience, baptism itself must be deferred. But if delay is subject to serious inconvenience, if, for example, administration by Protestant heretics is to be feared, those seem able to be baptized who, with parents or circumstances attended to, give hope of greater instruction in the Catholic religion, provided they ask according to their measure. Otherwise baptism will have to be deferred, yet in such a way that the salvation of the soul is always employed as the supreme rule.

— On Reviviscence. With the obstacle removed, baptism certainly revives and confers first grace. The same, with divine goodness and the very nature of the sacraments attended to, is commonly admitted concerning the other sacraments which imprint character; and also concerning matrimony and extreme unction, which cannot be repeated in the same marriage or danger. Concerning penance itself, most rather deny that the sacrament can be validly and at the same time fruitlessly received; we shall hold the contrary side. But they commonly deny that the most holy eucharist revives, since it can be repeated frequently, unless perhaps you remove the obstacle before the species have already been consumed.

Nor then, as R. P. Cappello observes, op. c., n. 14, is there properly question of reviviscence, since the sacrament of the most holy eucharist is the very permanent body of Christ under the species. Therefore the question ought to have been posed thus: can the application of the sacrament which previously was fruitless, indeed gravely culpable, be converted into fruitful by a better disposition of the subject for as long as the eucharistic species remain? Cardinal Billot affirms this, consequently to his chosen opinion by which, in the sacrament of the eucharist, he considers the presence of the body of Christ as reality and sacrament and therefore as title of grace to be received (De sacramentis in communi, Thesis 6, p. 107). But those who hold that grace is conferred not insofar as Christ is present in us, but insofar as he is eaten, will deny the same, unless they think that eating is not completed by the very taking within, but perseveres until the species are corrupted.

But the obstacle is removed when that disposition is procured which would have had to be had for receiving the sacrament fruitfully. But if the reception was sacrilegious, or after the sacrament received a mortal sin was committed, these will have to be blotted out before there can be place for reviviscence.

— The required disposition must be morally certain to the recipient himself, lest he expose the sacrament to danger of frustration and thus derogate from due reverence. Wherefore in doubt which cannot be solved by presumption, greater certitude of itself will have to be procured or awaited. Yet you are excused by a prevailing necessity, because sacraments are for men, nor is supreme reverence owed to them as such, though otherwise one must speak of the eucharist insofar as it contains Christ. Therefore moral certitude is not to be taken in such a way that reception becomes subject to scruples and anxieties; but it is judged to be had when a solid reason for affirming is attacked by no positive reason to the contrary.

Yet there are those who are content with probable disposition in the recipient and prohibit only the minister from using a merely probable opinion. Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 1, n. 51.

If there is danger in delay, the sacraments by which provision is made for the necessity of a dying person will have to be bestowed by the minister himself, while at the same time guarding against scandal and offense of the faithful. If the doubt affects the value, or there is question of extreme unction, administration will be done conditionally. And today, at least in places where many are not baptized, baptism itself seems first to be administered conditionally to an unknown man who is in danger of death and destitute of the senses.

— Licit reception of a sacrament also supposes immunity from a prohibiting censure. Excommunication prohibits reception (cc. 855, §1; 2260, §1), and, as to certain sacraments, interdict. Cf. on censures.

Literature. On this extensive matter very many authors, both ancient and modern, have written, of whom we cite only a few, but the principal ones, namely: St. Thomas, S. theol. 3, q. 60-65; St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 1-94; Drouven, O.Pr., who learnedly composed two large volumes on sacramental matters (2nd ed., Venice 1756); Christian Pesch, Praelectiones dogmaticae, vol. VI; August Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. (12th ed.), n. 3-43; Gihr, Die heiligen Sakramente der kath. Kirche (2nd ed.), I, 1-178; Schanz, Die Lehre von den Sakramenten der kath. Kirche (1893); Pourrat, La théologie sacramentaire (4th ed.), Paris 1910.

We divide the treatise on the sacraments in general into six chapters: 1. on the essence and existence of the sacraments; 2. on the number and division of the sacraments; 3. on the efficacy and effects of the sacraments; 4. on the institutor of the sacraments; 5. on the minister of the sacraments; 6. on the subject of the sacraments. At the end of the treatise, by way of an appendix, we shall treat the sacramentals.

One must treat: 1. of the Nature; 2. of the Minister; 3. of the Subject of the Sacraments; 4. of Sacramentals.¹

So that the nature of the Sacraments may become known, 1. certain things must be premised concerning their notion and distinction, whether numerical or specific; 2. their efficacy, or power, must be inquired into; 3. their constitution must be weighed, which is placed in matter and form.

1390. DEFINITION. A Sacrament of the New Law is a sensible sign of invisible grace, for sanctifying the people of God, permanently instituted by Christ.²

It is said: 1. a sensible sign, that is, one which denotes internal grace and can be perceived by an external sense. For thus the means of salvation are adapted to the nature of man, who, in operating, is subject to the senses, and at the same time they become the foundations of divine worship and of Christian society. 2. Of invisible grace, which the Sacrament produces ex opere operato, that is, by force of the divine institution, independently of the work of the one operating, namely of the minister conferring and of the subject receiving, provided the subject is rightly disposed. 3. Instituted by Christ, in distinction both from the Sacraments of the old Law and from the Sacramentals of the Church, which have not been instituted by Christ. There is added: permanently, or stably; for as long as the Christian religion shall remain, so long also will the Sacraments remain.³

"Therefore three things are required for constituting a Sacrament: 1. an external sign; 2. a promise of grace; 3. the institution of Christ, since all the Sacraments have their power from the passion of Christ the Lord."⁴ See the Dogmatic theologians.

1391. NUMERICAL DISTINCTION. "It is of faith that there are seven Sacraments of the New Law, neither more nor fewer," as the Council of Trent defined, sess. 7, can. 1.

The Council of Florence, in the Decree to the Armenians, thus demonstrates the fittingness of this sevenfold number: "For spiritual life, just as bodily life, needs seven things: 1. That the faithful be generated, and this Baptism furnishes; 2. that they be increased and strengthened, and this Confirmation gives; 3. that they be nourished, and this the Eucharist furnishes; 4. that they be healed, and this Penance bestows; 5. that the remains of sins be taken away and the powers of the soul be refreshed, and for this there is Extreme Unction; 6. that ministers of the Church be formed, and this Sacred Ordination furnishes; 7. that children be begotten and religiously educated for the worship of God and the conservation of the human race, and this Matrimony gives."⁵

1392. SPECIFIC DISTINCTION. The Sacraments, according to their various properties, are distinguished:⁶

1. Into Sacraments of the dead, that is, Baptism and Penance, which of themselves are conferred upon the spiritually dead, that is, those lacking grace, and produce first grace; and of the living, which of themselves are not administered except to those having first grace, and work an increase of grace in them.

2. Into repeatable Sacraments, as the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Matrimony; and unrepeatable, as Baptism, Confirmation, and Order, on account of the character which they impress indelibly.

3. Into a permanent Sacrament, as is the Eucharist, which consists in a permanent thing; and transient Sacraments, as are all the others, "because they are Sacraments only when they are made and applied."⁷

4. Into Sacraments necessary by necessity of means for salvation, as are, for all, at least in implicit desire, Baptism, and more probably also the Eucharist, as will be explained in its own place (n. 1563); likewise, for those fallen into mortal sin, Penance; and necessary by necessity of precept, such as are Confirmation and Extreme Unction, according to the more probable opinion, altogether to be urged. Order and Matrimony are not necessary for private persons, but for the community.

5. Sacraments are called formed, when in the one receiving they really produce grace; unformed, when indeed they are valid in themselves, but in the one receiving, on account of the obstacle which he places, they do not produce the ultimate form of the Sacrament, that is, grace.⁸

1393. Note. In the old Law there were true Sacraments, as the Council of Trent openly implies when it hands down that the Sacraments of the New Law differ from the Sacraments of the Old Law. Such was the tree of life in the state of innocence; the sacrifice of Melchisedech and circumcision in the state of the law of nature; the paschal lamb, various purifications, and consecrations of priests in the Mosaic law. Yet these Sacraments, and even circumcision itself (as the more probable opinion teaches), did not confer grace by a power proper to themselves, that is, ex opere operato, but ex opere operantis, that is, from the merit of acts of faith, religion, penance, etc., which those ministering or receiving elicited. But for blotting out original sin there sufficed, more probably, faith in Christ to come, manifested by some exterior sign, especially through circumcision.⁹

1394. There are two EFFECTS of the Sacraments: one common to all, namely grace; the other proper only to some, namely character.

A twofold grace is conferred through the Sacraments: sanctifying grace and sacramental grace.

1395. Principles. I. All the Sacraments confer SANCTIFYING GRACE, which renders man a friend of God (see the Dogmatic theologians).¹⁰

This grace is FIRST or SECOND, namely: the Sacraments of the dead, Baptism and Penance, of themselves and primarily confer first grace, by which namely the sinner is justified; the other Sacraments, which are called of the living, confer of themselves and primarily second grace, that is, an increase of pre-existing grace.

We said of themselves and primarily. For: 1. The Sacraments OF THE DEAD sometimes and accidentally confer second grace, when namely they find grace already existing in the soul; otherwise they would be sterile, which assuredly would be said absurdly and impiously. 2. The Sacraments OF THE LIVING, according to the common opinion, can likewise confer first grace, when namely someone in the state of lethal sin receives the Sacrament with good faith and at the same time with attrition. That this must be said of the Most Holy Eucharist seems to be concluded from the words of Trent (sess. 13, can. 5), defining: "If anyone shall say that the principal fruit of the Most Holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, let him be anathema." St. Thomas hands down this very thing,¹¹ not only concerning the Eucharist, but also concerning Extreme Unction; and theologians commonly agree with the Angelic Doctor, who affirm the same concerning the other Sacraments of the living. But the reason for the affirmation is that in Trent (sess. 7, can. 6) it is read: "If anyone shall say that the Sacraments of the New Law ... do not confer grace on those placing no obstacle ... let him be anathema"; now indeed, "he who approaches a Sacrament of the living with attrition, which excludes affection for sin, both actual and habitual, already places no obstacle"; therefore.¹²

Note. It can happen in many ways that one guilty of mortal sin receives a Sacrament of the living in good faith, namely: 1. if he invincibly does not know that he is in the state of sin; 2. if he invincibly thinks himself perfectly contrite, or rightly absolved, when he is not; 3. if he invincibly does not know that the state of grace is required for the reception of a Sacrament, etc. (cf. n. 1547).

1396. II. "The Sacraments also confer SACRAMENTAL GRACE, namely helps for obtaining the end for which each Sacrament is instituted."¹³ See again the Dogmatic theologians.

In particular: 1. BAPTISM supplies to a man not placing an obstacle a special help, so that he may be able to conquer concupiscence, despise the enticements of the world, and perform Christian works. 2. CONFIRMATION, so that, when occasion is given, he may profess and defend the faith fearlessly. 3. The EUCHARIST, so that he may remain in the love of Christ and in union with God, by advancing in it from day to day. 4. PENANCE, so that he may detest more perfectly the crimes committed, avoid occasions of sins, persevere in grace, and be able to expiate past faults. 5. EXTREME UNCTION, so that he may be purged from the remains of sin, be relieved in illness, and more easily resist the snares of the demon. 6. ORDER confers on sacred ministers helps by which they may worthily carry out ecclesiastical offices. 7. MATRIMONY bestows powers upon spouses for restraining inordinate concupiscence, for preserving conjugal fidelity, for piously educating offspring, and for constantly fulfilling all the obligations of the conjugal state.¹⁴

1397. Questions. Q. 1. Whether Sacraments received FEIGNEDLY, or WITH AN OBSTACLE, revive when that obstacle has been removed?

Preliminary notes. 1. When a Sacrament is indeed valid, but unformed, it is said to be received FEIGNEDLY, because the one receiving in a certain way feigns that he is disposed for the fruit of the Sacrament, when he is not. 2. This feigning is called an OBSTACLE to grace, and is either material, when namely the omission of the required disposition is inculpable, on account of ignorance, forgetfulness, etc.; or formal, when the omission is culpable, so that it contains the malice of sacrilege.

Resp. 1. The Sacrament of BAPTISM, received with feigning, whether material or formal, when the obstacle has been removed through a subsequent disposition, revives. Thus commonly the authors (except Scotus and a few others) from St. Augustine and St. Thomas.¹⁵ "The reason is that sin before Baptism, or consummated in the very reception of Baptism, is not subject to the keys of the Church; whence it must necessarily be remitted through the power of Baptism alone, which, when the obstacle has been removed, has the effect previously suspended by reason of the feigning."¹⁶

2. Many probably teach the same concerning CONFIRMATION, ORDER, EXTREME UNCTION, and MATRIMONY. The reason is that Confirmation and Order absolutely, Extreme Unction in the same danger of death, and Matrimony while the same spouse is living, cannot be repeated; nevertheless it seems consonant with divine goodness that such recipients should not remain forever deprived of the sacramental grace which they need.

3. The Sacrament of PENANCE does not revive when the feigning is formal, and the reason is that then the Sacrament is invalid. But whether it revives when the feigning is only material depends on the question whether this Sacrament can be valid and at the same time unformed. Some indeed deny it, because the dispositions of the recipient required for the liceity of the Sacrament are at the same time the matter of the Sacrament required for its validity; but others commonly and more truly affirm it, for the case namely in which someone places some material obstacle; if, for example, having two mortal sins, one of theft and the other of sacrilege, he in no way thinks of the sacrilege, nor confesses it, nor grieves over it, not even implicitly, and receives absolution for the theft alone, having conceived attrition from the supernatural turpitude of that sin. For in this case, the Sacrament, in which all the essential parts are found (that is, attrition and sincere confession with absolution), cannot, on the one hand, be called invalid; but on the other hand, it is not informed by grace, because the sin stands in the way, concerning which he neither accuses himself nor grieves. Whence that confession, since it is valid, is not to be repeated, and therefore the Sacrament received with a material obstacle, when this has finally been removed, revives. Thus Suarez, Lugo with St. Thomas¹⁷ and others.

4. The EUCHARIST, as is commonly taught, whether the feigning is material or formal, does not revive, unless the obstacle is removed before the sacred species are consumed. It does not revive if the feigning was formal; "otherwise this absurdity would follow, that a priest who several times in his life had celebrated sacrilegiously, if at death he confessed with remiss attrition, would receive the whole heap of graces of so many sacrilegious Communions; indeed, the more often he had celebrated unworthily, the more abundantly he would be enriched with graces."¹⁸ Nor, more probably, does it revive if the feigning was only material, because, since this Sacrament from its institution can be frequently repeated, there was no need that a broader efficacy be attributed to it.

Q. 2. How must the OBSTACLE be removed, so that the Sacrament may revive?

Resp. In order that Sacraments validly, but feignedly, received may revive, more probably there is required and suffices the same disposition which was required and sufficient in the reception itself for obtaining grace. Hence: 1. The Sacraments of the dead, namely Baptism and Penance (received with a material obstacle), revive through universal attrition. 2. The Sacraments of the living, that is, Confirmation, Extreme Unction, Order, Matrimony, and, while the sacred species have not yet been consumed, the Eucharist, likewise revive through attrition, if they were received with a material obstacle; for in such a case, even these Sacraments accidentally produce grace in one attrite. Otherwise, if they were received with a formal obstacle, because otherwise they do not seem able to revive except through the Sacrament of Penance received, either in reality with attrition, or in desire with perfect contrition.¹

1398. "Character is a certain spiritual, indelible seal, impressed on the soul of one receiving a Sacrament. It is impressed only in Baptism, Confirmation, and Order; and it signifies the power or dignity received from Sacraments of this kind."²

It is fitting, according to the Angelic Doctor,³ that Sacraments through which a man is constituted in some state which of itself is perpetual should impress a character, by which man is deputed to that state; but through these three Sacraments alone man is constituted in some new state which of itself is perpetual, namely through Baptism he is enrolled forever in the family of Christ, through CONFIRMATION in the army of Christ, through ORDER in the ministry of Christ. Thus there are only three Sacraments which, even if received illicitly, impress a character. Hence: "1. In Baptism character is the sign of the sheep of Christ, by which the faithful are made fit for receiving the other Sacraments. 2. In Confirmation it is the sign of the soldiers of Christ, by which they receive strength for constantly professing the Faith. 3. In Order it is the sign of the ministers of Christ, by which they acquire power for ministering the Sacraments to the faithful."⁴

1399. "All the Sacraments are perfected by three things, namely by things as matter, by words as form, and by the person of the minister conferring the Sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does." Thus Eugene IV, to the Armenians. We shall treat of the MINISTER in chapter II.

DEFINITIONS. Generally, that has the notion of matter which is determinable and perfectible through another; but that has the notion of form which is determinative and perfective of another.⁵ Hence in the Sacraments:

1. MATTER is a sensible thing, to be determined to the notion of a Sacrament through the form. It is twofold: remote, or the pre-existing sensible thing which is employed in the Sacrament, or about which the sacramental action is exercised; and proximate, which is the very application or use of the remote matter in the sacramental action. Thus in Baptism water is the remote matter, ablution the proximate matter.

2. FORM is the part of the Sacrament which determines the matter to producing the sacramental effect; and it consists in words uttered by the minister, or, for the Sacrament of Matrimony, and this alone, in signs which can hold the place of words.⁶

1400. Principles. I. Each Sacrament has its OWN matter and form, divinely instituted. It is certain that Christ determined in species the matter and form of Baptism and the Eucharist, as is clear from the Scriptures. As regards the other Sacraments, the same is not altogether certain. For some, with St. Bonaventure, probably think that the Lord constituted the matter and form of several Sacraments, for example Confirmation and Order, only in a general way, by committing to his Apostles the care of determining those signs more particularly when occasion should be given. Yet others, with St. Thomas, more commonly and more probably affirm that all matters, and also forms as to substance, were determined in species by Christ; and consequently that the diversity of sacramental rites which exists between Latins and Greeks, or between the ancient and present Church, does not pertain to the essence of the things.⁷

Hence you will deduce: 1. Christ the Lord must be called the immediate author of the Sacraments, because, even in the former opinion, he distinguished all the Sacraments singly. 2. The Church, in the dispensation of the Sacraments, can establish or change those things which she judges to be more expedient for the utility of those receiving or for the veneration of the Sacraments themselves, yet with their substance preserved, as Trent has it, sess. 21, cap. 2.

1401. II. For making a Sacrament, certain matter and form must be applied TOGETHER by the same minister, with every essential VARIATION excluded. But that, from the institution of Christ, conjunction, invariability, and certitude of matter and form are required will be clear from what is to be said; for each must be treated singly.

1402. So that a Sacrament may be validly made, two RULES must be observed:

Rule 1. Matter and form must be UNITED or applied by the same minister and toward the same subject.⁸ The reason is that, if one should place the matter and another the form, the words of the form would not be verified; for example, if Titius should say: "I baptize thee," while Caius pours the water, Titius would utter something false, as is plain.

Rule 2. Between matter and form there must be such a CONJUNCTION that, according to the moral estimation of men, with the nature of each Sacrament considered, the one affects the other; or, in other words, the conjunction must be such that, according to human usage, the words are judged to fall upon such a thing and to constitute with it one moral sign. Otherwise the words of the form would not express the truth.

We said with the nature of each Sacrament considered; for according to the diversity of the Sacraments, the conjunction, or simultaneity, must be diverse.

Whence: 1. In the EUCHARIST physical conjunction is required, since the demonstrative pronoun This and This cannot be verified unless the matter is present. 2. In BAPTISM,⁹ CONFIRMATION, EXTREME UNCTION, and ORDER it suffices for validity that the matter be applied immediately before the form is pronounced, or immediately after it has been uttered. But a delay of one Our Father between the two would invalidate the Sacrament. Whence, in practice, the opinion of Cajetan, as safer, is to be advised; he requires that the form be begun before the application of the matter is completed, or conversely. 3. In PENANCE, which follows the nature of a judgment, a longer delay of time, for example of one hour, can intervene between accusation and absolution. 4. Finally, in MATRIMONY, the same interval is admitted as in contracts, namely it suffices that the consent of one be placed while the consent of the other perseveres.¹⁰

1403. Preliminary note. In the matter and form of the Sacraments there can occur a twofold variation or change, namely substantial and accidental. "A substantial change of matter is said to occur when, according to the common use and estimation of men, it differs, in name and in reality, from that which Christ prescribed. An accidental one is said to occur when it retains the same use and name with it. A change of form is essential when the same sense does not remain; accidental, when it remains."¹¹

1404. Principles. I. A SUBSTANTIAL change in matter or in form, whether it is made on purpose and deliberately, or from error or inadvertence, always prevents the validity of the Sacrament. The reason is that through such a change the rite instituted by Christ is taken away (cf. n. 1400).

1405. II. An ACCIDENTAL change does not prevent the validity of the Sacrament; but, according to the gravity or smallness of the change, it induces grave or light sin. The reason for the first is that an accidental change does not take away the institution of Christ. The reason for the second is that it takes away the rite prescribed by the Church: either under grave obligation, for example when she commands that consecrated water be employed in solemn Baptism; or under light obligation, for example when she orders that even the least interruption in pronouncing the words of the form be avoided.¹²

Matter is changed substantially in many ways, the principal of which we shall enumerate in their proper places.

1406. Form can be changed especially in six MODES, as is indicated by these little verses:

Take nothing from the form, add nothing, vary nothing; Beware to transpose, to corrupt words, to delay.

1. By OMISSION: a change of this kind is substantial if essential syllables or words are omitted, for example the word Thee in the conferral of Baptism; but it is only accidental if non-essential words are omitted, for example I, in the same conferral of Baptism.

2. By ADDITION: this is substantial if it takes away the truth of the Sacrament, for example if you say: I baptize thee in the name of the greater Father, of the lesser Son, etc.; accidental, if it does not remove the due sense, for example if you say: In the name of the Father, who created thee, etc.

3. By VARIATION of words: this can be substantial or accidental according as the explicit sense of the form is taken away, for example if you say: In the name of the Most Holy Trinity; or is retained, for example, I wash thee.

4. By TRANSPOSITION; this ordinarily is only accidental, as: Thee I baptize.

5. By CORRUPTION of words, namely from a change of letters. Such a change is more easily substantial at the beginning than at the end of words, because the sense is more easily changed for those hearing, for example if one says: in the name of the mother instead of of the Father; than if one says: chalis instead of chalice.

6. By INTERRUPTION, by which the unity of the speech can be taken away, as if, after having said, This is, you recite a psalm or delay much; but not if, after having said, I thee, you cough, or impose silence on children, and then immediately conclude baptize, etc.

1407. Preliminary note. Doubt concerning the matter or form of the Sacraments can be of law or of fact. The first is when it is doubted whether such matter, for example water extracted from flowers in Baptism, or such a form, was instituted by Christ as valid. The other is when it is doubted whether the matter or form to be employed, or already employed, is that which Christ instituted: for example, whether this liquid is water; whether the form was duly uttered.

RULES. In every doubt, whether of law or of fact, concerning matter and form, or generally concerning the VALIDITY of the Sacraments, three rules must be observed: The first is: If there is possibility, let the safest way be chosen, that is, the safer or morally certain opinion. The second: If there is no possibility, let the way be chosen which is nearest to the safest, that is, when certain matter is lacking, let doubtful or probable matter be employed, but under a conditioned form, so that counsel may be taken both for the necessity or grave utility of the recipient, and for the reverence due to the Sacrament. The third: When the impossibility ceases, what the impossibility prohibited must cautiously be supplied.¹³ The first and second rule have already been weighed in the Treatise on Conscience (n. 82). Finally, concerning the third, here:

1408. IT IS ASKED. Whether and when a Sacrament not rightly made can or must be REPEATED?

Resp. 1. If it is prudently doubted whether one of the three unrepeatable Sacraments has been validly conferred, it must again be conferred under condition: Baptism indeed, on account of the greatest necessity of this Sacrament; Order, lest it happen that the Sacraments be invalidly administered; Confirmation, lest the soldier of Christ lack strength for constantly holding and professing the faith. The reason is that, on the one hand, in doubt concerning the validity of a Sacrament, the opinion favoring souls is to be preferred; but on the other hand, no irreverence is inflicted upon the Sacrament when it is conferred under condition from a reasonable cause.

Resp. 2. If there is prudent doubt concerning the validity of a repeatable Sacrament, it CAN be conferred again under condition when notable utility of neighbor is present; but it MUST be, when the Sacrament is necessary. The reason is the same as above.

Resp. 3. To repeat, on account of an empty doubt, a Sacrament, although under condition, is of itself a grave sin. The reason is that a rash repetition of a sacramental action is grave irreverence. Nevertheless, by accident the scrupulous are excused, on account of perplexity. And he seems to sin only venially who repeats a word or syllable in the utterance of the form.

Note. When doubtful Baptism is conferred publicly, the condition must be expressed in words (as the Ritual wills), lest those standing by believe that Baptism is being repeated absolutely against the law of the Church. Indeed, it will be safer (or at least more becoming) to express the condition in words whenever any Sacrament whatever is ministered under condition, whether publicly or privately.¹

1409. DEFINITION. The minister of the Sacraments is called the one who, in the name of Christ, whose mandatary he is, completes the sacramental action.

DIVISION. One minister is ordinary, who, according to the customary order constituted by Christ and by the Church, can make the Sacrament. Another is extraordinary, who, outside this order, makes some Sacraments, but on account of a peculiar privilege, delegation, or necessity. Thus in Baptism the ordinary minister is a priest; the extraordinary minister, in a case of necessity, is any man whatever (cf. n. 1411).

These things having been noted beforehand, we shall treat of those things which are required in the minister, 1. that he operate validly, 2. that he operate licitly.

1410. Principles. I. For the valid making or administration of the Sacraments there is not required in the minister either the STATE OF GRACE, or PROBITY OF LIFE, indeed not even FAITH itself. This is established from Trent, sess. 7, can. 11 and 12; and the reason is that the Sacraments operate not from the disposition of the minister, but through divine power, according to the institution and merits of Christ.² But indeed:

1411. II. There is required in the minister POWER divinely granted. The reason is that God alone can join grace to the acts of the minister. But certain Sacraments can be conferred by Bishops alone, either exclusively, as Order, or by ordinary faculty, as Confirmation. Others fall equally under the power of Bishops and simple priests, yet with suitable subordination, as the Eucharist, Penance, and Extreme Unction. Finally others do not require for themselves a specially consecrated or deputed minister, as Baptism, which can validly be conferred by every man; and Matrimony, whose ministers are the contracting parties themselves.³

1412. III. There is required in the minister at least an INTENTION, or will of doing what the Church does; but a VIRTUAL intention suffices. The reason why some intention is required is that the matter and form of the Sacraments are of themselves indifferent to the being of a Sacrament, since they can be ordered to a joke or to another end; therefore they must be determined through intention.⁴ Now, to denote the object and quality of the intention:

It is said 1. There is required at least the intention of doing what the Church does; this is clear from the Decree of the Council of Florence, where it is said that the Sacraments are made "with the intention of doing what the Church does." Nicholas I declared the same, who responded that Baptism conferred by a Jew or pagan is valid, "if it was conferred with true matter and form; for such a Baptism is valid, on account of the general intention of doing what the Jew or pagan has heard is done by Christians or by the Church of Christ."⁵

From this you will deduce: 1. That for the validity of a Sacrament there is not required an explicit intention of making a Sacrament; or of performing an external rite as formally and absolutely sacred; or of producing the effect of the Sacrament: for these are held implicitly in the intention of doing what the Church does. 2. That a mimicking intention, or another by which the intention of doing a sacred thing would be excluded, does not suffice, as is drawn from the condemnation of Luther;⁶ nor does an intention, even a serious one, of placing an external act suffice; for that act could be directed to other ends, for example to exciting faith, as heretics will; whence the opinion of Catharinus, teaching that an external intention suffices, is scarcely probable (and therefore in no way safe), although concerning this opinion no express definition of the Apostolic See has come forth.⁷ 3. The authors add that there is not required the intention of doing what the Roman Church does, but that the intention of doing what the true Church instituted by Christ does suffices. Whence those rightly baptized by heretics, who deny that the Roman Church is the true Church, are not to be rebaptized.⁸

1413. It is said 2. A VIRTUAL intention suffices (cf. n. 272, 6). For it is certain that an actual intention is not required; although this is excellent, and therefore greatly to be desired, nevertheless it is not always possible to man, "because, besides the intention," as St. Thomas writes,⁹ "when a man wishes to intend much, he begins to think other things." It is likewise certain that a habitual intention does not suffice (namely one which someone had at some time and has not revoked, and which endures in no effect); because an intention of this kind does not make the action elicited in a human manner, as is required in the minister, from whom the Sacraments proceed as from an operating cause. Much less sufficient will be the intention which is called interpretative, when someone, for example sleeping or drunk, has no actual intention and never had one, but would have it if he noticed. Therefore a VIRTUAL intention is required and suffices, namely that by which someone, although here and now he does not intend to make a Sacrament, nevertheless acts by force of an actual intention previously had; as if someone, for example, having had in the morning the intention of celebrating Mass, afterwards goes to the church, clothes himself with sacred vestments, etc. For, led by such an intention, the minister operates in a truly human manner, since the intention is the true cause of the act which he places. Thus all.¹⁰

Hence you will deduce: 1. A minister who in the usual manner placed the actions required for a Sacrament, provided he did not exclude the intention, afterwards doubts concerning the same only imprudently; because at least he willed to do what otherwise is usually done by himself or by others, and thus he had the intention in act exercised. 2. Even a coerced intention and one extorted by fear suffices for the validity of the Sacrament, because fear does not take away the voluntary. Matrimony is excepted, from which force and fear must be absent, at least from the definition of the Church. 3. The Sacrament is valid even if the minister perhaps erred concerning the person of the recipient, unless his intention was bound exclusively to some determinate person, which is wont to happen only in Matrimony.

1414. Questions. Q. 1. Whether a Sacrament conferred with a CONDITIONED intention is valid?

Resp. Affirmatively, if the condition is appended concerning a present or past thing; for, since the added condition has already been verified, the conditional intention passes into an absolute one. Nor does an appended condition of this kind prevent the validity of the Sacrament, nor even its liceity, if namely it is appended on account of a just cause, as we shall say in its own place (n. 1663, q. 5).

But the Sacrament is not valid if the condition concerns the future; because no Sacrament is perfected unless the form is applied to present matter. Matrimony is excepted, which, after the likeness of other contracts, can be celebrated under a condition concerning the future; for then the Sacrament is perfected when, the condition having been fulfilled, the contract is perfected.¹¹

Similarly, a Sacrament is not valid if a condition is appended which cannot be known humanly, for example, "I absolve thee, if God truly foreknows that it will be that thou restore." The reason is that, since God has committed the administration of the Sacraments to the knowledge and will of men, a condition cannot be appended which is impassable to human knowledge.¹² Recall what was said, n. 1408, Note.

Q. 2. What if the minister has two contrary intentions?

Resp. 1. If those two contrary intentions are simultaneous, the predominant one prevails, namely that which would be chosen by the minister if he knew that both could not stand together; but if neither is predominant, the minister effects nothing, for the one destroys the other. 2. If one intention succeeds another, the later one prevails. Except if through the former any subsequent will whatever was revoked, at least virtually; for then the prior will, provided it is not expressly revoked, certainly prevails. If doubt perseveres, the validity of the Sacrament will be doubtful. These things can happen especially in the Eucharist and in Matrimony.¹³

Q. 3. Whether, besides intention, ATTENTION also is required in one making a Sacrament?

Resp. Certainly attention is required for LICEITY, as will be seen below.¹⁴ But the opinion of Lacroix, who affirms that attention is necessary for the VALIDITY of a Sacrament, seems improbable. For all authors say that for the validity of a Sacrament, nothing else is required, besides matter and form, than the intention of the minister, as was defined by the Councils. Nor does it prevent this to say that an action which happens without attention is not human; for although a man, about to operate in a human manner, must attend to the end of the work which he intends to perfect, nevertheless it is not required that he actually attend to the work which he executes. Hence Suarez excellently teaches that a minister, although distracted, truly makes the Sacrament; because, as he says, his action is simply human and free, and proceeds from a prior intention.¹⁵

Besides those things which are necessary for validity, three things are required on the part of the minister, namely that 1. he be worthy and fit; 2. that he act worthily and rightly; 3. that he confer the Sacraments on the worthy.

1415. Principles. I. In order that the minister of the Sacraments be worthy and fit, there is required first that the CHURCH in some way have DEPUTED him. The reason is that the making and administration of the Sacraments is part of the sacred ministry, which Christ committed to his Church.

But one is deputed either generally or specially: generally indeed for private Baptism in a case of necessity, and for Matrimony; specially, however, for the other Sacraments; for these cannot validly be made except by a consecrated or ordained minister, nor licitly administered (indeed, if Penance is in question, not even validly), unless by a minister endowed with some jurisdiction, at least delegated.

1416. II. For the licit making and administration of the Sacraments there is required that the minister (at least if he is consecrated and ministers solemnly) be IN THE STATE OF GRACE. The reason is that holy things are to be treated holily, and because the minister must be conformed to Christ, whose person he bears and in whose name he operates.¹⁶ "Wherefore" (thus the Roman Ritual) "he will perpetually take care of this, that he conduct life integrally, chastely, and piously; for, although the Sacraments cannot be defiled by the impure, nor the effect impeded by wicked ministers, nevertheless those ministering them impurely and unworthily incur the guilt of eternal death" (cf. n. 583).

1417. From these things it follows: 1. Pastors and other priests upon whom from office it is incumbent to minister the Sacraments are bound always to have themselves prepared for ministering the Sacraments in the state of grace. But if someone, existing in mortal sin, must minister them, he is first bound to elicit an act of perfect contrition; but he is held by no law to confess, except before Communion or the celebration of Mass, according to the Decree of Trent, sess. 13, cap. 7.¹⁷ "But if he has an abundance of a Confessor, and the account of time and place allows, it is fitting to confess." Thus the Roman Ritual (cf. n. 1547).

2. One celebrating Mass in mortal sin commits four mortal sins, because he unworthily consecrates, unworthily ministers, ministers to himself unworthy, and unworthily receives.¹⁸ Yet he sufficiently expresses these in confession if he says: "I celebrated in mortal sin."

3. A priest (or Deacon) ministering the Eucharist in mortal sin sins mortally, because he unworthily places an act by which he proximately concurs toward the sanctification of those communicating. Thus one must hold with Suarez and many against Lugo and others. Yet he does not commit several sins if he distributes Communion to several, because it is one banquet.¹⁹

4. A Confessor commits as many sins as the persons whom he absolves while constituted in mortal sin; because each absolution is a complete judgment. But if he only hears confession, more probably he does not sin gravely, because he does not make the Sacrament.²⁰

NB. See other things n. 1439, on the unworthy MINISTER.

1418. Questions. Q. 1. Whether one sins gravely who, necessity compelling, ministers a Sacrament in mortal sin if he HAS NOT BEEN ORDAINED to it; or, if he has been ordained, ministers it NOT SOLEMNLY?²¹

Resp. The first opinion denies this with St. Thomas; because he does not exhibit himself as a minister of the Church, but aids one suffering necessity. This opinion is indeed probable; but the second opinion, affirming, considered according to reason, seems more probable. The reason is that the obligation of ministering in the state of grace is not derived only from the consecration of the minister, but also from the sanctity of the Sacraments themselves, which must always be handled holily; and indeed under grave obligation, in a grave matter. Moreover, although a minister who is not consecrated does not act in the name of the Church, nevertheless he acts in the name of Christ, cooperating immediately with Him for the sanctification of the soul; whence whoever exercises such an office ought to be endowed with sanctity.¹

Hence, more probably, speaking per se, the following sin gravely: 1. a layman, or a priest, ministering Baptism non-solemnly in a case of necessity, if he ministers in mortal sin; 2. one contracting Matrimony in mortal sin; and since such a person at the same time receives and ministers the Sacrament, he stains himself with a twofold sin.² We have said, speaking per se; for, per accidens, a minister, whether consecrated or not consecrated, is excused if he ministers in mortal sin the Sacrament of Baptism or Penance in necessity, for example if he could not be contrite so quickly, and there were danger that the dying person would depart without Baptism or absolution, as is commonly taught.³

Q. 2. Whether a minister sins gravely who, in mortal sin, exercises other SACRED FUNCTIONS which are not the making or administration of the Sacraments?

Resp. Some affirm with St. Thomas, who says that all who exercise, from office, the functions of the Order received, from the Bishop even to the Porter, commit grave fault if they are in mortal sin. But others more commonly, and sufficiently probably, deny this with Suarez; and the reason is that, since all the other exercises of Orders, besides the making and administration of the Sacraments, are not proximately ordered to the sanctification of the soul, they do not seem under grave obligation to require the sanctity of those exercising them. Yet these commit venial fault, and indeed the graver, the more their action approaches the ministry of a Sacrament.⁴

Hence: 1. Not improbably several authors assert that he does not sin gravely who, existing in mortal sin, touches the Eucharist immediately or mediately from office, for example by carrying it in procession, or by blessing the people. Yet the opposite opinion of St. Thomas is also very probable.⁵

2. Deacons and subdeacons who, in mortal sin, minister at the altar do not sin gravely, according to a sufficiently probable opinion, even if they minister frequently.⁶

3. A Bishop who, in mortal sin, makes chrism or holy oil does not seem to sin gravely.⁷ Nor does a Bishop or priest sin mortally who, in mortal sin, consecrates a church, blesses sacred vestments or corporals, assists at Matrimony, blesses ashes, lustral water, etc. Thus very commonly against a few.⁸

4. A preacher, preaching in mortal sin, does not sin gravely, as is taught more commonly and more probably. Yet authors commonly do not excuse him from venial sin, on account of some irreverence which is done to the divine word. Nay more, if the preacher inveighs against a vice concerning which he himself is publicly defamed, he does not seem to be excused from mortal sin; because then he gives scandal and impedes the end of doctrine.⁹

1419. Among SACRAMENTAL RITES, some are essential, others only accidental: ESSENTIAL rites are those which Christ the Lord Himself instituted, and without which the Sacrament is invalid. ACCIDENTAL rites are called those which the Church has prescribed for the more fitting decency and splendor of the sacramental action.

1420. Principles. I. There is a grave obligation of observing all ESSENTIAL rites of the Sacraments. This namely is required: 1. by religion; "for it is in a certain way to mock Christ, the author of the Sacraments, to employ, against His institution, signs for conferring grace in His name which He Himself did not assume for this";¹⁰ 2. by charity, because otherwise one's neighbor is deprived of a great spiritual good; 3. by justice, if the Sacrament is requested; for by the very fact that the minister consents to confer it, he tacitly obliges himself to its valid conferral.¹¹

Hence: 1. One ministering sins mortally if he uses false matter or form, or, outside necessity, doubtful matter or form. 2. He also sins gravely when he pronounces the words of the form corruptly, inarticulately, without devotion, if from this he undergoes proximate danger of erring in substantial matters. Otherwise venially, unless scandal or contempt is present (cf. nn. 1405 and 1406).

We must treat concerning the Sacraments: 1° their nature and division; 2° matter and form; 3° the Minister; 4° the subject.

1206. - I. Definition. A Sacrament is a sensible sign instituted by Christ for signifying and conferring grace.

Hence three things are necessarily required in every Sacrament, namely: 1° a sensible sign; 2° divine institution; 3° the power of producing the grace promised by Christ.

All Sacraments are perfected by three things: 1° by things as matter; 2° by words as form; 3° by the person of the Minister confecting the Sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. - This is clear from the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union.

Sacraments, besides sanctifying grace, produce grace which is called sacramental, i.e. they confer, if due conditions are not lacking, helps for obtaining the special end for which each Sacrament was instituted. Sacraments operate ex opere operato, i.e. by force of the divine institution independently of the work of the one operating, namely of the Minister and subject of the Sacraments.

1207. - II. Number. The Sacraments are seven, as is clear from Trent:¹ If anyone shall have said that the Sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, or that there are more or fewer than seven, namely Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or that even some one of these seven is not truly and properly a Sacrament, let him be anathema.

III. Division. Sacraments according to various properties are thus distinguished:

1° Necessary, or not necessary. Again, necessary Sacraments are necessary either by necessity of means, or by necessity of precept. By necessity of means, at least in implicit vow, Baptism is necessary, which is the gate of the Church and of the kingdom of heaven; Penance is necessary for those who have fallen into mortal sin after Baptism; and, according to St. Alphonsus,¹ probably also the Eucharist, both on account of the words of Christ:² Unless you shall have eaten, etc., you shall not have life in you; and because the Eucharist is the end of all the Sacraments. - By necessity of precept all the others are necessary, with the last two excepted, which are not necessary for private persons, but only for the community.

2° Imprinting, or not imprinting, character in the soul. Baptism, Confirmation, and Order imprint character; the others do not imprint. - Trent.³

3° Formed, or unformed, according as they produce grace while they are received, or, with an obstacle intervening, suspend their effect until the obstacle is removed.

4° Sacraments of the living or of the dead, according as they already suppose sanctifying, or first, grace, and only increase it; or, from their primary institution, confer that same grace.

1208. Questions. - Query 1° Can the Sacraments of the dead confer second grace?

Resp. Affirmatively. But this can happen in a twofold case: 1° when venial sins alone are subjected to the keys, which frequently

happens; 2° when a penitent, guilty of mortal sin, approaches the Sacrament of Penance with perfect contrition; because perfect contrition with the vow of the Sacrament, even before reception of the same, justifies a man: therefore then the Sacrament confers not first grace, but second grace only.

Query 2° Can Sacraments of the living sometimes avail to confer first grace?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably; not indeed per se, as is clear from their institution, but per accidens, or by means of Charity infused by force of the Sacrament in a subject not voluntarily opposing an obstacle. The case would be if someone of good faith, about to approach a Sacrament of the living, approaches in mortal sin, either because he is ignorant of this, or because he thinks himself contrite, or because he thinks that he approaches licitly in that state; now, in these circumstances the Sacrament of the living infuses grace into the soul, and therefore blots out the sin. For Sacraments always confer grace on those not placing an obstacle.¹ But an obstacle is not placed by him who approaches thus in good faith.²

1209. - Query 3° Is attrition required or does it suffice, that Sacraments of the living may confer first grace?

Resp. Affirmatively to each: 1° indeed it is required, because first grace cannot be infused except by the destruction of mortal sin; but the destruction of mortal sin cannot happen without detestation of the same, namely without contrition or at least attrition; 2° it suffices, because from the things said Sacraments of the living can sometimes confer first grace: but this could not happen if attrition did not suffice, since a sinner justified by perfect contrition would always approach the Sacrament.³

Query 4° Is original sin blotted out in Baptism valid indeed, but unformed because of defect of disposition in the adult baptized?

Resp. Negatively. The reason is, because no sin dissolving from the friendship of God is forgiven except through reconciliation with God, i.e. through justification. But this cannot happen unless first grace is infused; but this first grace is not infused if dispositions are lacking. Therefore. But once the obstacle has been removed, whether by perfect contrition with the vow of the Sacrament, or by the Sacrament with attrition, the sacramental grace of Baptism revives, or its suspension ceases, and it blots out original sin, and at the same time all actual sins committed before Baptism. But the Sacrament of Penance blots out sins committed after Baptism, and, according to the sentence which St. Alphonsus¹ calls most common, but whose foundation does not seem convincing to him, the sin of fiction, or of depraved disposition, with which the Sacrament of Baptism was received. Yet insofar as this depraved disposition persevered after Baptism, it is certainly blotted out through the Sacrament of Penance.

1210. - Definitions. Matter is a sensible thing to be determined to the notion of a Sacrament through form. Hence matter is that which in the Sacrament is more indifferent, and has a less perfect signification; and therefore it must be determined through another thing for signifying.

Matter is twofold: one remote, and another proximate. The former is the sensible thing itself, which is employed in the Sacrament, or the thing about which the sacramental action is exercised. The latter is the very application, or use, of the remote matter in the sacramental action. Thus in Baptism water is the remote matter, ablution the proximate matter.

But form is the part of the Sacrament which determines the matter for effecting the Sacrament, and which ordinarily (n. 1554. II.) consists in words uttered by the Minister.

1211. Principles. - I. Matter and form are altogether necessary for the validity of a Sacrament; therefore, with either one lacking, Sacraments cannot be confected. The reason is, because a Sacrament cannot be confected except in that mode in which Christ instituted it, who alone is the author of the Sacraments. It is of faith. It is clear besides from dogmatic definitions, especially from the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union, etc.¹

II. In confecting a Sacrament, outside the case of necessity, matter and form ought to be employed morally certain. The reason is, because, unless necessity urges, it is not lawful to use probability which does not remove the danger of invalidity. Cf. n. 60. I.

III. Matter and form ought to be united, or applied, by the same Minister and toward the same subject. "The reason is, because if one should place the matter, and another the form, the words of the form would not be verified; for the Minister, who, for example, should say: I baptize thee, while another pours out the water, would utter what is false, since he himself would not baptize.

IV. That a Sacrament be valid, there ought to be so great a conjunction or simultaneity between matter and form that one affects the other. The reason is, because otherwise the words would not fall upon such a thing, nor therefore with it constitute one total sign.

1. In the Eucharist physical simultaneity is required between matter and form; for the demonstrative pronoun THIS and HERE cannot be verified unless the matter is present.

2. In the other Sacraments moral simultaneity suffices, and that diverse according to the diverse nature of the individual Sacraments. Hence:

a) In Penance absolution can be deferred for some little time, for example for an hour; for it was instituted in the manner of a forensic judgment, in which sentence is not always immediately pronounced.

b) In Matrimony the consent of one party can follow the consent of the other for as long as this is morally judged to endure, as happens in contracts, whose nature Matrimony imitates.

c) In the other Sacraments, for validity, it suffices that the matter be applied immediately (i.e. within a space less than one Pater) before the form is pronounced, or immediately after it has been uttered. - In practice, however, as safer, the sentence of Cajetan is to be advised, which requires that the form be begun before the application of the matter is completed, or conversely.¹

1212. - There is given a twofold change both in matter and in form, namely substantial and accidental.

The change will be substantial in matter, if according to the use and estimation of men this cannot be called the same as that which was determined by Christ, as if in Baptism you should employ wine instead of water; but in form, if the sense of the words intended by Christ is changed into another, as if in Baptism you should say: I anoint thee in the name, etc. But the change is called accidental which is concerned only with the qualities of the thing, as if you baptize with water not blessed; or which does not change the sense of the words, as if in place of: I baptize, you should say: I wash.¹

Principles. - I. Every substantial change in the matter and form of a Sacrament invalidates the Sacrament, because it is no longer the rite instituted by Christ; and, if it is voluntary, constitutes grave sin, because it inflicts grave injury upon the author of the rite.

II. No accidental change in the matter and form invalidates a Sacrament; yet it induces grave or light sin, according as it is, or is not, notable.

The form of the Sacraments can be changed substantially in many ways:

1° By subtraction of an essential syllable or words, as if you say: I baptize, omitting that word thee; but not of accidental words, as if in Latin you say: I baptize thee, omitting that word I.

2° By addition, by which the truth of the Sacrament is taken away, as: I baptize thee in the name of the greater Father, of the lesser Son; but not by that addition by which only the error of the Minister is expressed, in a separate proposition, and not as an explicit or implicit condition, as: by the authority conferred upon me by Calvin, I, etc.

3° By variation of words through others not synonymous, as if in place of: I absolve, you say: I change.

4° By transposition of words, which ordinarily is only accidental, as: Thee I baptize.

5° By corruption of the same, for example by changing letters, which will more easily be substantial at the beginning than at the end of the words; because more easily for hearers the sense will be changed, for example in "in the name of the mother" for "of the father," than in "of the chalice" for "of the cup."

6° By interruption, by which the unity of the sentence is taken away, as if, after having said: This is, you should recite a Psalm or delay long; but not if, after having said: I thee, you should cough, impose silence, saying: Be silent, chatterers, and then at once conclude: baptize, etc.

1213. - A threefold rule must be established:

I. Sacraments can be repeated whenever there is a prudent doubt concerning their value. The reason is, because if perchance the Sacrament were not valid, those who approach to receive it would be deprived of its fruit. But that a prudent fear of so great an inconvenience is a sufficient reason why the Sacrament should be repeated is clear from the very well-known axiom: Sacraments are on account of men.

II. Sacraments generally cannot be repeated without grave sin, when there is no prudent doubt concerning their value. The reason is, because without cause they would be repeated, and therefore a grave injury would be inflicted upon them.

III. Sacraments ought to be repeated whenever, a prudent doubt concerning their value having arisen, charity, justice, or religion demands this; that is, whenever from justice, charity, or religion they ought to have been confected or administered. The reason is, because the nullity of the Sacrament, if perchance it were present, would turn to the harm of the neighbor, and sometimes to contempt or irreverence of Religion. But then they are to be repeated only conditionally, that reverence for the Sacrament may be provided for.¹

1214. Resolves. - 1° The Sacraments more necessary, and those which are conferred only once, namely Baptism and Order, are more easily to be repeated, even if a much greater probability makes for the value of the Sacrament against doubtful or only slightly probable reasons in the opposite direction. - Thus commonly.

2° Absolution is to be repeated with a penitent guilty of mortal sin, if there is prudent doubt concerning the due utterance of the form. But if the penitent is not in the state of mortal sin, it will not be necessary to repeat the form, since Communion can be permitted to him even without absolution.

3° The Minister who doubts lightly, and does not know why he fears, or only does not reflexively remember that he pronounced the words of the form, sins mortally per se if he repeats the form, or even one word three or four times. The reason is, because he changes the form, and introduces a new rite concerning the gravest action of all. Moreover he exhibits Christ, whom he represents, as speaking ridiculously. In practice, however, the scrupulous who repeat the form are for the most part excused from mortal sin, indeed often also from venial sin, because, too much agitated by scruples, from perplexity or without advertence, they act so foolishly. - Thus Voit.¹

4° If in Mass after the Consecration a doubt arises for you concerning the due utterance of the form, or concerning its total omission, you ought not, nor can you, repeat anything, since otherwise you are not accustomed to omit these things; for one must judge from things commonly occurring, unless nevertheless you doubt very probably, as the Rubric speaks. - See St. Alphonsus.²

The Minister of the Sacraments is he who, in the name of Christ, whose place he bears, performs the sacramental action.

We must treat: 1° of the requisites in the Minister for conferring the Sacraments; 2° of the office of the Minister in the administration of the Sacraments.

1215. - Definition. Attention is the application of the mind to the things which are being done, or it is an act of the intellect by which a man considers that which he is doing.

Division. Attention is distinguished as twofold: one internal, which consists in the advertence itself of the mind to that which is being done; another external, which excludes every action physically incompatible with internal attention. - See the things said at n. 402.

Principles. - I. For the validity of the conferral of Sacraments no other attention is required except that which is found in every truly human act. Therefore Sacraments can be validly ministered even by a distracted Minister, or one thinking at the same time about other affairs. The reason is, because in order that an act be and be considered human, what is looked to is not actual attention, but the procession of the act itself from an act of the rational will. Moreover attention often does not depend upon the will of man; but Christ could not require in the Minister of the Sacraments a condition which is sometimes impossible.¹

II. For the licit conferral of Sacraments attention is required, so that every voluntary distraction be absent. The reason is, because the reverence due to the Sacrament demands that it be treated diligently, and that the danger of erring be avoided. Nevertheless, according to the common sentence of theologians, voluntary distraction ordinarily does not exceed venial sin, unless one exposes himself to a danger of gravely erring in the form.²

They except the Eucharist, i.e. the canon, and especially the Consecration and Communion, during which every notable voluntary distraction, on account of the greatest dignity of the Sacrament, is probably mortal. Others, however, deny this. St. Alphonsus adheres rather to the former sentence.³

1216. - Definition. Intention is an act of the will tending toward some end, or an act of the will by which one intends to do or omit something.

Division. It is manifold, namely: 1° actual, virtual, habitual, and interpretative (n. 5. 4°); 2° internal or true, or external, which regards only the external act; 3° determinate or indeterminate, or in a confused way; 4° absolute or conditionated.

Principles. - I. For the validity of a Sacrament there is required in the Minister some true and serious will at least of doing that which the Church does. - It is clear from Trent.¹

II. Nevertheless an actual intention is not required, but a virtual one suffices. The reason is, because actual intention, although best and desirable, is sometimes morally impossible; but a virtual intention sufficiently flows into the action of the Minister, so that this can be called truly human and deliberate. - Thus all.

III. A habitual intention does not suffice, nor an interpretative one; not the first, because it is neither actually elicited by the will, nor, although sometimes elicited, does it endure in some effect or in a series of actions; not the second, because it is neither actually elicited, nor was it ever actually elicited, but it would only be elicited if the mind were thinking about the thing to be done (n. 5. 4°).

1217. Questions. - Query 1° Is an internal intention required?

Resp. Affirmatively; because, if the Minister should intend only the external act, that act - for example, ablution, which can be referred both to cleansing stains and to baptizing - would not be determined to its being.¹

Query 2° Is there required in the Minister the intention of doing what the Roman Church does?

Resp. Negatively, provided he has the intention, at least implicit, of doing that which the true Church does, even if from error he should think his own heterodox church to be the true Church.²

Query 3° Is there required in the Minister the intention of confecting a Sacrament?³

Resp. Negatively, at least explicitly, provided this intention is not excluded. For it suffices that he intend in general and implicitly to do what the Church does.⁴

1218. - Query 4° Must the intention of the Minister be determined to a certain matter and person?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is: 1° as regards the matter, because, as was said above in q. 1°, otherwise it would remain in a state of indifference; for it cannot be drawn from that state and determined to the Sacrament except through the intention of the Minister; 2° as regards the person, because the effect of the Sacrament cannot be applied in general, but to some subject; otherwise no application would be made. - Nevertheless an error in the person does not stand in the way of the validity of the Sacrament, except in Matrimony, or unless the Minister should bind his intention exclusively to a certain person. But even in this case he would validly administer the Eucharist, as is clear.¹

Query 5° Is a Sacrament valid when conferred with a conditionated intention?

Resp. 1° With Matrimony excepted, as being a contract (concerning which later), negatively, if the condition added is either concerning an impossible thing and is seriously added, as: I absolve thee, if thou hast touched heaven with thy finger, because then no intention of absolving is present; or concerning a future contingent thing, because such a condition suspends the intention of the Minister, and prevents the form here and now from being applied to the matter; nor afterward can it be applied, the condition having been verified, since then the matter and form have already ceased to be present.

Resp. 2° Affirmatively, if the condition is either concerning a future necessary thing, and the suspension of the Sacrament is not really intended, because the intention under such a condition passes over into an absolute intention; or concerning a past or present thing, and in fact this exists, because even then a conditionated intention passes over into an absolute intention; but if the condition is not verified, then there is no intention, since it has been restricted to a non-existing condition.²

1219. - Query 6° Is it lawful to confer Sacraments with a conditionated intention, in doubt whether they have been validly conferred?

Resp. 1° As regards Sacraments imprinting character, it is certain that this is lawful. For it is established by Canon Law, where in doubt of Baptism this form is indicated: If thou hast not yet been baptized, I baptize thee, etc.¹

Resp. 2° Also as regards other Sacraments it is lawful, if a sufficient cause adds the condition. The reason is, because Sacraments are on account of men, and, by adding a condition, reverence due to the Sacrament is sufficiently preserved, provided also that the consultation of the Sacrament itself be looked after as much as can be done, and with the good of those who receive the Sacrament, if perhaps they are capable of it, and with reverence toward the Sacrament. - Thus more commonly with St. Alphonsus, against some.² But it is certain that in extreme necessity, where nothing is present except doubtful matter, the Minister not only can, but also is held under grave obligation, to minister the Sacrament conditionally.³

Query 7° Must the condition be expressed in words?

Resp. Negatively. The reason is, because it is enough for reverence toward the Sacrament if it is conceived in the mind. Indeed Gobat thinks that it is not necessary for him who administers the work to have the condition explicitly and formally in mind, but it is enough if it is held implicitly and virtually, as he who wishes to hear Confessions according to the institution of Christ or the intention of the Church has it; because thus also reverence due to the Sacrament is sufficiently preserved. Yet it is to be added by mouth also where the Rubric prescribes this, as in conditionated Baptism, especially if it is conferred publicly, lest, namely, bystanders believe Baptism to be repeated absolutely, and, on account of the sentence, although little probable (and contrary to the Rubric of the Missal), of those who hold that the value of a Sacrament does not depend on the intention of the Minister, but only on the serious conferral of it, it is more right to express the condition also in words.⁴

Note. - 1° More rightly, according to St. Alphonsus, it is held that Sacraments are invalidated by a condition humanly unknowable. - 2° If the Minister has two intentions contrary to each other, and at the same time, the predominant one prevails; and so, whatever uniting incompatibles may have been chosen beforehand, if neither is predominant, the Sacrament does not subsist. - But if they have been successive, the later one prevails, unless the first, not revoked, had virtually excluded any subsequent one beforehand. - If doubt remains, the Sacrament will be doubtful.⁵

1220. Principles. - I. For the value of the Sacraments neither faith, nor probity, or state of grace, is required in the Minister. It is clear: 1° from the perpetual practice and tradition of the Church, which has never wished those baptized by heretics and the wicked to be rebaptized. It is clear: 2° from the definition of the Church. - Trent.¹

II. For the licit administration of the Sacraments, however, faith and probity are required in the Minister, at least if he has been consecrated for conferring Sacraments, and confects solemnly, i.e. with the whole rite prescribed by the Church. Therefore he sins gravely who ministers Sacraments in mortal sin; for a Minister destitute of faith, or unworthy, inflicts grave injury on God and Christ, by treating sacred things unworthily, and, as much as is in him, by contaminating them. Moreover, since the Minister of the Sacraments represents Christ, the primary Minister, who is the Saint of saints, and bears his person, it is necessary that he himself also be holy.

1221. Questions. - Query 1° Does a Minister sin gravely who confers a Sacrament in mortal sin, in a case in which he has not been specially ordained or consecrated for this, for example, if a woman ministers Baptism in the state of sin?

Resp. Negatively, probably; because the obligation of having holiness in a Minister does not arise precisely from the very holiness of Christ and of the Sacrament according to itself, but from the consecration of the Minister for conferring the very holiness of Christ and of the Sacrament. - Billuart,¹ St. Thomas,² and many others.

Yet not a few others affirm, both on account of the reason diametrically opposed to the negative sentence, namely on account of reverence due to Christ, whose minister also in this case is a lay person, although he is not a minister of the Church, and on account of the Sacrament, since here too sacred things, and indeed in a grave matter under grave obligation, are being handled. Thus Collet, Lacroix, Lugo, etc. - St. Alphonsus adheres to the affirmative sentence as intrinsically and by far more probable.³

Query 2° Does a priest, or consecrated Minister, sin gravely when he ministers indeed a Sacrament in mortal sin, but not solemnly, for example, Baptism without ceremonies in a case of necessity?

Resp. It is disputed, as in the preceding question; but St. Alphonsus adheres to the affirmative.⁴

Query 3° Does a Minister sin gravely in mortal sin, if grave necessity urges?

Resp. Negatively, speaking rigorously, namely if the danger is so urgent that no time is allowed for an act of contrition to be elicited by him. But this hypothesis must generally be denied. Moreover, a Minister conscious of mortal sin is not excused who can foresee such a case of necessity, as a Pastor and others (for example, priests exercising the care of souls subsidiarily, or ministering in large hospitals or in camps), who by office are bound to minister the Sacraments, and by an almost special obligation are held to remain habitually in the state of grace.⁵ Resolve the same concerning midwives.

1222. - Query 4° Does he sin who, outside the celebration of Mass, ministers the Eucharist in mortal sin?

Resp. Affirmatively, probably. The reason is, because grave injury is done to the Most Holy Eucharist. For although he does not act as an efficient cause in confecting the Sacrament, nevertheless he is its dispenser, and for this is specially consecrated, and he undertakes a ministry by which he cooperates immediately in sanctification (n. 219. § Otherwise).¹

Query 5° Do they sin who in mortal sin touch or carry the Most Holy Eucharist, whether mediately or immediately?

Resp. It is disputed. There is a threefold probable sentence:

I. It affirms in each case, because the thing is most holy, or the Body of Christ, which they handle unworthily. St. Alphonsus calls this very probable.²

II. It denies, because here there is no administration of a Sacrament, nor does matter so grave appear that it would induce mortal sin. - Thus Lacroix,³ Salmant.,⁴ Busemb.,⁵ and St. Alphonsus says that this is not improbable.⁶

III. It thus distinguishes: They who immediately touch the Most Holy Eucharist in mortal sin do indeed sin gravely, but not they who touch mediately. The reason is repeated from the very diverse grade of irreverence between the first and second case. - Thus Billuart.

1223. - Query 6° Do they sin gravely who exercise other sacred functions in mortal sin?

Resp. Negatively; because all other exercises of Orders besides the confection and administration of Sacraments do not seem to require holiness under grave obligation, since they are not proximately ordered to the sanctification of the soul. - Thus more commonly and more probably Salm., Mazzotta, and St. Alphonsus says that this is sufficiently probable.¹ - Nevertheless a preacher exercising from office is with difficulty excused from mortal sin, who from office preaches, and inveighs against that very vice of which he is publicly defamed, since the scandal impedes the fruit of doctrine.²

Query 7° Is a Minister confecting a Sacrament held to confess beforehand, if he is guilty of mortal sin?

Resp. 1° Affirmatively, if there is question of the celebration of Mass, and the availability of a confessor is not lacking to him; because all the faithful who are guilty of mortal sin and about to communicate must first make Confession, from the Decree of Trent.³

Resp. 2° But negatively, more probably, if there is question of other Sacraments; because by no law is he obliged to Confession; and therefore it suffices that he elicit an act of contrition.⁴

1224. - Query 8° Does he sin gravely who hears Confession in mortal sin, but does not absolve, or with the purpose of eliciting contrition before he absolves?

Resp. Negatively, more probably; because a confessor, by hearing Confession, does not confect the Sacrament.⁵

Query 9° How many sins does a confessor commit by absolving several penitents successively in mortal sin?

See the response at n. 219.

1° As regards the obligation of ministering Sacraments; 2° as regards the obligation of sometimes denying them; 3° as regards the mode of conferring them.

1225. Principles. - I. Those who have the care of souls are held under grave obligation from justice to minister the Sacraments to their subjects reasonably asking. For by taking up the care of souls they have obliged themselves to this by a tacit contract entered into with the subjects, from whom they receive support or at least honor.

Therefore they are held if the common precept of receiving them urges, or if the private necessity or utility of the one asking demands the administration, for example, if the one asking foresees some danger, or is placed in temptation and needs the grace of the Sacrament, or if he wishes to exercise a devotion suitable to his state, or to gain an Indulgence, etc.

II. Others not having the care of souls are not held to minister Sacraments from justice; yet sometimes they are held from charity, namely in a grave necessity of the neighbor.¹

1226. Questions. - Query 1° Who are considered to have the care of souls?

Resp. All those who from office, or by a special title of spiritual jurisdiction or delegation, ought to feed or care for some part of the fold of Christ. Therefore such are Bishops, Pastors, and whoever have subsidiary care of souls from a commission or public office, as among us are quasi-pastors and their coadjutors. Likewise, with respect to Regulars, their own Prelates or Superiors.²

Query 2° Which Sacraments are to be ministered in necessity, even with danger of death, whether by those having the care of souls or by others?

Resp. 1° Those who do not bear the care of souls certainly are held only to minister the Sacraments absolutely necessary for salvation, namely Baptism and Penance, or Extreme Unction when someone can in no way confess, and is more probably known to be in mortal sin. The reason is, because they are held only from charity alone to assist the neighbor in the gravest danger of salvation. But only the aforesaid Sacraments are necessary for salvation. Therefore, etc. - Thus most commonly theologians with St. Alphonsus.³

Resp. 2° Even those bearing the care of souls are very probably held to minister only the aforesaid Sacraments with any danger whatsoever. The reason is, because the other Sacraments are not of such necessity that one is held to confer them with grave danger of life. - Thus St. Alphonsus,⁴ relying on the Declaration of Gregory XIII (12 Oct. 1576), and the Declaration of the S. C. C. approved by the same Pontiff. (O) p. 399. Nevertheless those who bear the care of souls are held to expose life not only in extreme necessity, but also in grave necessity, while other Ministers are obliged to this only in extreme necessity.⁵ Cf. the things said at n. 279. 3rd Rule.

Query 3° Is one held to expose life for ministering the aforesaid Sacraments with probability only of success or of necessity?

Resp. It seems it must be denied, because it is too hard to exact so heroic an act for aiding the neighbor, unless there is morally certain hope of success and the necessity is sufficiently certain. Hence you are not held to expose life in order to baptize or absolve someone, if you probably must perish before you can fulfill this, or if you legitimately presume that he is baptized, or is not placed in the state of mortal sin, or even that he can easily assist himself by an act of perfect contrition.¹ Cf. n. 279. 2nd Rule.

1227. Resolves. - 1° Those having the care of souls sin gravely not only if they deny their ministry without reason, but also if they often show themselves morose and difficult; because thus they deter the faithful from the Sacraments, and the matter falls back to the same as if they denied the Sacraments.

2° Nevertheless it is not mortal to deny the Sacrament of Penance or of the Eucharist to one or another, or to the same person once or twice, asking without necessity; because the harm can easily be repaired, nor is the subject therefore judged to be gravely unwilling. Yet Confession is rarely deferred for men, especially those rarely confessing, particularly today, without grave danger to the soul.

3° If subjects ask irrationally, there is no sin. Hence the pastor is not held daily to spend time with a scrupulous person or little devout souls, nor is this expedient for them.

4° If the pastor has suitable coadjutors, he will not be held so rigorously to receive the Confessions of his subjects; yet he ought to satisfy the faithful who request him by name, unless either he is impeded, or the penitents are readily going to approach another confessor.

5° Generally speaking, those bearing the care of souls sin gravely who do not wish to receive the Confessions of their subjects except on a few determined days within the month; because they are the cause that the faithful remain long in the state of sin and are kept away from receiving the Sacraments.¹

See more where the individual Sacraments are treated; and recall the things said concerning the office of Pastors in the Treatise on States, n. 1141. IV.

1228. Principles. - I. The Minister is held under grave obligation, per se speaking, to deny Sacraments to the unworthy, because the natural law obliges a dispenser faithfully and according to his will to dispense the goods of the Lord; but the certain will of Christ is that Sacraments not be conferred upon the unworthy, according to that saying of Matthew:¹ Do not give the holy thing to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine.

II. Sacraments, in which the Minister acts the part of dispenser alone, can be ministered to those asking without prior inquiry into their disposition, and can be denied only to those concerning whose unworthiness it is certain. The reason for the first is, because in these he does not act the part of judge, and therefore is not held to inquire. The reason for the second, because each one is presumed good until he is proved evil.

I said: 1° in which the Minister acts the part of dispenser alone. For it is otherwise if at the same time he ought to act the part of judge, and thus in Penance he is held to inquire concerning the acts of the penitent; in the Baptism of adults, concerning consent and dispositions; in Order, concerning the dignity of the one to be ordained; in Matrimony, concerning impediments. 2° concerning whose unworthiness it is certain. But it is certain if a) the crime is certain, or public suspicion concerning it is so vehement that it is equivalent to moral certitude, which cannot be laid aside by a probable reason; b) the penance is doubtful.²

1229. Special Rules. - I. A Sacrament is not to be ministered to a public sinner, even one asking secretly, not even from fear of death, as St. Alphonsus thinks; because no reason is present why an exception should be made to the general rule; indeed a grave scandal of the faithful would follow. - Except: 1° Penance, unless someone is prohibited from it, for example, on account of reserved censures;¹ 2° if someone has given a sufficient indication of conversion, such as is Confession made at least before several by one who is not notoriously placed in an occasion or in habitual scandal.²

II. To an occult sinner, asking secretly, the Sacrament is likewise to be denied;³ because reverence toward the Sacrament and charity toward the neighbor in these circumstances entirely demand this.

III. To a truly occult sinner, asking publicly, the Sacrament is not to be denied. The reason is drawn from the inconveniences which would follow from the denial of the Sacrament; for scandals and disturbances would arise in the Church, and especially the faithful, having been led into suspicion, lest they be prohibited from the Sacraments, would withdraw from them. - Thus all with St. Thomas,⁴ St. Alphonsus.⁵

Except nevertheless: 1° the Sacrament of Order, from which, on account of the public good, the unworthy man is to be repelled even with his own infamy, if he cannot otherwise be kept away, and this although the offense cannot be proved juridically. Nor is the Bishop obliged to the manifestation of the cause of the repulse, nor does an appeal belong to the one repelled, but only recourse to the Holy See.⁶

2° Matrimony, if the pastor outside Confession knows some impediment, or knows that the spouses are ignorant of the rudiments of the Faith, and this on account of protecting the legitimation and education of offspring.⁷

1230. Questions. - Query 1° When is a sinner considered public or notorious, or occult; or secretly asking for a Sacrament?

Resp. 1° That sinner is called public whose crime or very bad life is notorious, either by law, or by juridical proof or sentence, or by fact, as if the crime was committed in a public place, or by fame among many, arising nevertheless from sufficient indications.¹

Resp. 2° A sinner secretly asking is called one who is found alone with the Minister, or with a few others of whom deservedly no account is had, as are little children, etc. Otherwise he is considered to ask publicly. (X) p. 414.

Query 2° Is the Sacrament to be denied to an unworthy person asking publicly, whose crime is not simply public, but known nevertheless to most of those present, not to all?

Resp. Negatively, more probably; because he still possesses fame among those few who do not yet know his crime. Except if one or another upright person is ignorant, who is thought not likely to divulge it (n. 519. R. 3°).² - Hence only then is the Sacrament to be denied to an unworthy person publicly asking, when either his unworthiness is absolutely public (by fame, by law, or by fact), although perhaps known to none of those present; or respectively public, or known to all those present, which very rarely happens in great cities, especially ours, on account especially of the defect of personal knowledge; but it can happen more easily in small places.

1231. - Query 3° Is the Sacrament to be denied to a sinner when his crime is not public where he asks, but is public elsewhere?

Resp. Negatively, at least more probably; because on the one hand, by ministering the Sacraments to him, there is no scandal of others, and on the other hand, if they were denied, those inconveniences and harms would arise which proceed from denial made to an occult sinner. - But one must say otherwise if knowledge of that crime is easily about to come into that place.¹

Query 4° How ought Pastors to conduct themselves in the celebration of Matrimony of those who notoriously have incurred ecclesiastical censures?

Resp. The Sacred Penitentiary, 10 Dec. 1860, dub. 10: "Care is to be taken with all strength that those bound by ecclesiastical censures be reconciled with the Church in the due manner; but if they refuse to be reconciled, and unless the marriage is celebrated, grave harms seem to be imminent therefrom, the Pastor should consult the Ordinary, who, having considered the account of things and circumstances and weighed all things which are handed down by approved authors, and especially by St. Alphonsus (L. VI. 54), should declare those things which he shall have judged more expedient in the Lord." Namely, according to the Holy Doctor, the Pastor will be able to assist "in order to avoid death, or other graver evils of the community, or of the contracting parties themselves, for example, lest they themselves persevere in sin."

Query 5° Is it lawful to simulate the administration of a Sacrament, lest it be conferred on an unworthy person?

Resp. Theologians distinguish a twofold simulation: one formal, by which the Minister directly intends to deceive; another material, by which someone does not directly intend to deceive, but from another motive is induced to simulate, for example, if he is compelled by grave fear, etc.

I say: It is never lawful, not even materially, to simulate a Sacrament. The reason is, because every simulation is an injury and grave irreverence toward Christ, whom the Minister mocks by abusing sacred things instituted by him.

1232. - Query 6° In what precisely does simulation of a Sacrament consist?

Resp. Theologians do not agree. Some say that generally it consists in this, that it can lead those receiving or others into error. More probably, according to the common sentence, it seems to be present only when something is put fictively which pertains to the essence of the Sacrament, so that the neighbor is necessarily deceived; and thus they distinguish simulation from dissimulation, which is had when the fiction or defect is exterior and, per se speaking, can be recognized, as, for example, if in the confection matter or form is not placed, but something else is substituted in its place, so that something other than the Sacrament is done. This dissimulation is lawful from a licit cause, since thus truth alone is hidden, and the Sacrament is not treated irreverently, scandal, contempt, intention of deceiving, etc., being excluded. (Cf. the number immediately following, 1233. 6° and 8°.) Hence the C. S. O., if ever it happened that infidel parents offered infants for Baptism, not so that they might become Christians, but so that they might be preserved from certain diseases, never permitted the pouring of water without the utterance of the form, so that the parents might thus desist from importunate prayers, since "Baptism is the gate of all the Sacraments and the profession of the Faith, and can in no way be feigned."¹

1233. Resolves. - 1° Among those who, as publicly unworthy, are to be kept away from Communion, the Roman Ritual enumerates excommunicates, interdicted persons, and the manifestly infamous, as harlots, concubinaries, usurers (at least public by law, or condemned by sentence of a judge), magicians, sorcerers (among whom fortune-tellers also are to be held), blasphemers (as also are to be held those who by writings or words are accustomed to assail God, or the Saints, or Religion and the Church with calumnies). "But as often," says Kenrick,² "as the exterior composition of the body denotes a humble soul, it can be had as a retraction of those things which one has contumeliously uttered"), and other public sinners of this kind, such as public customary impenitents, those publicly known as enrolled in some condemned society, actors and actresses exhibiting impious or base plays. - "Public sinners," says Kenrick,³ "who resist the legitimate authority of their prelates, or behave badly with grave offense of the faithful, are unworthy to be admitted to the Eucharist; but whenever the manner of acting, even if unjust, can be extenuated from error of mind or some other reason, it is better to repel no one approaching, but to leave him to the judgment of God and of the confessor." - Nor are all those to be barred who have publicly committed some grave sin, since scandal is regularly removed by Confession made or presumed. Yet, as is clear per se, those are to be barred who are publicly and actually in sin, for example, those manifestly and here and now drunk, or women so immodestly denuded that the denudation is mortal per se (n. 295. 11°).

2° To a public sinner, even one dying but nevertheless still master of himself, the Sacraments are to be denied, unless he repents not only before God, or in Confession, but also before men, unless perhaps the matter has been erased by oblivion. But this penitence before men ought to be exhibited outside Confession, and in such a way (for example, before witnesses), that it can come to the knowledge of others. Cf. Rit. Rom. on the Communion of the sick.

3° If Sacraments are to be denied publicly, let them be denied in a prudent manner. Hence all those things must be guarded against by the Minister by which either he would become liable to laws punishing defamation, or a greater impediment would be put in the way of the conversion of the unworthy person. Hence the motives of the refusal are not to be publicly exposed; and the priest, as he is assisting at the Sacred Table with others, should pass by without signifying anything either by words or by a nod. But if he comes alone during Mass, the priest will remain at the altar, announcing to the unworthy person through another that he may go away, but not why.

4° A priest would sin most gravely who in Mass should pronounce the consecratory words over bread and wine while excluding the intention of consecrating. Nor can those be excused by good faith who, laboring under crass ignorance and celebrating in mortal sin, simulate Consecration lest they become guilty of sacrilege, even if they omit the words of Consecration altogether.

5° A confessor would sin gravely who should utter the words of absolution without the mind of absolving, even if he were doing this in order to free himself more easily from an indisposed penitent instantly and importunately asking absolution, or even exacting it by most grave threats. - Several say that in this case a confessor can say: I do not absolve thee..., pronouncing the word not so softly that it is not heard by the penitent. St. Alphonsus does not judge this improbable;⁴ but the confessor could more easily pronounce other words or prayers rather than the form of absolution; moreover this case seems to be almost chimerical.

6° A confessor, however, does not simulate the Sacrament of Penance when he recites prayers over an indisposed penitent, lest bystanders perceive that he is dismissed without absolution; for it is established among all that penitents are often dismissed by only a blessing, and sometimes without the intention of confessing or completing the confession they approach the sacred tribunal.⁵

7° A priest sins gravely who offers a host not consecrated for a consecrated one, even to a person knowing and consenting, as sometimes happens to miserable priests when an accomplice, who is a woman, comes to the Sacred Table to save reputation. The reason is, because thus a host not consecrated is exposed to adoration both by bystanders and by the one receiving herself knowingly with external reverence, which constitutes external and material idolatry, and therefore something intrinsically evil.⁶

8° Yet according to the common sentence they do not sin, at least not gravely, who from grave fear simulate entering Matrimony. The reason is, because since voluntary consent is lacking, according to the sentence now certain, which holds that spouses themselves are the ministers of this Sacrament, matter and form are lacking, and therefore there is no simulation of the Sacrament, but only of the matrimonial contract. Otherwise the error could be sufficiently perceived from the circumstances, and thus deception would not necessarily be present.

1234. - It is not enough if the minister diligently observes those things which regard the matter and form; but he ought carefully to keep all the laws of the Holy Church concerning the administration of the Sacraments. Hence the Minister sins who contemns them, omits them without sufficient cause, or changes them;¹ and this according to the gravity of the matter, and therefore gravely, if either he neglects integral ceremonies (namely those which complete the sacramental action and indicate its effects more clearly, as exorcisms in Baptism), or even accidental ceremonies (which pertain to the ornament and decorum of the act, as genuflections), in great quantity, or with grave scandal, or from contempt.

1235. Questions. - Query 1° Is the use of the Roman Ritual of precept in the administration of the Sacraments?

Resp. Affirmatively, as regards our Provinces, yet with the modifications conceded by the Holy See,² it being forbidden:

1° That priests depart from it "under the pretext of custom or any other pretext whatsoever."³

2° That "if they have judged it expedient, for the sake of explanation, to add a version in the vernacular language of those things which" in administering the Sacraments and in the burial of the dead they recite in the Latin language, "they use any other than that which shall have been sanctioned by the Ordinary."⁴

3° That the Latin form of the prayers never be omitted.⁵ (I) p. 400.

I said: affirmatively as regards our Provinces; but whether the use of the Roman Ritual in the administration of the Sacraments is of precept everywhere, disputed on each side, see, if you please, in De Herdt.⁶

1236. - Query 2° What sacred vestments are required for the administration of the Sacraments?

Resp. With the case of urgent necessity excluded, a stole and surplice are generally required. - It is said, surplice; for "the rochet is not a sacred vestment to be employed in the administration of the Sacraments, and therefore for administering them the surplice must necessarily be used."⁷

But the stole ought not to be worn except in the confection of Sacraments and Sacramentals, and in the act of preaching where custom prevails, and also in certain other functions, as is prescribed in the Roman Ritual. But the use of wearing the stole as a sign of jurisdiction and preeminence is reprobated as an abuse.⁸

More things concerning the mode of administering Sacraments will be treated where the individual Sacraments in particular are considered. - Generally let the following admonition of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore be kept before the eyes:¹ "While they minister Sacraments, let the words be pronounced distinctly and articulately; let their approach, countenance, motions of the body, and modulation of the voice express consciousness of the most holy thing which is being done, and excite the faithful to firm faith and inward devotion. Moreover, according to their strength and the circumstances of things, let priests take care that those things which are required for the dispensation of the Sacraments be clean and becoming. Let Pastors instruct the flock committed to them concerning the Sacraments and the religious preparation to be put before these, as often as occasion is offered."

1237. - The subject of a Sacrament is called he who receives the Sacrament, and is capable of the effect of the Sacrament.

The subject of the Sacraments is man alone as a wayfarer; because, as is clear from Sacred Scriptures and tradition, the Sacraments were instituted for wayfaring men alone. Yet not all men are capable of all the Sacraments. For neither can women receive the Sacrament of Order, nor can children not yet using reason receive the Sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction.

The reason a priori why man alone as a wayfarer is capable of the Sacraments is the will of Christ the Lord, the institutor of the Sacraments. But the reason of fittingness is, because, according to the order of the present Providence, man alone as a wayfarer is capable of first grace or of the increase of grace; but the Blessed or souls detained in purgatory are not of this kind, since for them there has already been determined a measure of glory corresponding to the grace which they had in mortal life. Much less are the damned capable of grace, as being now separated from God for eternity.

These things having been posited, we must treat of the requisites both for the valid and for the licit reception of the Sacraments.

In the first volume of this work, there are found expounded in general the more universal principles of the whole of moral science, and also the doctrine concerning the theological virtues, which are concerned with the ultimate end itself, which in things to be done is the first principle.

In the second volume there was said in particular concerning the various means intrinsically necessary for the end from the very nature of the thing, to which the moral virtues dispose us; all of these are reduced to the four cardinal virtues.

But there are also other extrinsic means, prescribed for salvation from the positive will of God, namely the sacraments instituted by Christ the Lord; among which the Most Holy Eucharist excels, which at the same time is the continual sacrifice of the New Law. Wherefore in the present volume the whole moral doctrine concerning the sacraments comes to be handed down, both in general and in special, with all rules and precepts which pertain to them.

But it does not seem possible to understand those practical questions perfectly unless a right concept is present concerning the general nature of the sacraments and concerning the proper character of each one; and we hold it to be contrary to pedagogy to separate moral solutions from the speculative doctrine on which they rest. Therefore let it please us, after the manner of a foundation, to expound also the speculative questions concerning the sacraments, yet briefly and summarily, leaving longer demonstrations, deeper explanations, and more subtle investigations to dogmatic theologians.

Concerning the sacraments ecclesiastical legislation has decreed many things, whose canons and prescriptions certainly will have to be attended to, yet with a certain moderation: namely when, and insofar as, it will be necessary for a sufficient understanding or for a fuller knowledge of moral theology, such as can seem to be duly required in priests. We intend to remain spare from greater abundance, lest we wish to convert moral science into canonical discipline; for we judge that more perfect elucidations of texts, more intricate problems, more special ways in juridical process, and the synthetic aspect of the whole of law are to be reserved to jurists.

May God grant that, under the patronage of the Blessed Virgin, the work begun may be completed unto the more certain instruction of schools, the greater utility of the clergy, and the more perfect building up of the body of Christ.

I was writing on the feast of St. Albert the Great, Confessor and Doctor of the Church, November 15, 1932.

The Author.

1. Matter to be treated. - Theology is a science deduced from the principles of revelation concerning God Himself and other things in order to God. It embraces several parts:

1. One is merely speculative, dogmatic, whose direct end is solely to know the truth concerning God Himself: both a) in Himself, as a supernatural being elevated above all things, and b) as the supernatural principle, or author and end of things, especially of man, whom God has destined to the intuitive vision of Himself, to which man can come through grace. From this there spontaneously arises:

2. Another part, practical, moral, whose direct and principal end is to direct human actions. For if God is our principle and end, there follow in us moral relations and offices toward Him: namely, we must acknowledge Him as our author, and tend toward Him as ultimate end. The moral part treats in general and in special a) of human acts by which we must tend toward God, of their rules, namely of conscience and of law, and of their principles, namely of habits, that is, of virtues and of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, all of which are means intrinsic to man and necessary by their very nature, by which we tend toward God; and on the contrary b) it treats of sins by which we are distanced from God or withdraw from Him, and of their principles, or of vices.

These two parts are necessary in theology, so that without them it could not even be conceived, for it cannot exist unless it concerns God and unless it is made by man knowing the supernatural end; but if these are present, it is also understood to be complete of itself.

3. But in the present order, after original sin, from His free will God ordained other special means extrinsic to man, so that we may be able to know Him and tend toward Him. These are namely a) the Incarnate Word, who showed us the way of truth and leads us to the salvation of eternal beatitude; b) the sacraments, by which we obtain grace and salvation, and which have their efficacy from Christ. And thus a third part of theology was added.

Now the doctrine concerning the Incarnate Word is wholly speculative and therefore is explained in dogmatic theology; but the doctrine concerning the sacraments, in general and in special, is partly speculative, partly practical. Since, however, the sacraments were instituted rather that they may be received than that they may be believed, they pertain more to moral theology, and therefore sacramental doctrine is more rightly and more suitably expounded in the moral part. And this is the matter which now is to be treated.

The division handed down is that of the Summa of St. Thomas, who in I, q. 2, proem., writes: "First we shall treat of God, not only according as He is in Himself, but also according as He is the principle of things and their end, and especially of the rational creature; second, concerning the movement of the rational creature into God; third, concerning Christ, who, according as He is man, is for us the way of tending into God."

2. The order to be followed in the treatment. - The matter to be explained is the whole doctrine concerning the Sacraments, both in general and in special, and concerning certain other things which have connection, relation, or likeness with them, such as sacramentals, rites and ceremonies, irregularities or impediments, censures or indulgences. These things are to be declared according to the natural order itself of the sacraments, namely:

1. On the Sacraments in general,

2. On Baptism,

3. On Confirmation,

4. On the Eucharist as sacrament and sacrifice,

5. On Penance,

6. On Extreme Unction,

7. On Order,

8. On Matrimony.

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

3. Sacrament according to the name etymologically signifies that which makes sacred, or a means of making sacred; whence it is denominated from order to something sacred and to sanctity. In Greek it is called mysterion, which signifies that which is hidden; but it sounds almost the same: for sacred or divine things are wont especially to be secret.

But because something sacred exists in many ways, and order to sanctity exists in many ways, the signification of sacrament is manifold. For just as healthy is said not only of the animal which properly has health, but also by analogy of the face or color which is a sign, and of medicine which is a cause of health, so sacraments are called not only those things which have in themselves some hidden sanctity, but all those things which have toward that sanctity either the order of a sign or of a cause, or any other relation whatever. Hence the word sacrament signifies in ecclesiastical speech:

a) divine truths, sacred in themselves, exceeding the light of reason,¹ and especially those which in the ancient Church were hidden from the non-initiated;

¹ Mt. XIII, 11: "To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven"; Eph. I, 9: "that He might make known the sacrament of His will"; likewise III, 3, 9; Col. I, 27; I Tim. III, 16; Wis. II, 22; VI, 24; I Cor. XIII, 2.

b) figures, parables, similitudes, symbols by which supernatural realities are proposed to us;² in which sense St. Augustine often spoke;³

² Apoc. I, 20: "the sacrament of the seven stars"; XVII, 7: "I will show you the sacrament of the woman"; Eph. V, 32: "a great sacrament in Christ and in the Church"; Dan. II, 18, 30, 47.

³ De Civitate Dei, book X, 5: "A visible sacrifice is a sacrament, that is, a sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice"; Contra Faustum, book XIX, 11, ceremonies of external worship, and book II On the Merits and Remission of Sins, rites imposed on catechumens are called sacraments; ep. to Marcellinus 138, n. 7: "signs, when they pertain to divine things, are called sacraments."

c) ceremonies or rites and signs instituted for the worship of God, by which man is sanctified with sanctity and initiated into sacred things.⁴

⁴ I Cor. IV, 1: "Let a man so account us as ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God."

In profane speech it is taken: a) for every secret, insofar as it is not to be violated but to be kept as if it were sacred: thus in Tob. XII, 7, it is read: to hide the sacrament of the king is good; b) for an oath, especially of soldiers toward the republic, because it is made by something sacred, and because it is not to be violated but is to be kept as something sacred; c) for the money of litigants deposited in a temple, because there it is kept as a sacred thing.

Now for many centuries, by the usage of theologians and of the Church, the word sacrament has become especially proper to sanctifying signs;⁵ whence in the present treatise it is taken in this sense: "properly," says St. Thomas, q. 60, a. 2, "a sacrament is said, according as we now speak of sacraments, to be that which is a sign of a sacred thing insofar as it is sanctifying men."

⁵ In the twelfth century Hugh of St. Victor says that the sacraments contain grace; the Summa Sententiarum, that they confer it; Peter Lombard, that they cause it. This doctrine was received by common usage and approved by the Council of Trent. And it has a positive foundation in the Fathers, although among them the sense of the word sacrament is very indeterminate. For they describe sanctifying signs, recalling a visible symbol in which there is the power of the Holy Spirit and invisible grace. Cf. Tertullian, On Baptism IV; Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, I, 77; Augustine, Questions on the Heptateuch, III, 84.

4. Division of the treatise. - The treatise is divided into five parts: on the essence of the sacraments, on necessity or existence, on effects, on cause, and on number.

The first part is: On the essence of a sacrament: 1. on the notion and signification of the sacramental sign; 2. on the parts of the sacramental sign: a) on matter and form, b) on the union of matter and form; 3. on the determination of the sacramental sign: a) on the cause determining matter and form; b) on the change of matter and form.

The second part is: On the necessity of the sacraments in the present order, before original sin, before and after Christ.

The third part is: On the effects of the sacraments: A. on grace: 1. on grace caused by the sacraments: a) on habitual grace making one pleasing, b) on special or sacramental grace, c) on unequal grace caused; 2. on the mode by which grace is caused: a) on the efficient causality of the sacraments, b) on the instrumental causality of the sacraments, c) on the causative power of the sacraments, d) on the causality of the sacraments of the Old Law; 3. on the time at which grace is caused; B. on character: 1. on the existence of character; 2. on the essence of character; 3. on the sacraments imprinting character.

The fourth part is: On the cause of the sacraments: 1. on the instituting cause; 2. on the administering cause or minister: a) on the various ministers, b) on the faith and sanctity of the minister, c) on the intention of the minister, d) on those to whom the sacraments are to be administered; 3. on the receiving cause or subject: a) on the conditions of valid reception, b) on the conditions of licit reception.

The fifth part is: On the number of the sacraments: 1. on the sevenfold number; 2. on the order of the sacraments, or comparison with one another.

There follows an appendix: on the ceremonies of the sacraments and sacramentals.

The theory concerning the sacraments in general is not exhibited in the Scriptures or in the Fathers, but only doctrine concerning each one; nevertheless it has its foundation in St. Augustine; and it was built up by the Scholastics of the twelfth century, who began to consider all the sacraments after the manner of one.⁶

⁶ Concerning the Sacraments there can usefully be consulted: St. Thomas, in III, q. 60-65, with the commentaries of Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, Sylvius, the Salmanticenses, Nugno Cabezudo, Billuart; likewise Peter de Ledesma, Summa de Sacramentis; Drouin, De Re Sacramentaria; among the Jesuit scholastics, St. Robert Bellarmine, Suarez, and de Lugo; among recent dogmatic theologians, Franzelin, Billot, Heinrich-Gutberlet, Hugon, De Baets, Van Noort, Pohle, Diekamp, Del Val, Sasse; likewise Haine, Principia dogmatico-moralia universae theologiae sacramentalis; De Smet, Tractatus dogmatico-moralis de Sacramentis in genere; Chardon, Histoire des Sacrements; Hahn, Die Lehre von den Sakramenten in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung; Oswald, Die dogmatische Lehre von den h. Sakramenten; Probst, Sakramenten und Sakramentalien in die drei erste Jahrhunderten; Pourrat, La Theologie sacramentaire; Schanz, Die Lehre von den h. Sakramenten der Katholische Kirche; Gihr, Die h. Sakramente der Katholische Kirche; for practical questions, St. Alphonsus and modern manuals, such as Ballerini, Lehmkuhl, Marc, Aertnijs-Damen, Genicot-Salsmans, Noldin-Schmitt, Prummer, Tanquerey, Vermeersch; among canonists, Cappello, Tractatus canonico-moralis de Sacramentis, I; among orators, Monsabre, Les Sacrements.

V. Cases. - In the article of death certain cases can occur which present a special difficulty, and which, unless they have been examined beforehand, could not be solved rightly.

1. It often happens that a priest is called to a dying public sinner. In this case the sacraments are not to be ministered to him publicly, especially Viaticum, unless the scandal is publicly repaired; but if this is impossible, it can be brought secretly. And indeed:

a) regularly for ordinary sinners the public bringing of the Eucharist itself is a sufficient retraction or sign that they repent;

b) for great sinners a declaration is to be made by retraction before witnesses;

c) but for those who live in a proximate occasion, e.g., in publicly known concubinage, the occasion must first be removed; but if this is impossible, or if extreme necessity is urgent, absolution and Extreme Unction can be given secretly after a promise of removing the scandal; and communion is to be brought secretly, after a promise before witnesses of removing the scandal as soon as possible.

In a case of concubinage or civil marriage let it be examined whether marriage is not to be contracted for legitimating offspring or for fulfilling a promise; in which case the confessor should know that the Ordinary can dispense from all impediments of ecclesiastical law, excepting presbyterate and affinity in the direct line, can. 1043, and, if time is lacking to have recourse to the Ordinary, the parish priest or the priest himself can also do this, can. 1044.

5. How should the priest act if, arriving with Viaticum to a hidden sinner and hearing his confession, he finds him indisposed?

Haine, Th. M. III, de Euch. q. 43, responds:

The priest a) "should strive altogether to dispose him;

b) If he certainly remains indisposed, because, for example, he does not wish to leave the proximate occasion, or does not wish to promise grave and certainly owed restitution, it is not licit to absolve him.

c) As regards communion, he is earnestly to be induced, after confession has been completed, to declare publicly that he no longer wishes to receive the Eucharist.

d) If he refuses to declare this and wishes to communicate, the Eucharist is to be ministered to him, although indisposed, lest the seal of confession be violated."

To avoid this danger, it will be better that in hospitals or clinical houses the priest, or the sister appointed for caring for the sick, not prepare all things for ministering Holy Communion on his or her own motion, but only after the sick person, having confessed, asks for it; but when the priest is asked, let him uniformly say: ask the penitent whether he wishes to communicate.

2. Commonly it is not expedient to hear the confession of a public sinner unless he has promised amendment and due satisfaction, for if he is unwilling to obey the commands of the confessor, the latter, blocked by the seal, will be held to minister Viaticum to an unworthy person. He will avoid this inconvenience if he does not admit to confession except one who is prepared.

IV. Absolution is to be denied to those who are morally certainly incapable or unworthy. This is altogether certain, since in each case absolution is invalid or at least fruitless; but knowingly and willingly to administer a sacrament in a certainly invalid or fruitless mode is grave sacrilege.

Radically incapable are the perpetually insane, - those not yet baptized, - the certainly dead, - those not knowing the things necessary to be known by necessity of means, - and those who certainly are not morally present.

Those incapable because unworthy are indicated by the Roman Ritual, l. c., n. 23: "Let him not absolve those who are incapable of such a benefit, such as: those who give no signs of sorrow, - who do not wish to lay aside hatreds and enmities - or to restore the goods of another, if they can - or to abandon the proximate occasion of sinning - or in another way to leave sins behind (for example, a depraved habit or sinful art) - and to amend life for the better (for example, by employing necessary remedies), - or those who have given public scandal, unless they satisfy publicly and remove the scandal." To these can be added in a general way all those who do not wish to fulfill a grave obligation known to themselves; or who refuse to confess their sins integrally, unless they are excused from material integrity by a grave reason. For in these or similar cases there is lacking the essential condition required for the validity of absolution, namely, contrition.

Moreover let it be noted that the confessor: 1) before he denies absolution, generally must exhort sinners to contrition so that as far as he can he may dispose them, and if by a fervent exhortation he renders them contrite, he can absolve them; - 2) if he must deny absolution, let him do this only with great charity and kind words, by explaining the reason why he cannot act otherwise and by declaring that he will willingly grant absolution as soon as the penitent is disposed.

A Sacrament is a sensible sign, permanently instituted by Christ for signifying and conferring grace. Hence three things are necessarily required in every sacrament, namely the sensibility of the sign, divine institution, and the force of producing grace promised by Christ.

All sacraments are perfected by three things: 1st. by things as matter; 2nd. by words as form; 3rd. by the person of the Minister confecting the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does.

Besides habitual grace common to all, the sacraments also produce grace which is called sacramental, and which is nothing else than habitual grace itself with the connotation of helps for obtaining the special end for which each sacrament was instituted, if due conditions are not lacking.

The sacraments operate ex opere operato, that is, by force of the sacramental action independently of the work of the one operating, namely of the Minister and of the subject of the sacraments. Hence they are essentially distinguished from sacramentals, which are certain sacred things or actions instituted by the Church, as are holy water, blessings, etc.

Sacraments are distinguished thus according to various properties:

1st. Necessary or not necessary; the first are either necessary by necessity of means or necessary by necessity of precept. Necessary by necessity of means, in reality or in vow, at least implicit, are Baptism, which is the gate of the Church and of the kingdom of heaven, and Penance for those who have fallen into mortal sin after Baptism; necessary by necessity of precept are all the rest, excepting Order and Matrimony, which are not necessary for private individuals but only for the community.

2nd. Those imprinting or not imprinting a character in the soul. Baptism, Confirmation, and Order imprint a character; the rest do not imprint one.

3rd. Sacraments of the dead or of the living, according as by force of their institution they first confer sanctifying grace, as are Baptism and Penance, or suppose it and only increase it, as must be held concerning the other sacraments.

Question 1. Can sacraments of the dead ever confer second grace?

Resp. Affirmatively, and indeed in a twofold case: 1st. when only venial sins or mortal sins already remitted are subjected to the keys; 2nd. when a penitent, guilty of mortal sin, approaches the Sacrament of Penance with perfect contrition, or when an adult, likewise perfectly contrite, receives Baptism, because perfect contrition with only the vow of the Sacrament of Penance or of Baptism justifies a man.

Question 2. Can sacraments of the living sometimes be able to confer first grace?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, not indeed through themselves, as is plain from their institution, but accidentally; for it can happen that someone guilty of mortal sin, unaware of this, approaches a sacrament of the living in good faith, attrite; moreover in these circumstances a sacrament of the living pours grace into the soul and therefore destroys sin. For sacraments always confer grace on those not placing an obstacle; but an obstacle is not placed by him who approaches attrite in good faith. Cf. St. Thomas, 3, q. 71, art. 7, ad 2; and q. 79, art. 3. - St. Alphonsus, n. 268. - De Augustinis, de Sacram. in genere, Thesis 19, p. 272.

Question 3. What are the effects of sacramental grace proper to each sacrament, besides sanctifying grace common to all?

Resp. 1st. The effect of the grace of Baptism is to remit every fault and penalty of fault, to illumine the mind, to diminish concupiscence, and to make the soul fruitful unto Christian works. But this habitual grace brings to the baptized person a right of obtaining helps by which he may happily attain these effects.

2nd. The effect of the grace of Confirmation is strength for constantly professing the faith, where there shall be need, and for defending it when opportunity is given. And therefore it brings to the soul a right to helps by which it may furnish this.

3rd. The effect of the grace of the Eucharist is to nourish spiritual life, to increase the same, to generate a distaste for worldly things, to draw toward union with God, and therefore to bring a right to graces by which communicants may be able to attain all these things.

4th. The effect of the grace of Penance is to remit sins committed after Baptism, and to confer strength for avoiding sins and for persevering in the state of grace, and a right to helps suitable for furnishing these things.

5th. The effect of the grace of Extreme Unction is to take away the remains of sins, to lighten the soul of the sick person, to strengthen confidence, to render the inconveniences of illness less troublesome, indeed even at times to restore health of body where it will have been expedient for the salvation of the soul, to bestow strength for repelling extreme temptations, and to confer a right to helps proportionate to these things.

6th. The effect of the grace of Order is to render the Ministers of Christ fit for sacred ministries, so that they may perform these with due piety, and to confer a right to helps suitable for these things.

7th. The effect of the grace of Matrimony is to restrain disordered concupiscence, to bestow strength for sustaining the burdens of the conjugal state, for preserving conjugal fidelity, and for educating offspring in a Christian manner, and therefore to confer a right to helps necessary for fulfilling these things.

The matter of the sacraments is a sensible thing, to be determined to the notion of a sacrament by the form. A twofold matter is distinguished, namely remote and proximate. - The former is the sensible thing itself which is employed in the sacrament, or the thing about which the sacramental action is exercised. The latter is the very application or use of the remote matter in the sacramental action.

But the form is the part of the sacrament which determines the matter to signifying, and which regularly consists in words pronounced by the Minister.

I say. - Matter and form are not only absolutely necessary for the validity of a sacrament, but they must also be applied by the same Minister and toward the same subject; and so great a conjunction between both must be present that, according to the moral estimation of men, with the nature of each sacrament considered, one affects the other. The reason for the first is that, if either one is lacking, the sensible sign is no longer had as it was divinely instituted. But the reason for the second is that if one person were to place the matter and another the form, or if indeed the same person were to place both, but while he applied the matter to one subject, he properly directed the form to another, the words of the form would not be verified. Finally the reason for the third is that the form together with the matter must constitute one total sign. - I said with the nature of each sacrament considered, because while in Baptism, for example, such a conjunction is required that the Minister pronouncing the words is morally judged also to wash; in Penance absolution can be deferred long enough, as in judgments a sentence after the examination of the cause; and in Matrimony the consent of one can follow the consent of the other for so long as this consent is judged morally to remain, as in other contracts. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 8 and 9. - Ballerini, note (b) and (c), p. 129.

You Will Resolve. 1st. Every substantial change, whether in the matter or in the form, invalidates the sacrament. Moreover, that change is called substantial which, if it affects the matter, brings it about that this matter can no longer be said to be the same as that which was determined by Christ; but if it affects the form, the sense of the words is changed into another. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 11.

2nd. An accidental change, namely that which is concerned only with the qualities of the matter and form, with the essential nature of the sign being preserved, indeed does not invalidate the sacrament, as is plain of itself, and it induces grave or light sin according as it is or is not notable; in the first case grave irreverence would be committed, and in the other only light irreverence. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, ibid.

3rd. When a prudent doubt has arisen concerning the validity either of the matter or of the form, the sacrament can be repeated under condition, indeed also must be, if charity, justice, or religion postulates it. For although repetition made without just cause inflicts injury upon the sacrament, nevertheless, while doubt stands, provision is made for the holiness of the rite by the addition of the condition and for the necessity of the faithful by repetition. The reason is deduced from the very well-known axiom: Sacraments are for men. Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 27 and seq.

4th. But if a prudent doubt exists whether the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Order were truly or validly conferred, they are to be conferred again under condition. - Cf. Can. 732. Indeed the more necessary sacraments, and those which are conferred only once, namely Baptism and Order, are more readily to be repeated, even if a much greater probability militates for the value of the sacrament against doubtful or slenderly probable reasons to the contrary. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, ibid. - Lehmkuhl, nn. 16 and seq.

Attention is an act of the intellect, namely the application of the mind to those things which are being done, and it is distinguished as twofold: for one is internal, which is the very advertence of the mind to that which is being done, and another is external, which consists in this, that every external action physically incompatible with internal attention be excluded.

But intention is an act of the will tending toward some end, and it is chiefly divided: 1st. into internal and external, according as some true act of the will exists or only an external action; 2nd. into actual, virtual, habitual, and interpretative, according as the force and quantity of the tendency of the will is diverse according to those things which have been said in the treatise on human acts under n. 5.

I say 1st. Although for the licit conferral of the sacraments so great an attention is required that every voluntary distraction be absent, nevertheless for their validity only that attention is required and suffices which is found in every truly human act. The reason for the first is taken from the reverence owed to the sacrament and from the obligation of avoiding the danger of error. But the reason for the second is that, on the one hand, the Minister of the sacraments must act as a rational being, and on the other, if the act is supposed to be truly human, the agent is already truly judged to act morally, which certainly suffices for the notion of ministry. Hence a Minister even distracted, or thinking at the same time about other business, validly confers sacraments, but he is not without fault, although ordinarily only venial fault, unless he exposes himself to the danger of gravely erring, or, according to the more common opinion, unless there is question of the confection of the Eucharist. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 11 and 14. - Lacroix, lib. 6, part 2, n. 443.

I say 2nd. Actual intention, although best and desirable, nevertheless is not required for the valid conferral of a sacrament, because sometimes it is morally impossible; but virtual intention is required and suffices. It is indeed required, because otherwise a human act could be present by force of habitual or interpretative intention, which surely is repugnant; it suffices, however, because once the virtual influx of the will upon the action of the Minister has been posited, this can and must truly be called human and deliberate. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 16. - De Augustinis, Thesis 17, p. 222.

I say 3rd. § 1. Since all the Sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Christ Our Lord, are the principal means of sanctification and salvation, the greatest diligence and reverence must be employed in administering and receiving them opportunely and rightly (Can. 731).

Question 1. Does only external intention suffice for validly conferring a sacrament?

Resp. Negatively, because although an intention of confecting the sacrament, or of doing what the Roman Church does, is not properly required in the Minister, nevertheless there is required in him the intention of doing what the Church does, and consequently that his action be determined to a sacred rite; but this cannot be done without some internal intention. Besides, it is clear from proposition 28 condemned by Alexander VIII, which is as follows: "Baptism conferred by a Minister who observes every external rite and the form of baptizing is valid, but inwardly in his heart resolves with himself: I do not intend to do what the Church does." Moreover, even if the opinion of Catharinus, which is here rejected, enjoyed some probability, it could be of no use in the administration of the sacraments. Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 21, 22 and 23. - De Augustinis, Thesis 17, p. 228.

Question 2. Is a sacrament valid when conferred with conditioned intention?

Resp. Negatively, if the condition placed is concerning the future; because then, by suspending the intention of the Minister, it prevents the form from being applied here and now to the matter; nor can it afterward be applied, when the condition has been verified, since the matter and form have already ceased to be present. - Except, however, the Sacrament of Matrimony, as will be said in its own place. - But if the condition is concerning the past or concerning the present, and in reality this condition exists, any sacrament whatever will be valid. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 26.

Question 3. Is the conferral of the sacraments with conditioned intention licit, in doubt whether they have been validly conferred?

Resp. Affirmatively, if a sufficient cause is present for placing the condition. The reason is that sacraments are for men, and by conditioned conferral provision is made, insofar as can be done, both for the good of those who receive the sacrament, if perhaps they are capable of it, and also for the reverence of the sacrament. But it is certain that in extreme necessity, where no matter is present except doubtful matter, the Minister not only can, but also is bound under grave obligation to minister the sacrament under condition. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 27, 28 and 29.

Question 4. Must the condition be expressed in words?

Resp. Negatively, and the reason is that it suffices for reverence toward the sacrament if it is conceived in the mind. Indeed, according to some, it is not even necessary to have the condition explicitly and formally in the mind; but it is enough if it is had implicitly and virtually, as he has it who wishes to hear confessions according to the institution of Christ or the intention of the Church; for thus also the reverence owed to the sacrament is sufficiently preserved. Yet it must be added by mouth where the Rubric prescribes this, as in conditioned Baptism, especially if it is conferred publicly, lest, namely, those standing by believe that Baptism is being repeated absolutely and take scandal. Cf. St. Alphonsus, Hom. Ap., n. 3. - Lacroix, lib. 6, part 1, n. 83. - Gobat, tract. 7, n. 272.

I say. Although neither faith nor probity, or the state of grace, is required in the Minister for the valid conferral of the sacraments, nevertheless it is required, and indeed under grave obligation, for their licit administration, at least if the Minister has been consecrated for conferring them, and confects them solemnly, namely with the whole rite prescribed by the Church. The reason for the first is taken both from the practice and perpetual tradition of the Church, which never willed those baptized by heretics and wicked Ministers to be rebaptized, and from the Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 12, de Sacram. in Genere, and can. 4, de Baptismo. But the reason for the second is that a Minister destitute of faith or stained by mortal sin inflicts grave injury upon God and Christ by treating holy things unworthily and, as much as is in him, contaminating them. - Cf. De Augustinis, Thesis 16, p. 201.

Question 1. Does a Minister sin gravely who, necessity urging, confers a sacrament in mortal sin, for which he has not been specially ordained or consecrated, or, if indeed he is consecrated, does not act as such or does not minister solemnly?

Resp. Negatively, probably, because the obligation in the Minister of having sanctity does not arise precisely from the very sanctity of Christ and of the sacrament considered in itself, but from the Minister's consecration or deputation for conferring the sacraments. But in the aforesaid cases one acts rather from charity for aiding the necessity of a neighbor than as a deputed Minister. - Cf. St. Thomas, 3, q. 64, art. 6; and in 4, dist. 5, q. 2, art. 2. - Billuart, dissert. 5, art. 4. - St. Alphonsus had taught the negative opinion under n. 34, but afterward in QQ. Reform. turned aside to the affirmative. - Cf. Ballerini, note (a) p. 137; and note (a) p. 138.

Question 2. Does a priest or Deacon sin gravely by ministering the Eucharist in mortal sin?

Resp. Affirmatively, according to the more probable opinion which St. Alphonsus holds. The reason is that he inflicts grave injury upon the most holy Eucharist; for although he himself does not act as an efficient cause in confecting the sacrament, nevertheless he is its dispenser, specially consecrated for this, and he performs a ministry which immediately cooperates with the sanctification of the soul. Yet the opinion of Lugo and the Salmanticenses, asserting that in this case only venial sin is committed, seems probable. But a fortiori the opinion of those who hold that to touch or carry the Most Holy Eucharist in mortal sin is not mortal must be judged probable. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 35. - Lugo, disp. 8, n. 155. - Salmant., tract. 1, cap. 7, n. 100. - Lacroix, lib. 6, part 1, n. 101. - Ballerini, note (b) p. 138.

Question 3. How many sins does a Minister commit who administers several sacraments in mortal sin, successively indeed, but in one continuous action?

Resp. In the administration of the Eucharist it is easily conceded, even by those who hold that one sins mortally, that only one sin is committed; because the individual distributions must be held as after the manner of one, since they constitute one banquet. But if the discourse is about the administration of Penance, the more common and truer opinion holds that there are several sins, because there are several and distinct judgments. - Nevertheless Card. de Lugo and the Salmanticenses think it probable that one sins only once; and if indeed this is probable, the same, at least from parity, would have to be said of the administration of Baptism and Confirmation. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 35 and seq. - Lugo, de Paenit., disp. 16, n. 558. - Salmant., de Censuris, cap. 1, n. 182. - Ballerini, note (a) p. 140.

I say. Priests having the care of souls are bound under grave obligation from justice to minister the sacraments to their subjects reasonably asking. For by undertaking the care of souls, they have bound themselves to this by a tacit contract entered into with their subjects, from whom they receive sustenance or at least honor. But others not having the care of souls are not bound from justice to minister the sacraments; sometimes, however, they are bound from charity, namely in a grave necessity of the neighbor. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 58. Cf. Can. 467.

You Will Resolve. 1st. Those having the care of souls sin gravely not only if they deny their ministry without reason, but also if they often show themselves morose and difficult; because thus they deter the faithful from the sacraments, which is the same as if they denied the sacraments.

2nd. Nevertheless, mortal sin is not present, setting aside the case of grave scandal, if they deny the Sacrament of Penance or of the Eucharist to one or another, or to the same one once or again, asking apart from necessity; because the harm can easily be repaired, nor is the subject thereby judged to be gravely unwilling.

3rd. If subjects ask irrationally, there is no sin. Hence the Parish Priest is not bound to spend time every day with a scrupulous person or with little devout persons, since so frequent confession is not expedient for them, nor do they themselves have a strict right to such frequent absolution.

4th. If the Parish Priest has suitable Vicars, he will not be bound so rigorously to hear the confessions of his subjects; yet he must satisfy the faithful who expressly require him by name, unless either he is impeded or the penitents would willingly approach another confessor.

5th. Generally speaking, those who have charge of souls sin gravely who are unwilling to hear the confessions of their subjects except on a few determined days within the month; because they are the cause why the faithful remain long in the state of sin and are kept from receiving the sacraments. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 58 and elsewhere passim.

Question. Are any sacraments, and which ones, to be ministered even with danger of death, whether by those having the care of souls or by others?

Resp. Only two, namely Baptism and Penance. For, on the one hand, the eternal life of the neighbor must be valued more highly than the temporal life of the Minister of the sacraments, and, on the other, only the two aforesaid sacraments are necessary for salvation.

Observe, however, 1st. that those who have the care of souls are bound to expose life not only in extreme necessity, but also in grave necessity, while other Ministers are bound to this only in extreme necessity; 2nd. that this obligation ceases when only a probability of success or necessity is present. - Hence you are not bound to expose your life for baptizing or absolving someone if you probably must perish before you can fulfill it, or if you probably presume that he has been baptized, or is not living in the state of mortal sin, or even can easily provide for himself through an act of perfect contrition. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 58; and de praec. caritatis, n. 27.

I say. The Minister is bound under grave obligation, speaking in itself, to deny the sacraments to the unworthy, both because the natural law obliges a dispenser to dispense faithfully the goods of the Lord, and because it is the positive will of Christ that the sacraments not be conferred upon the unworthy, according to that saying of Matthew, vii, 6: "Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine." - I said, speaking in itself, because in particular cases one must attend to the following:

1st. To a public sinner, whether asking secretly or publicly, the sacrament must be denied; because there is no reason why an exception should be made to the general rule; indeed grave scandal of the faithful would follow from the concession of the sacraments. - Cf. St. Thomas, 3, q. 80, art. 6. - St. Alphonsus, n. 44.

§ 1. Those who are publicly unworthy, such as the excommunicated, the interdicted, and the manifestly infamous, are to be kept away from the Eucharist, unless their repentance and amendment are established and they have first satisfied for the public scandal (Can. 855).

2nd. To a secret sinner asking secretly, likewise the sacrament must be denied; because reverence toward it and charity toward the neighbor demand this in these circumstances. - Cf. St. Thomas, ibid. - St. Alphonsus, n. 50.

§ 2. But secret sinners, if they ask secretly and the minister has known them not to be amended, he is to repel; not, however, if they ask publicly and he cannot pass them by without scandal (Can. 855).

3rd. To a truly secret sinner asking publicly, the sacrament is not to be denied. The reason is deduced from the inconveniences which would follow from the denial of the sacrament: for scandals and disturbances would arise in the Church, and especially the faithful, having been brought into suspicion, would withdraw from them lest they be prohibited from the sacraments. - Cf. St. Thomas, ibid. - St. Alphonsus, ibid. - Lehmkuhl, nn. 38 and seq.

4th. § 2. It is forbidden to minister the Sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, even those erring in good faith and asking for them, unless first, their errors having been rejected, they have been reconciled to the Church (Can. 731).

Question 1. Must the sacrament be denied to a sinner asking publicly, but whose crime, although notorious, because namely it can no longer be hidden, nevertheless is not yet properly public; or, if public, is not so where he asks?

Resp. Negatively, at least more probably, because on the one hand those standing by would take no scandal, or no great scandal, from such administration; and on the other, if the sacrament were denied, those inconveniences and harms would arise which come from a denial made to a sinner who is wholly secret. Indeed the same solution must be given if most of those standing by know the crime and it is not yet simply public. Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 45 and 46.

Question 2. Is it licit to simulate, or at least to dissimulate, a sacrament, lest it be conferred upon the unworthy?

Before an answer is given, it must be noted beforehand what the simulation of a sacrament is and in what it differs from its dissimulation. Now since simulation in general is, as St. Thomas says, "a lie of deed," or the placing of some sign expressing something contrary to that which is had in the mind, it follows that simulation of a sacrament is nothing other than a fictitious placing of a sacramental action, so that outwardly there does not appear the defect on account of which no sacrament is rendered. But it is called a fictitious placing of a sacramental action when matter and form are placed with the intention of not confecting the sacrament. But if the Minister, in acting thus, directly intends to deceive, then the simulation of the sacrament is called formal; if, however, he is induced to simulate from another motive, for example from grave fear, then it will be only material. But to dissimulate a sacrament is to omit some essential part of it, namely matter or form, whether another thing is substituted in its place or nothing is substituted; yet in such a way that this omission or substitution can be known outwardly, and this alone is sought, namely to hide the truth. These things having been noted, now to the question:

Resp. Certainly it is never licit to simulate a sacrament, whether there is question of formal simulation or only of material simulation. The reason is both because to simulate a sacrament is properly to lie, and because to act thus is to abuse sacred things and to mock God Himself; and since an abuse of this kind contains grave irreverence toward the sacrament, he who simulates some sacrament can never be excused from mortal sin. Besides, it is clear from proposition 29 condemned by Innocent XI, which is thus stated: "Urgent grave fear is a cause for simulating the administration of the sacraments." But in this condemnation even material simulation is reproved, since it is treated specially in the proposition. - Nevertheless, contempt being set aside and a just cause being added, it is licit to dissimulate a sacrament. The reason is that in dissimulation no injury is done to the sacrament, because no sacramental action is placed, nor is a lie committed, but only the truth is hidden. - Cf. Viva, on the cited proposition. - Scavini, lib. 3, n. 31. - Ballerini, note (a) p. 145. - Haine, vol. 2, p. 331.

You Will Resolve. 1st. A confessor would sin gravely who pronounced the words of absolution without the intention of absolving, even if he did this in order to extricate himself more easily from a penitent who was indisposed and asking insistently for absolution, or even demanding it by very grave threats. - But a confessor does not sin who, in the aforesaid case, would say: "I do not absolve you" . . . pronouncing the particle not so softly that it is not heard by the penitent; although he would act better if he then pronounced other words or prayers than the form of absolution. Recourse is especially to be had to this means as often as, on the one hand, the penitent is indisposed, and, on the other, those standing by can easily notice that he is dismissed without absolution. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 59.

2nd. A priest would sin most gravely who in Mass pronounced the consecratory words over bread and wine while excluding the intention of consecrating, both by reason of simulation and by reason of idolatry, by exposing the bread to the public adoration of the faithful. But if the words themselves of consecration are omitted, then, according to some, the sin of simulation would cease, but the most grave sin of idolatry would still remain. And this is the reason why, by Innocent III in cap. de homine, 7 de celebr. Miss., it is said that the priest who has fraudulently presumed to simulate that he consecrates sins more gravely than if he celebrated in mortal sin.

3rd. Likewise a priest would sin most gravely who would offer an unconsecrated host as consecrated, even to one knowing and consenting, as sometimes happens to wretched priests with an accomplice, who approaches the sacred table for the sake of preserving reputation. The reason is that thus the unconsecrated host is exposed to the adoration both of those standing by and also of the very one knowingly receiving it, with external reverence, which constitutes external and material idolatry and therefore something intrinsically evil.

4th. According to the common opinion they do not sin, at least gravely, who, either from grave fear unjustly inflicted or with knowledge of a diriment impediment but under urgent necessity, because, for example, all things are prepared, fictitiously contract Matrimony. The reason is that, consent being lacking, the contract itself is lacking, and therefore also the matter and form of the sacrament are lacking, and consequently there can be no true simulation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

"Besides the sacraments properly so called," say the Fathers of Baltimore in the Second Plenary Council, "the Church has other sacred things also, which formerly, indeed, in a broader and less proper sense were also called sacraments, but for many centuries it has come into custom that they be called sacramentals. The origin of the name is from this, that although they are far inferior to the sacraments in power and merits, nevertheless they imitate them in some way by their effects." Now concerning these sacramentals we shall here briefly say three things, namely what they are, how many and which they are, and what effects they produce. - Cf. Konings, nn. 1244 and seq.

I. Sacramentals are things or actions which the Church, in some imitation of the Sacraments, is accustomed to use for obtaining, by her impetration, effects especially spiritual (Can. 1144).

II. Only the Apostolic See can constitute new Sacramentals, or authentically interpret those received, or abolish or change any of them (Can. 1145).

Concerning the number of sacramentals theologians do not agree; for some assign more, others fewer. Yet more commonly they are reduced to six heads, according to the little verse:

Praying, wetted, eating, confessed, giving, blessing.

1st. Praying signifies the daily prayers of the faithful, but especially the Lord's Prayer and the public prayers of the Church, as are those which are made on the days of Rogations.

2nd. Wetted denotes the use of lustral water, which must be traced back to the first centuries of the Church. It also denotes all other anointings which do not constitute some sacrament properly so called.

3rd. Eating expresses the devout eating of blessed bread, which in the ancient Church, when the former fervor of charity was gradually failing, was given to the baptized, and sometimes to catechumens, in place of the Eucharist. This custom is still preserved today in some Churches, where fragments of blessed bread are offered to the faithful within the solemnities of Masses before or after the time of Communion. The aforesaid word also expresses the eating of blessed fruits, especially if they are new, for which a special blessing exists.

4th. Confessed designates the public confession of faults to be made in a general manner by the prescription of the Church, whether in Mass or in reciting the Canonical Hours. It also designates the suppliant and humble striking of the breast, and also the sprinkling of ashes upon the heads of the faithful customarily done on the first day of Lent.

5th. Giving comprehends first of all almsgiving, and secondarily any other work of mercy, whether spiritual or corporal, specially designated by the Church as to be furnished by the faithful in some public calamity or in the Lenten season.

6th. Blessing comprehends first of all all blessings which are ordinarily given either in writing or by voice by the Pope, Bishops, and priests; then those solemn blessings described in the Roman Ritual as to be given to virgins, kings, queens, etc.; and finally blessings of things and animals. Now of these blessings some are papal, or reserved to the Pope, for example, the blessing of Pallia or of the Golden Rose; others are episcopal, which by right pertain to Bishops alone, such as consecrations of churches, altars, chalices, bells, priestly vestments, altar-cloths, corporals, the first stone of a church or cemetery, the tabernacle, a new cross and images, if however the blessing of the cross and images is done publicly with solemnity; finally others are priestly, namely those which regard priests, with this distinction, however, that every priest can give some, while some can be given only by a Parish Priest or another delegated by him. - I said that some blessings are episcopal by right, but it must be observed that Bishops cannot delegate a simple priest to impart all of them without a pontifical indult.

III. The effects of sacramentals are numbered differently by different persons, but the principal ones are the following two:

1st. The remission of venial sins, not indeed immediately and by force of the sacred rite itself, which pertains only to the sacraments properly so called, but by means of the pious movements of contrition which certainly are customarily excited more easily and more frequently through the use of sacramentals. To this point belong those words of St. Augustine: "This prayer (the Our Father) wholly destroys minimal and daily sins." And elsewhere the same holy Doctor bears witness: "sins without which one does not live here are cleansed by works of mercy and pious prayers."

2nd. The repression and flight of the demon; and this not only by way of impetration but also by way of command. Hence St. Alphonsus admonishes the priest that, when agony is pressing, he should more often sprinkle the sick person with holy water and fortify him with the sign of the cross.

Question 1. Who is the legitimate minister of Sacramentals?

Resp. The legitimate minister of Sacramentals is a cleric to whom power for this has been conferred and who has not been prohibited by competent ecclesiastical authority from exercising the same (Can. 1146).

§ 1. No one who lacks the episcopal character can validly perform consecrations, unless either by law or by apostolic indult this is permitted to him.

§ 2. But any presbyter can impart blessings, excepting those which are reserved to the Roman Pontiff or to Bishops or to others.

§ 3. A reserved blessing which is given by a presbyter without necessary permission is illicit, but valid, unless the Apostolic See has expressed otherwise in the reservation.

§ 4. Deacons and lectors can validly and licitly give only those blessings which are expressly permitted to them by law (Can. 1147).

Question 2. What rites are to be employed in confecting and administering Sacramentals?

Resp. § 1. In confecting or administering Sacramentals, the rites approved by the Church are to be accurately observed.

§ 2. Consecrations and blessings, whether constitutive or invocative, are invalid if the formula prescribed by the Church has not been employed (Can. 1148).

Question 3. To whom can Sacramentals be conferred?

Resp. Blessings, to be imparted first of all to Catholics, can also be given to catechumens, indeed, unless a prohibition of the Church stands in the way, even to non-Catholics for obtaining the light of faith or, together with it, health of body (Can. 1149).¹

It is not necessary to add more concerning sacramentals, but it is altogether useful to place before the eyes this most wise admonition of the Fathers of Baltimore:

"Let preachers and rectors of souls take care first of all to explain to the faithful the nature, signification, and right use of these things, and to inculcate them more often. Let them persuade those who rely too much on their own wisdom and talent that these things, although they may seem light and small, are not to be contemned, since they profit not a little for living piously and attaining salvation. But let them again and again admonish the more untaught common people, who are swept away by the contrary error, lest they attribute too much efficacy to the things themselves, nor preserve them with a certain blind and immoderate confidence and pursue them with superstitious veneration, as though they themselves, by themselves, without a pious disposition of mind, could do very much. But let them most sharply rebuke those who have sacred things of this kind, as was the custom among the Heathen, as though in place of amulets, which would keep them immune from the wrath of God and vengeance even when they are involved in the most foul filth of vices." - Cf. Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 350.

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1088, n. 9.

The Eucharist can be defined: the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, under the species of bread and wine, for the spiritual refreshment of souls; or, a sacrament of the new law instituted by Christ the Lord for the spiritual refreshment of the soul, in which the Body and Blood of Christ are truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of bread and wine. But the following things must be held by faith:

I. In the Sacrament of the Eucharist Christ is truly, really, and substantially present, body and soul, together with divinity.

II. The whole Christ is permanently contained under each species and, once separation has been made, in any species, at least a sensible part.

III. In the Sacrament of the Eucharist there occurs true transubstantiation, or the real conversion of the whole substance of bread into the Body, and of wine into the Blood, of Christ, so that, once the consecration has been completed, nothing remains of bread and wine, excepting only the species. All these things are clear from the Council of Trent, sess. 13, can. 1 and seq. - Cf. De Augustinis, part 1, art. 3 and 5.

Question 1. How long does Christ remain really present in the Eucharist?

Resp. He remains as long as the species remain entire; but He ceases to be under them as soon as the species are so corrupted that according to the estimation of men they do not seem to be bread and wine. But then, according to St. Thomas, the dimensive quantity of bread and wine miraculously receives the force and property of substance. - Cf. De Augustinis, Thesis 5, p. 141. - Lacroix, n. 474.

Alexander VII condemned the following.

I. A priest can lawfully accept a twofold stipend for the same Mass, by applying to the petitioner even that most special part of the fruit which corresponds to the celebrant himself, and this after the decree of Urban VIII. This is the 8th.

II. After the decree of Urban, a priest to whom Masses to be celebrated are delivered can satisfy through another, a lesser stipend being conferred upon him, another part of the stipend being retained for himself. This is the 9th.

III. It is not against justice to accept a stipend for several sacrifices and to offer one sacrifice; neither is it against fidelity, even if I promise, by a promise confirmed even by an oath, to him who gives the stipend, that I will offer it for no other. This is the 10th.

IV. The command of Trent made to a priest sacrificing of necessity in mortal sin, that he confess as soon as possible, is a counsel, not a precept. This is the 38th.

V. That particle "as soon as possible" is understood as when the priest shall confess at his own time. This is the 39th.

Innocent XI proscribed the following.

VI. It is not unlawful in conferring the sacraments to follow a probable opinion concerning the validity of the sacrament, the safer being left aside, unless law, agreement, or the danger of incurring grave loss forbid it. Hence a merely probable opinion is not to be used in the conferring of Baptism, of priestly Orders, or of the episcopate. This is the 1st.

VII. Urgent grave fear is a just cause of simulating the administration of the sacraments. This is the 29th.

VIII. Frequent confession and communion, even in those who live in the manner of the heathen, is a mark of predestination. This is the 56th.

Alexander VIII the following.

IX. They are to be judged sacrilegious who claim a right to receiving communion before they have done condign penance for their offences. This is the 22nd.

X. Similarly they are to be kept from holy communion in whom there is not yet the most pure love of God and free from every admixture. This is the 23rd.

XI. Baptism was valid which was sometimes conferred under this form: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, those words being omitted, I baptize thee. This is the 29th.

XII. Baptism is valid conferred by a minister who observes the whole external rite and form of baptizing; but within, in his heart, resolves with himself: I do not intend to do what the Church does. This is the 30th.

I. Fr. La Croix, Book 6, part 1, no. 102: “It must be said … that he does not sin mortally who in mortal sin begins the form of a sacrament, provided that before the utterance of the last essential part he be in the state of grace; and whatever Aversa and others say to the contrary.”

II. Fr. Matthew de Moya in his Select Questions, Vol. I, tract 4, Miscellany, question 2, § 3, nos. 13 and 14: “There is no reason why, on account of fear, at least of death, it should not be lawful to use simulation of this kind in all the sacraments. Hence if a heretic (not out of hatred of the faith) should threaten death to a priest unless he consecrated all the bread present in the market, he could utter the words of consecration without the intention of consecrating, without any sin against religion or justice, and without any stain of lying.”

III. John Sánchez in his Select Disputations, disputation 44, no. 6: “Nor is it an objection that some adore such bread as consecrated: for it will be material idolatry, which the priest in that case is not bound to avoid.”

IV. Fr. Jerome Llamas in his Method, part 1, chapter 1, § 5, and part 2, chapter 2, § 11, in Leander of the Most Holy Sacrament, part 1, tract 1, disputation 6, question 8: “For the administering of other sacraments, nay even of the sacred Eucharist to be given to others, we do not believe that the precept of contrition obliges: because he who administers a sacrament in mortal sin does not place an obstacle to grace … therefore it is not a new fault, since he who gives the sacrament is not the one receiving it.” Granados in the same place reputes this opinion probable.

V. Torrecilla, Vol. II, Sum, tract 4, disputation 1, chapter 4, no. 5: “An infant in the mother's womb is capable of baptism, even if no part of him come forth, provided water can be introduced there.”

VI. The same in the same place, disputation 10, chapter 7, no. 3: “It is no sin not to receive the sacrament of confirmation, even in one who can conveniently do so, unless he omit it out of contempt. Nor is he to be judged to contemn it, unless he not receive it either because he holds it of small moment, or unworthy of himself, or as childish.”

VII. The same in the same place, chapter 3, no. 8: “By necessity of the sacrament it is not required in confirmation that the unction be made with the bishop's finger: for it suffices for validity that it be made with some instrument.”

VIII. Fr. Dominic Viva in his Course of Theology, part 5, question 3, article 2, no. 6: “I answer with the common opinion in Diana … that it is not mortal to be unwilling to receive that sacrament of confirmation, contempt and scandal being cut off. Nay, from Trullench and Henríquez, against Navarrus, in Coninck, not even venial, since nowhere is there a precept concerning receiving it.”

IX. Fr. La Croix, Book 6, part 1, doubt 3, no. 395, question 71: “What besides is to be noted concerning the necessity of confirmation? ANSWER. That there was formerly an ecclesiastical precept that confirmation be received, Dicastillo here gathers, no. 105, from various councils and the sayings of the holy Fathers. But he rightly teaches at doubt 10, with the common opinion, that this precept has now ceased through desuetude.”

X. Fr. Thomas Tamburini, Book 3, On Confirmation, chapter 3, § 4, no. 2: “Nevertheless the same men do not sin, neither mortally nor venially, if, apart from contempt or something similar, they neglect it when occasion is given: because concerning this no precept appears — which is the opinion of Suárez against Cajetan and some others … thinking it to be venial. Whence credence is not to be given to Leander … who draws Suárez to himself, as though granting that it is venial.”

XI. Sylvester, under the word Eucharist 3, § 1: “It seems mortal in such an article (of death) for one contemning, and therefore neglecting, to communicate … but because the taking of the Eucharist is not of necessity of salvation, but from the statute of the Church, therefore it is truer that this is not mortal, where negligence alone is the cause.”

XII. Fr. Paul Layman, Book 5, tract 4, chapter 5, no. 4: “A sick man a little before, say eight or ten days, communicated, when he was well, thinking nothing of the danger of death: then …”

“then he is not bound to communicate again, having fallen into sickness.”

XIII. Fr. Didacus Nuño Cabezudo, part 3, On St. Thomas, question 72, article 8, doubt 1: “The faithful have no divine precept of receiving the sacrament of confirmation. … No precept has been laid down by the Church concerning the sacrament of confirmation. … Speaking of itself, it is not a sin, even venial, to be unwilling to receive this sacrament.”

XIV. Fr. Matthew de Moya in his Select Questions, Vol. I, tract 4, Miscellany, On the Sacraments, question 11, no. 7: “Whence is easily dissolved the foundation of those asserting that it is a venial sin, on the ground that it is a certain spiritual prodigality to deprive oneself of so great a fruit of this sacrament (of confirmation) when a man can conveniently receive it. Which reason indeed proves too much, and therefore nothing.”

XV. The same in the same place, no. 11: “From the fact that no precept of confirmation is given, speaking of itself, they infer that its omission is not venial. … Therefore from the fact that no precept is given forbidding the reception of orders without confirmation preceding, it is similarly inferred that it is not venial to receive them before confirmation.”

XVI. The Fathers of Salamanca, tract 1, chapter 7, point 2, no. 107: “Nay, if he hear a sacramental confession only in mortal sin, provided he have the purpose of confessing, or of making an act of contrition, before he utter the words of absolution (he does not sin mortally), as Henríquez and Diana say.”

XVII. Fr. Leander, tract 7, disputation 9, question 6: “But I answer with a distinction. For if a particle (in the words of consecration) be omitted out of formal contempt, it will be mortal to omit it: because contempt formally is to set oneself directly against a superior's precept, which is mortal. But if it be omitted out of material contempt, namely because the precept is concerning a light matter, then it will not be mortal to omit it.”

XVIII. The same in the place cited, disputation 7, question 6: “In the case in which a husband should threaten death to his wife unless she communicate, that thus he might cast off a suspicion against her: then indeed she will be very well able to simulate that she receives the Eucharist, just as she can simulate that she confesses sacramentally, since in that case she can very well without the crime of lying use equivocation: therefore the priest also can simulate that he puts the host into her mouth.”

XIX. Fr. Claude La Croix, Book 6, part 1, On the Eucharist, no. 546, § 4: “Suárez, Vásquez, Sá, Marchant, Nuño, de Lugo, Diana, Dicastillo, Aversa, John Sánchez, Gobat, Pellizarius, Leander teach — on this almost all agree, says Moya, tract 4, question 6, § 1, citing very many — that a priest is not bound by this precept if, having opportunity of a confessor, he has not confessed out of malice: because although he sin more gravely, nevertheless in positive precepts the argument from the lesser to the greater, or to the like, does not hold, as de Lugo with the common opinion says in his Moral Answers, Book 4, doubt 47, no. 5. But Trent speaks of him who, necessity urging, celebrated without previous confession. But if there was opportunity of a confessor, there was no urgent necessity of celebrating without previous confession. Therefore neither then will he be bound to confess as soon as possible. This opinion is probable.”

XX. Fr. Thomas Tamburini, Book On the Method of Communicating, chapter 1, § 6, no. 50: “In a case of doubt whether some words of a law import an obliging precept or a counsel, the Doctors lay down as a certain rule that they are to be reputed counsels and not precepts: and the reason is, that since the law is grave and burdensome, it is always to be understood in the kinder part for the subjects. Add that in doubt the condition of the possessor is the better. Therefore in doubt whether a law be obliging or not obliging, the condition of human liberty is the better, which is immune from such an obligation.”

No. 51: “Thirdly, because it is desirable, as Navarrus earnestly desires, that no one be obliged by lawgivers to sin, it helps to diminish human laws obliging under precept, lest by so great a multitude of precepts we be made worse than the Hebrews. Wherefore it is also worth while to diminish this precept of which we treat (of confessing as soon as possible).”

XXI. The same Tamburini in the place cited, § 7, no. 56: “Concerning a layman there is no difficulty: for it is enough if he elicit it immediately before the taking itself: and because the taking, or eating, is substantially done when we swallow the food or send it down, but not while it is in the mouth, when the taking is only inchoate, therefore I think it most probable that it suffices that the act of contrition be made when the most sacred host is held in the mouth. So Ilsung, de Lugo, On the Eucharist, disputation 13, no. 20, Hurtado On the Eucharist, disputation 8, and others.”

XXII. The same in the same place, no. 59: “Although some with Layman assert that a priest defiled with mortal crime offends mortally if he hold out the Eucharist to the faithful, nevertheless some deservedly deny it, as Vásquez, whom de Lugo cites and follows, disputation 8, On the Sacraments in Common, section 2, because then the priest does not confect the sacrament but only dispenses what is consecrated, for which so great worthiness is by no means required. And the same is of a deacon, when by the priest's special commission he holds out the sacred Eucharist to others: since then he does not confect but only dispenses. If therefore that is probable, how much more probable will it become that it is not a mortal fault merely to touch?”

XXIII. Fr. Leander, tract 7, disputation 7, question 30: “Whether a priest who in the very action of sacrificing recalls a mortal sin, or perhaps commits it, is bound afterwards by force of the said precept to confess as soon as possible? I answer probably that he is not bound by that precept, because the Council spoke of a priest who, necessity urging, celebrated without previous confession — that is, of a priest who, compelled by necessity, did not send confession before, ere he approached to celebrate the Sacrifice: for this those words previous confession clearly signify, that is, confession before Mass; but not of a priest who in celebrating commits a sin, or recalls one. Therefore however much he then consecrate and communicate without confession, he will not be bound afterwards to confess as soon as possible. So Vásquez, disputation 108, chapter 3, no. 10; Sayre; Diana.”

XXIV. The same Leander in the same place, question 32: “If a priest is poor, and lives on the accustomed alms of the Mass, there is truly found in him a bodily necessity, which is sufficient for celebrating without previous confession.”

XXV. Fr. Tamburini, On the Method of Communicating, Book 1, chapter 1, § 10, no. 71: “Whether there be a case in which a man can communicate without confession, and even without contrition, and consequently in mortal sin? … So kindly are the bowels of the Lord's mercy that he does not disdain sometimes to excuse our obstinacy. For I find one case or another in which a man can take the most pure communion in sin without sin.”

XXVI. The same in the place cited, no. 72: “For from the aforesaid it is established that a priest who, the Mass having been begun in good faith, recalls himself guilty of a mortal fault, ought to elicit an act at least of what he reckons contrition. But now if he cannot, or find that act very difficult to himself, what shall he do? He cannot confess, he is by no means able to be contrite, to leave the Sacrifice begun is most difficult on account of the infamy resulting to him. What therefore remains to be extorted from a soul so affected? I judge it probable, from the opinion of some, that this man will not sin mortally if with such a conscience of mortal sin, and with such sorrow as he can then elicit, he continue the Mass, consecrate, and communicate. So Vásquez, On the Eucharist, disputation 207, chapter 1, no. 34; Hurtado, disputation 9, On the Eucharist, difficulty 1; de Lugo, On the Sacraments, disputation 9, section 1, no. 8. The reason is, because the precept of communicating worthily does not seem to bind the faithful so strictly as to compel a priest with so great disgrace to himself to depart from the sacred rite begun. But then such a priest will not acquire grace, yet nevertheless will not sin.”

XXVII. The same Tamburini in the same place, no. 73: “And the same will be of a layman who, being now about to receive the holy synaxis before the linen cloth, and unable under any pretext to remove himself, recalls a mortal sin and cannot be contrite. So there: for the reason is equal. Let the scrupulous, and those always timid of mind, note this doctrine.”

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.

Caius, a missionary priest and a religious, heard at his own home the confession of his sick friend Titius, who was not, however, dangerously ill and who lived in the district of Julius, a secular priest, and refreshed him with Holy Communion. When Julius heard this, he wrote the following to Caius: Unless he had been ignorant of the ecclesiastical law which prescribes that the sacraments are to be received from one’s own priest, he would not have administered the sacraments outside the district assigned to him. Caius denied that he had done anything contrary to any ecclesiastical law, and affirmed that, if some common ecclesiastical law were in force which prescribed that the sacraments are to be sought from the parish priest, it did not affect missionaries such as we have in England. Hence it is asked:

1. By common law are the sacraments to be administered by one’s own parish priest, and by the quasi-parish priest in this region?

2. Is there a special law that prohibits religious from administering the Eucharist?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. Are the sacraments to be administered by one’s own parish priest according to the common law, and by the priest who has charge of the district in England and America?

The parochial sacraments of Baptism, Extreme Unction, Marriage, the Easter Communion, and Viaticum must be so administered according to the common law. Penance may be administered by any priest who has faculties in the place where the confession is heard. In England and in the United States the Easter Communion according to present discipline may be made in any church or public oratory.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 627.

2. Is there a special law which forbids Religious to administer the Eucharist?

Religious strictly so called are forbidden under pain of excommunication reserved to the Pope from administering Extreme Unction or the Eucharist as Viaticum to the clergy or laity except in case of necessity without leave of the parish priest.²

2 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 406.

3. The case. No objection could lawfully be made to Caius hearing the confession of Titius, his sick friend. The faithful have a perfect right to go to confession to any priest who has faculties in the place. With regard to Holy Communion there is more difficulty. Whenever Holy Communion is of precept, as is the Easter Communion and the Viaticum, it is per se a parochial sacrament, and Religious are specially forbidden to administer it. However, in the case, communion was not of precept, but of devotion. To carry the Blessed Sacrament publicly to the sick is reserved to the parish priest. In English-speaking countries it is not carried publicly to the sick, and some authors maintain that in such places Regulars may carry Holy Communion to the sick in secret unless the Bishop prohibits it. In England the Bishops make

Digith I by LiOOQie known their wish that Holy Communion should not be carried to the sick by Regulars or others without the permission of the priest of the district. The Society of Jesus has a special privilege in this matter for use in the Missions under Propaganda.

Julius, recently appointed a missionary in a certain district in England, was visiting Catherine, a widow of rather advanced age. When Julius asked whether she was a Catholic, she affirmed that she was, but at the same time said that she had once been an Anglican. “By whom were you received into the Church?” Julius asks. “By no one, but I came,” the other replied, “for while an Anglican I always heard that each was essentially the same Church of Christ; hence I began to go to your church, where I receive the sacraments every month. For now I am a true Catholic, and I know that Anglicanism is infected with heresy and schism.” Asked further whether she had been baptized, she said that she supposed this had been done to her as an infant in the neighboring Protestant church to which she would have belonged, but that her parents had almost entirely neglected religion. Julius said nothing else to Catherine, but inquired of the minister whether her name was in the register of those baptized in that Protestant church. When no indication of it was found, he proceeded to Catherine’s house, where he found her stricken by a sudden illness and deprived of her senses. He wished to know what he should do in the case, and what he should do if Catherine recovered. Hence it is asked:

1. Who can validly and lawfully receive the sacraments?

2. What is the relation of

Baptism to the other sacraments?

3. What must be done when someone is received into the Church?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. Who can receive the sacraments validly and lawfully?

In adults the intention to receive the sacraments is necessary for their validity. For the lawful reception of the sacraments of the living the state of grace is necessary, and for the lawful reception of the sacraments of the dead faith, hope, and attrition. No intention or disposition is necessary in those who have not the use of reason for the reception of the sacraments of which they are capable.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 41 ff.

2. What is the relation of Baptism to the other sacraments?

The valid reception of Baptism is necessary for the valid reception of the other sacraments.²

3. What is to be done when a convert is received into the Church?

Inquiry must first be made about the baptism of the new convert. If it is certain that he has never been baptized, after a profession of faith he should be baptized absolutely. If it be doubtful whether he was ever baptized he must make a profession of faith, be baptized conditionally in private with holy water without the ceremonies in England, be conditionally absolved from censures, and then from sin after a full confession of his whole life. If he has been validly baptized already, he should make a profession of faith and be absolved from censures.³

4. The case. One may seriously doubt whether

‘Ibid., p. 41.

' Form for the Reception of a Convert, edited by the Bishop of Newport.

Catherine had ever been baptized. She herself supposed that she had been, but she had no positive information on the point; her parents were careless about religion, and her name was not to be found in the parish register. She should therefore be baptized conditionally again. If she is in danger of death, this should be done at once, though she is not conscious, and then she should be absolved conditionally and anointed. If she is not in danger of death, the priest should do nothing till she recovers. After recovery in any case she should be formally received into the Church according to the method described above, for as she had not formed an express intention of receiving Baptism, the validity of the Baptism administered while she was unconscious would be doubtful, even if she had not been baptized in infancy. Whether the sacraments which she had been in the habit of receiving every month were valid or not would depend on whether she had been validly baptized. Her reception of them was not lawful, but her good faith excused her.

Paul, an Anglican converted to the Catholic faith and raised to the priesthood, desired nothing more than to receive his father into the Church. Whenever he spoke with his father about the Catholic faith, the latter always put an end to the discussion by saying: “Neither do I wish nor do I not wish to be converted; but if it will be a consolation to you, you may baptize me before death,” for he had been only doubtfully baptized as an infant. One day Paul received word that his father was gravely ill; when he hastened to him, he found that he had already died within the space of an hour. Without delay, after his father had been baptized conditionally, he absolved him and likewise anointed him conditionally. Hence it is asked:

1. What intention is required in the subject of the sacraments?

Bertha, an unmarried young woman, gives birth to an illegitimate child. Some months after its birth she brings it to the parish church to have it baptized. After its Baptism she requests the parish priest to church her. But he, already sorely troubled by the scandal the girl has brought on the parish, indignantly refuses to church her. In fact, he tells her the Church refuses to bless a woman after an illegitimate birth, that the churching of women is intended solely for decent legitimate mothers, and that to church her would be to transgress the command of Our Lord, about throwing pearls before swine. Some days afterwards, however, he began to think that perhaps he had been too severe, that perhaps he ought to have churched the unfortunate woman, that scolding her now could do no good, since the evil was done, and a bitter price already paid, and the unhappy girl was not likely to repeat her experience. He now asks whether he ought to have churched the woman, since she desired to be churched; or was it lawful for him to have refused her? Had she a strict right to the blessing, or was it within his discretion whether he would church her or not, or would it have been unlawful to church her?

ANSWER. The Roman Ritual has nothing to say regarding the churching of women after an illegitimate birth. There are three decrees of the Congregation of Rites concerning the churching of women after a legitimate birth, in Gardellini's collection. In 1631, the Congregation of Rites answered: “as to the blessing of women after childbirth, this is a parochial duty and pertains to the parish priest himself.” Again, when it was urged, in the same year, that the churching of women was not de praecepto, but only ad bene esse, and therefore might be performed by any priest, the Congregation of Rites answered that the churching of women belonged to the rights of the parish priest, exclusively. The same answer was given again in 1703. i

Since the Roman Ritual says nothing about the churching of women who have given birth to illegitimate offspring, and since nothing can be found in the decrees of the Roman Congregations concerning the same, we will consider the origin and nature of the ceremony of blessing women after childbirth. The rite has its origin in the prescription of the Old Law, concerning the purification of women after childbirth.

In the book of Leviticus, ch. 12, we read: "Neither shall she (a woman after childbirth) enter into the sanctuary until the days of her purification be fulfilled.... And when the days of her purification are expired, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the door of the tabernacle of the testimony, a lamb of a year old for a holocaust, and a young pigeon or a turtle, for sin, and shall deliver them to the priest; who shall offer them before the Lord, and shall pray for her."

"It is evident from the words of the law," says O'Kane (Rubrics, ch. x.) "that it could not apply to the Blessed Virgin in whom there were none of the effects of ordinary childbirth, since not only in conceiving, but in giving birth to the divine Infant, she still remained a pure and perfect virgin. Yet we know from St. Luke that she did not avail herself of the exemption, but humbly complied with the requirements of the law. A desire of imitating the humility of the Blessed Virgin, induced the custom among Christian mothers of abstaining from entering the church for some time after childbirth. They then asked the blessing of the priest at the church door, and made their first visit one of thanksgiving to God for their safe delivery."

The Jewish rite was intended only for legitimate wives and mothers, united in lawful wedlock. From which we infer that it was the intention of the Church, from the beginning, to confer this rite only on lawfully married women, after legitimate childbirth. Moreover, if we consider where this blessing occurs in the Roman Ritual, namely, immediately after the Sacrament of Marriage, as if pertaining to the same matter, and not among the other blessings of the Ritual, we seem to gather that it was intended by the Church only for women who have given birth to legitimate children in lawful wedlock.

Wherefore Catalanus, in his Commentary on the Roman Ritual, de bened. mulier. n. 17, says:

“It remains that, at the end of this commentary concerning women to be purified after childbirth, we note also this: the blessing after childbirth is granted only to a woman who has given birth from marriage, and not to one who has given birth from fornication, especially from adultery, or from intercourse otherwise condemned. Thus the doctors commonly teach plainly, and it is also read as enacted in synods and Rituals.”

Baruffaldi, commenting on the Roman Ritual, is of the same opinion (ad Rit. Rom. comm. de bened. mulier. tit. 43, n. 18).

De Herdt also, in his work on the Liturgy, arrives at the same conclusion. He says: "Only those women who bring forth children in lawful wedlock, have a right to this blessing; so much so that women who beget children in adultery or fornication should not be permitted to receive this special blessing, but rather should be made to do public penance."

“Only women who have given birth from legitimate marriage have a right to this blessing; so that there cannot be admitted to it those women who have notoriously borne offspring from adultery or fornication; public penance should rather be imposed upon them.” (De Herdt, S. Liturg, juxta Rit. Rom. bened. mulier. n. 11.)

This question was proposed to the Congregation of the Council, on the 18th June, 1859. The Congregation returned the following answer:

“Women who have given birth from legitimate marriage alone have a right to the blessing after childbirth.”

As is evident from the text, the sacred Congregation speaks only of the right—jus—of legitimately married women, to this blessing. The Congregation says nothing as to the permissibility of giving the blessing to unmarried women, after an illegitimate childbirth. It is quite clear that an unmarried woman has no strict right or just claim to be churched, after giving birth to an illegitimate child. But the question is not one of right; the question is one of the lawfulness of churching women after an illegitimate birth, not whether the priest committed a sin or acted unjustly in refusing to church Bertha, but whether he would have committed a sin or transgressed the law of the Church, if he had churched her.

Although the Roman Ritual may have taken occasion to speak of the churching of women from the Sacrament of Matrimony, still it remains true that the Ritual makes no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate childbirth, but simply describes the ceremony of blessing a woman after childbirth. Indeed it may even be urged that a woman has more need of this blessing after an illegitimate birth, than has a woman after a legitimate birth. For the nature and purpose of the ceremony is to purify the woman after confinement, that she may be clean again to enter the sanctuary of the Lord. And certainly a woman who has brought forth a child unlawfully, has more need of being purified before entering the church, than the woman who has borne a legitimate child. And if the blessing were to be omitted in the case of a notoriously illegitimate childbirth on account of the scandal it would occasion, still exception should be made for the poor woman who has brought forth her child in secret, and who was led into sin by deception or human frailty. In some countries, as in Belgium, for instance, in the case of a notorious illegitimate birth, the mother may not be churched except by the archpriest or dean, in order to enable the archpriest or the dean to discover, if possible, the identity of the father of the child, in order to institute legal proceedings against him. In some dioceses in Ireland, women who have given birth to illegitimate children are prohibited from being churched; in other dioceses they are restricted. In the diocese of Cashel and Emly there is this statute, dating from 1782:

“No woman who has given birth outside marriage is to be purified before a month has elapsed; if she has given birth again and in the same manner, she is to be purified only after two months have elapsed; one giving birth outside marriage a third time is never to be purified.” (O'Kane, Rubrics, p. 214.)

To conclude. Women who give birth to illegitimate children have no strict right to be churched, according to the decree of the sacred Congregation of the Council, June 18, 1859.

Further than this there is no general law of the Church concerning the churching of women, except that it belongs to the rights of the parish priest. If, therefore, there exist no diocesan statute, prohibiting the churching of women after an illegitimate childbirth, the parish priest is at liberty to do whatever he judges best in any particular case.

In the case before us we are inclined to think that the pastor was too harsh with Bertha. The poor woman had evidently suffered a great deal already, and the blessing might have helped her to regain her self-respect. There is danger that she may go wrong altogether, now that she feels herself so dishonored and she has need of great kindness and forbearance to help her rehabilitate herself in the esteem of the community. She would seem to be worthy of praise, rather than of contumely for desiring to receive the blessing post partum, and in the majority of such unfortunate cases kindliness will produce better results than severity.

Especially in parts of the country where Catholics are as yet sparsely settled, it often happens that by contact with irreligious people Catholics grow cold in their faith and neglect its practices. If they fall into sickness, such people are not likely to care much for the consolations of the church, and the priest usually meets with a cold reception, if he is called in at all. But even if received in a friendly way, he is likely to meet with a polite refusal as soon as he mentions Confession, etc. What can be done under such conditions to induce Catholics, weak and indifferent in faith, to the reception of the sacraments?

Above all, the worthy, virtuous priest will seek assistance from heaven, and will offer up his pious prayers for divine guidance and help for a task that seems beyond human power. Then he will proceed in confidence, straining at the same time all his faculties of mind to discover the means best suited to the needs of each particular instance. A safe key to the human heart is the genuine priestly love. Diplomacy may often be resorted to with good result. The former general of the Society of Jesus, P. Beckx, accomplished the conversion of an obstinate murderer, condemned to death, by first playing chess with the man and thus gradually gaining his friendship and confidence. Sick people in general greatly appreciate expressions of courtesy and sympathy; the priest may with advantage facilitate his task by inquiring of children about their sick father and sending him sympathy and good wishes, also paying a preliminary friendly call without mentioning anything about religion, thus gradually getting the patient at ease with the thought of receiving the sacraments. The priest who goes about his task in this manner will have the gratification of greatly lessening in his parish the number of those who die without making their peace with God. A thing of the greatest importance in this connection is that frequent exhortations be made from the pulpit to the people to look out not only for the body, but also for the soul of their sick at home, to send for the priest before the sickness gains too much headway, reminding them of the difference it will make for the peace of those left behind, if they can think of their deceased relatives as having died consoled and fortified by the reception of the sacraments.

Cajus, a young priest, is to say the solemn Mass on Holy Thursday. Because a large number of people wish to receive Holy Communion at that Mass, Cajus takes a great many small particles and folds them in an extra corporal and places them on the altar, beside the chalice, and on the regular Mass corporal. At the offertory and at the consecration, he unfolds the corporal so that he may see the particles, and he directs his intention to them. Shortly after the consecration, he sees a small particle lying on the floor beside him. In his confusion he picks it up quickly and lays it on the consecrated particles beside the chalice. After a few moments, however, he begins to doubt whether the particle was consecrated or not. It may have fallen to the floor just before the consecration. Still, he thinks he would have noticed it sooner had it fallen before the consecration. He does not know what to do.

If the particle was not consecrated, he can not distribute it with the others without committing an act of material idolatry, and depriving some one of the communicants of Holy Communion. He can not distinguish this particle, however, from the others, and the people are waiting to receive Holy Communion. Cajus asks the Mass-server if he knows when the particle fell to the ground; the Mass-server does not know. In this dilemma the young priest distributes all the particles in Holy Communion.

Now we ask: 1. Was it right to use two corporals at the Mass? 2. What is to be said about Cajus's mode of procedure with regard to the doubtful particle?

1. In the Rubrics of the Mass, mention is made of only one corporal to be used at Mass, namely the one that is spread under the chalice and on which the large host is laid. If small particles are to be consecrated during the Mass, they are to be laid on this corporal, "ante calicem," or they are to be put into a second consecrated chalice, or other holy vessel, which is placed on the corporal of the Mass behind the chalice of the Mass, "retro post calicem" (Ritus eel. Missam. ii. 3). A second corporal is unknown to the Rubrics. Therefore, when many small particles are to be consecrated, a ciborium should be provided, or a second chalice. In case there is no ciborium or chalice, the small particles should be placed on the Mass corporal, in front of or on the side of the chalice. The use of a second corporal, to hold the small altar breads, is contrary to the Rubrics, and could be justified only in a case of real necessity, when no ciborium or second chalice is to be had, and the small particles are too numerous to be placed on the Mass corporal. Even in this case, it were better to make one corporal out of the two, by unfolding both on the altar, and allowing one to overlap the other a few inches. This would be much better than folding the small particles in a second corporal and placing them thus folded on the Mass corporal.

2. Regarding Cajus's conduct, we remark:

1. When Cajus picked up the small particle from the floor, he should have kept it separate from the other particles, and consumed it before or with the first ablution. That was the only correct thing for him to do.

2. Once the doubtfully consecrated particle was mixed with the consecrated particles, and its identity lost, Cajus should not have given Holy Communion with any of the particles, but should have put them all into a ciborium or chalice and reconsecrated them all. "sub conditione" at another Mass.

3. If that was impracticable, as it was on Holy Thursday, because there would be no other Mass on that day, Cajus should have removed some of the small particles from that place where he laid the doubtful host and placed them in a ciborium to be consecrated at another Mass, "sub conditione," and then given Holy Communion with those that remained. For, in picking up the particle from the floor, and placing it with the others, Cajus could be morally certain just about where he placed it, and by removing the particles from that particular region, he would be morally sure that he had removed the doubtful particle. If the consecrated particles remaining did not suffice for the faithful, they might be broken. The inconvenience of breaking them would not be a sufficient reason for giving Holy Communion with doubtfully consecrated particles.

4. Strictly speaking, there remains still another way of removing the danger of material idolatry and doubtful Holy Communion. To give the communicant two sacred hosts is forbidden, when it is done "devotionis causa."

That it is forbidden in the present instance can scarcely be maintained. By so doing all danger would be removed. Of course, the sacred particles would not suffice in that case, but they might be broken in two, and two broken particles given to each communicant, taking care that the broken pieces given to each communicant be not parts of the same host.

In order to secure himself against the danger of giving two pieces of the same host to the same communicant, the celebrant would have to divide the particles into various fragments; some into two pieces, some into four pieces, etc., and give the communicant a half and a fourth part of a host.

5. It can not be denied that circumstances may arise where it would be practically impossible to divide the particles, as mentioned under No. 4 or even as under No. 3.

Therefore, we will venture to remark, as a final solution of the difficulty, that it is more than probable that the particle picked up off the floor was a consecrated host. The likelihood that it was not is very meager. Therefore, the likelihood of giving Communion, in the present instance, with an unconsecrated host, is likewise very small; so small, in fact, that a priest would be justified in exposing himself to it in order to extricate himself from so embarrassing a situation. Nor does he do any one an irreparable injury by thus exposing them to the very slight danger of communicating under unconsecrated species. Nor would the small danger of exposing himself and the faithful to commit an act of material idolatry be a sufficient reason for abstaining from distributing all the particles in Holy Communion.

Father Paul, a young priest, is assigned to a parish where it is the practise for the sisters to wash the altar linens. Among these linens are the purificators and corporals. In the seminary it was taught that certain of the altar linens ought to be washed only by a man in sacred orders, and Father Paul remembers having taken his turn at this work after he had received subdeacon’s orders. He desires to know whether it is only a pious practise for a man in sacred orders to wash the purificators and corporals, or whether there is any strict obligation for a priest or major-order man to wash them, or may they be turned over to the sisters together with the rest of the church linens to be washed and repaired by them.

Answer. I. The purificators, corporals and palls, when soiled, must be washed by a priest or deacon, or at least by a subdeacon. It is not lawful to give them to any one else, even to religious women, until they have been first washed, at least once, by a man in sacred orders. This is of strict obligation, and by no means a mere pious or becoming practise.

1. The third part of the decree of Gratian, in the Corpus Juris Canonici, treats “de consecratione.” Distinctio I, canon 40, prescribes how the altar linens shall be washed. “But the palls and veils of the sanctuary, if they have been soiled in the ministry, are to be washed by the deacons with the lower ministers within the sanctuary, not taking them outside the sanctuary; and they are to wash the coverings of the Lord’s table, lest perchance dust of the Lord’s body fall away improperly. But they are not to wash the linen cloth outside; and doing this will be a sin. Therefore we command the ministers to guard these holy things diligently within the sacristy. Indeed, a new basin is to be obtained, and nothing else besides this is to touch it.

Nor is that basin itself to be used for washing any cloths except those which pertain to the service of the Lord’s altar. Only the altar palls are to be washed in it, and in another basin the door curtains.” In this canon, therefore, it is commanded, and not merely recommended, that the altar linens, when soiled, be washed by a deacon, assisted by clerics of lesser degree, a Diacono cum humilibus ministris; which does not mean that the clerics of lesser degree than the deacon may themselves wash the altar linens, but that they are to assist the deacon in the performance of this ministry. This canon of the decree of Gratian contains some prescriptions that have since been abrogated by the general practise obtaining in the Church. Thus, for example, the canon ordains that the linens shall be washed within the sanctuary, and that they shall not be removed from the sanctuary. Also that the altar cloths are to be washed in the same way as the other linens. But the general practise of the Church, abrogating certain of the provisions of this fortieth canon of Gratian’s decree, does not extend to the washing of the purificators, corporals or palls, which must still be washed by a man in sacred orders. This appears from repeated answers of the Congregation of Rites. Again, in the rite of ordination of a subdeacon, as contained in the Roman Pontifical, the bishop admonishes the cleric, whom he is about to raise to the office of subdeacon: A subdeacon ought to wash the altar palls and corporals. According to a decision of the Congregation of Rites, September 12, 1857, this washing of the purificators, corporals and palls, since it is enjoined by the Roman Pontifical on the subdeacon, as one of the duties of his office, may not be committed to any persons not in sacred orders except by the Roman Pontiff himself.

2. The purificators, corporals and palls must be washed by hand, and not with instruments or by machinery. It is not required that they should be altogether clean, when they leave the hands of the subdeacon, or that they should not be washed again, but nevertheless, the cleansing that they receive at the hands of the subdeacon should be a real washing, vera ablutio. According to the rubrics found at the beginning of the Missal, de defectibus (tit. x, n. 12), the corporals, purificators and palls should be washed three times, and each time, according to the common opinion of the rubricists, in fresh water. But these two extra washings are not considered preceptive, but only commendable, while the first washing is of strict obligation. This is evident, the rubricists say, from the canon of the decree of Gratian, as well as from the Roman Pontifical, both of which prescribe only one washing.

3. According to the decree of Gratian these linens are to be washed intra sanctuarium. The general practise of the Church, as well as the interpretations of the rubricists, take these words as meaning that these linens are not to be washed in the houses of the laity.