The Requisites for Valid Reception

For validly receiving a sacrament neither faith nor uprightness is required, as is clear from the sense and practice of the Church, which has always held as valid a sacrament received according to the rite of the Church in heresy. Penance is excepted, for which the good acts of the penitent are required, as will be explained in its own place.

Baptism, however, is required for the other sacraments. This is established, namely, from tradition, that the other sacraments were instituted only for those who through Baptism have been made members of the Church (St. Alphonsus, VI, 79).

Finally, for the valid reception of all the sacraments there is required, at least in adults, intention, that is, the will of receiving the sacrament; concerning which intention we must speak more fully (St. Alphonsus, VI, 80, 139).

I. Necessity of intention. 1. In little children and in the perpetually insane, that is, in those who have never enjoyed the use of reason, no intention is required, but the will of the Church supplies. This is of faith with regard to Baptism,¹ certain with regard to Confirmation and the Holy Eucharist, namely from the most ancient practice of the Church; likewise with regard to Order from the Constitution Eo quamvis tempore of Benedict XIV² (St. Thomas, III, q. 68, a. 9; a. 12, ad 1; St. Alphonsus, VI, 80, 139). Further, little children and the perpetually insane are capable of the sacraments which we have indicated, but incapable of the others (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

2. In adults intention is required, as follows:

a) He who both internally resists the reception of the sacrament and is forced to the external rite, by the consent of all, does not receive the sacrament.

b) He who internally resists the reception of the sacrament, but voluntarily admits the external rite, does not receive the sacraments which do not imprint character. Thus authors commonly teach, relying on this reason: that it is not fitting that the gifts of God be conferred on one who positively does not will to receive them. There is some dispute about those sacraments which confer character, that is, Baptism, Confirmation, and Order. Those few who judge that the latter sacraments are received in the case rely especially on the fact that Innocent III³ declares that it is not absurd to teach that he who fictitiously approaches Baptism, that is, externally consenting but dissenting in heart, receives the impressed character of Christianity. Nevertheless, the more common opinion teaches that even the sacraments which imprint character are not received by one who internally dissents, although he externally consents. The reason alleged is that it seems especially unfitting that sacraments which carry special burdens with them should be received by a subject who does not will to receive them. For the rest, the words of Innocent III, considering their tenor, are of a kind to move anyone little.

c) He who neither consents nor dissents, but holds himself merely passively, much more probably does not receive the sacraments any more than one who positively resists reception; because it is not fitting that the gifts of God be conferred on one who does not positively will to receive them (St. Thomas, III, q. 68, a. 7; St. Alphonsus, VI, 81).

St. Thomas says thus in the cited place: "I answer that through Baptism someone dies to the old life of sin and begins a certain newness of life ... And therefore, just as in order that a man die to the old life there is required, according to Augustine, in one having the use of free will, the will by which he repents of the old life; so there is required the will by which he intends newness of life, whose beginning is the very reception of the sacrament; and therefore on the part of the one baptized there is required the will or intention of receiving the sacrament." And again: "If in an adult the intention of receiving the sacrament were lacking, he would have to be rebaptized; if however this were not established, it would have to be said: If you are not baptized, I baptize you."

With this doctrine of St. Thomas there cannot be reconciled the opinion of those who teach that the will which is required in the recipient is rather that of one not placing an obstacle than of one positively consenting.⁴

Corollary I. He validly receives a sacrament who, from fear, consents to reception; for fear does not take away freedom. Except Matrimony, which is invalid if consent has been extorted by grave fear, as will be explained in its own place.

Corollary II. The question treated concerning the intention of one receiving a sacrament does not regard the Holy Eucharist; concerning this, namely, it is not asked whether it is valid without the intention of the recipient, but whether without the said intention it is received sacramentally, or only materially, so that it does not produce fruit.⁵

¹ Council of Trent, Session 7, canon 13 on Baptism.

² 4 May 1745, article 1.

³ Chapter 3, De Baptismo (III, 42).

⁴ Cf. also, with regard to Baptism, canons 745, § 2, and 752; Roman Ritual, title 2, chapter 3, n. 1; with regard to Penance, Roman Ritual, title 3, chapter 1, n. 24; with regard to Extreme Unction, canon 943; Roman Ritual, title 5, chapter 1, n. 6.

⁵ Cf. the treatise on the Holy Eucharist.

II. Nature of the required intention. 1. In itself actual intention is not required, nor virtual intention, but even habitual intention suffices; interpretative intention does not suffice. I said:

a) Habitual intention suffices, in other words, it suffices that someone positively had it and has not retracted it.¹ The reason is that intention is required in the recipient only so that he may not be said to be sanctified against his will. But this cannot be said of one who enjoys habitual intention. Others except Penance and Matrimony. But as regards Penance, habitual intention suffices insofar as there is question of receiving absolution. It is another question, however, whether the acts of the penitent must be placed from an at least virtual intention, that is, by force of the intention of receiving the sacrament, in other words, whether they must be referred by the penitent, actually or virtually, to absolution.² With regard to Matrimony, which the recipients themselves minister, actual or virtual intention is necessary to this extent: that it is required that consent begin to exist from an actual or virtual intention of contracting Matrimony (St. Alphonsus, VI, 81, 82, 139).

b) Interpretative intention does not suffice, because intention of this kind, at least as it is understood by us (n. 15), in reality has not existed.³

Objection. The Roman Ritual⁴ and canon 943 establish that Extreme Unction is to be conferred absolutely on the sick who, when they were in possession of their mind, at least implicitly asked for it or probably would have asked for it. Therefore with regard to Extreme Unction interpretative intention suffices, or rather a mind inclined toward the said sacrament, which interpretative intention indicates.

Response. I deny the consequence. And indeed the Roman Ritual and canon 943 do not speak of sick persons, faithful, who would probably have willed Extreme Unction, but who would probably have asked for it. But a faithful person who, while master of himself, would probably ask for Extreme Unction also, with sufficient certainty, willed the said sacrament more or less explicitly, just as the request which probably would have place indicates with sufficient certainty a mind inclined toward the sacrament.

2. With regard to the object, the intention of receiving such a sacrament is required, or of receiving what the Church intends through such a rite. But an intention more or less explicit of receiving such a sacrament suffices. A merely implicit intention, as for example the will of using the means of salvation, does not suffice if there is an explicit contrary intention; if no such contrary intention is had, the matter seems doubtful. With these things noted in general, receive the following in particular:

a) With regard to Baptism, the will of embracing the Christian religion suffices for receiving it, at least in danger of death. It is disputed whether the same can be said of the will of using the means of salvation, likewise of attrition or contrition. Many hold this as probable, because there is an implicit intention. But we judge that one must speak thus:

a) It seems it must be denied if there is question of those who reject Baptism at least more or less explicitly; of this kind are Jews, Mohammedans, and many Protestants today. But it seems it must be denied because, besides the fact that it is not proven that implicit intention suffices, explicit rejection seems to prevail over implicit admission.⁵ There is added that the Holy Office on 30 March 1898 declared: "Concerning dying Mohammedans deprived of the senses, one must respond as in the decree of the Holy Office of 18 September 1850 to the Bishop of Perth, that is: If previously they had given signs of wishing to be baptized, or in their present state either by nod or in another way have shown the same disposition, they can be baptized under condition, insofar nevertheless as the Missionary, having inspected all the circumstances of things, has so prudently judged"; which at least proves that it is illicit to confer Baptism on those who reject it, and suggests that such conferral is invalid, because, if validity were posited, at least in extremis it does not seem it should be excluded. There are added canons 752, § 3, and 754, § 3, compared with the Holy Office of 30 March 1898, which seem to require a more or less explicit will. There is added finally that a practice conforming to the contrary doctrine never seems to have existed in the Church (St. Alphonsus, VI, 82; cf. VI, 483). Practically, the contrary opinion can be called licit, but not obligatory.

b) If there is discussion of those who do not explicitly reject Baptism, the probability of the opinion which teaches that the general will of admitting the means of salvation suffices, likewise attrition and contrition, the probability of that opinion, I say, seems rather slight: both because, as we said, canons 752, § 3, and 754, § 3, compared with the Holy Office of 30 March 1898, seem to require that the one to be baptized have signified an intention more or less explicit of receiving Baptism; and because the practice of baptizing those who enjoy only an implicit intention seems truly new in the Church. Practically, however, the contrary opinion seems licit, and, according to circumstances, obligatory.

b) With regard to Extreme Unction, likewise for receiving Viaticum sacramentally, the will of dying Christianly suffices; the same will in danger of death suffices for Confirmation; likewise for receiving sacramental absolution, at least considered by itself alone.

The will of dying Christianly, likewise the will of using the means of salvation, or contrition or attrition, according to the things explained above, do not seem to suffice in those who reject the mentioned sacraments more or less explicitly. With regard to non-Catholics who do not explicitly reject the said sacraments, it is not so proven that the will of dying Christianly, etc., does not suffice for valid reception.

c) With regard to Matrimony and Order, explicit intention is required; since, at least practically, there will not be had an implicit intention which includes the will of entering Matrimony or of receiving Order. There is added that the said sacraments carry special burdens with them, so that for that reason also a general will does not sufficiently contain the will of receiving them (St. Alphonsus, VI, 82).

Question. Whether the conceived intention of receiving a sacrament effects that it is validly received, even if it is ministered to one not master of himself, for example sleeping, drunk, or fallen into insanity.

Response. A few deny it;⁶ but it seems it must entirely be affirmed, both because Innocent III teaches thus with regard to Baptism,⁷ likewise Benedict XIV;⁸ and because intention is not judged restricted unless a restriction is expressly placed, or is drawn from a contrary will once had (St. Thomas, In IV, dist. 6, q. 1, a. 2, sol. 3, ad 2; St. Alphonsus, VI, 81).

¹ Innocent III, chapter Maiores, § Item quaeritur, de baptismo; Instruction of Benedict XIV, Postremo mense, n. 46.

² Cf. the treatise on Penance.

³ St. Alphonsus (VI, 82) and others teach that interpretative intention suffices; but they understand that intention which others call implicit habitual intention. The holy Doctor indeed calls it interpretative intention which was never had; but he intends the one which was never had explicitly, as follows from the context, namely both from the fact that he also calls interpretative intention general, that is, such by which someone implicitly wills the sacrament, and from the fact that he opposes interpretative intention to explicit intention.

⁴ Title V, chapter 1, n. 6.

⁵ It seems to others that in the will of using the means of salvation there is not included the implicit will of receiving the sacrament, but rather a merely conditioned will; in other words, he would will to receive it if he recognized it as a means of salvation; but this condition not being fulfilled, he in no way wills it (cf. Ter Haar, De occasionariis et recidivis, n. 503).

⁶ Roncaglia, De Sacramentis in genere, chapter 5, question 2, response 2; Billuart, De Sacramentis in communi, dissertation VI, article I; Lehmkuhl (II, 65 note) doubts.

⁷ Book 3 of the Decretals, title 42, chapter 3, Maiores.

⁸ Instruction Postremo mense, n. 46.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

91. The subject of a sacrament is its true cause, but a material cause. - The one receiving is not, as the minister is, the efficient cause which gives power to the sacraments, but the material cause, insofar as, if the one receiving or some disposition in him is lacking, there is not a subject capable of receiving the immediate effect of the sacrament, and consequently the sacrament does not have its signification and is invalid.

The subject is man as wayfarer, who alone is capable of receiving grace through a sensible sign; for Baptism it is every such man; for Confirmation and the Eucharist, one baptized; for Order, a baptized male; for Matrimony, one baptized who has the use of reason; for Penance, one baptized who has sinned; for Extreme Unction, one baptized who has sinned and is sick.

92. Principle I. For the validity of a sacrament there is required in an adult, besides capacity, the intention of receiving the sacrament, or what Christ instituted and the Church does, or what Christians receive. - The reason is that, just as no adult is justified and saved without his own consent, as the Council of Trent says, sess. 6, c. 7, so neither does he receive the means of salvation, nor is he initiated into newness of life or consecrated to God: for these things must be received by an adult in a human manner.

So the Third Council of Carthage (a. 397) and the First of Orange, can. 12 (a. 441); Innocent III, l. 3, t. 42, cap. Mai. de Bapt.; and then all theologians; the Roman Ritual; Instruction of the S.C.P.F., June 23, 1830; and decree of the Holy Office, November 28, 1900. In children this intention is supplied by the intention of Christ and of the Church.

Nor does the Council of Florence stand in the way, urging only three things: matter, form, and the intention of the minister; for the Council 1. wished only to express those things which have themselves actively toward perfecting the sacraments; - 2. it treats of those things which are necessary for all sacraments; but now the one receiving is not required for perfecting the Eucharist; likewise intention is not required in little children.

93. Principle II. The required intention is habitual, i.e., actual and not retracted; and indeed, of itself a habitual implicit intention of receiving the sacrament suffices, or of receiving what Christ instituted and the Church does, or what Christians receive. - In the subject, the intention of receiving the sacrament, or the positive consent of the will, is a condition, required for its validity, that the reception of the sacrament may be voluntary; whence:

A. On the part of the act or of the subject, a lesser intention suffices than in the minister:

1. An actual or virtual intention is not required, which has influence as a cause or active principle, and not as a mere condition: for the one receiving is not the active principle of the sacrament, but only its passive subject; whence in him there is not required an intention which would be the principle of a human action.

2. But there is required, and there suffices, an implicit habitual intention, once had and persisting in the present, as not having been retracted.

3. But a merely interpretative intention does not suffice, which is in no way had, but which would only be had if the thought occurred: namely, by which someone would will, but does not yet will.

But if at times they say that an interpretative intention in some way suffices, there is a dispute about words: they speak thus improperly, and they do not understand a merely interpretative intention concerning the future, but one presumed concerning the present, by which someone, according to his habitual knowledge and present disposition of living in a Christian manner, would explicitly ask for the sacrament if it were asked of him; - but that is an implicit habitual intention, which, on account of present conjectural signs, is presumed to be present.

They say, however, that for Penance and Matrimony a virtual intention is required, because the subject must place human acts; - but that is not required precisely in the subject, for receiving those sacraments, but for placing part of the sacramental sign, namely, the matter which the one receiving must supply, and indeed at the moment at which he supplies it: for the matter consists in human acts, for which at least a virtual intention is required.

The Eucharist, since it is permanent, is valid without the intention of the one receiving: nevertheless this is required for valid sacramental reception.

B. On the part of the object, the same intention is required as in the minister: for the subject must voluntarily receive the same thing which he ministers. It is, namely, the will of receiving the sacrament or rite as sacred, at least implicitly, for example, of receiving what Christ instituted, or what the Church does, or as Christians or Catholics receive, or of living or dying according to Christian custom; - but the sole intention of saving oneself contained in contrition does not suffice, whatever some have said.

1. For this intention is not sufficiently determined; for it is not more determined to one means of salvation, for example, Baptism or Penance, than to others, for example, ex opere operantis; indeed, if it sufficed, almost every man would have the intention of receiving Baptism: for everyone, even a Mohammedan or a Jew, even one who has never heard of Baptism, can have such an intention, and yet who can say that he has the will of embracing the Christian religion? Namely, that one has the will of saving himself, but through the Jewish or Mohammedan religion, not through the Church and the sacraments of Christ. For one who adheres to another opposed religion cannot be judged to have the implicit will of embracing the religion of Christ through Baptism. Whence through the centuries there was no custom of baptizing such persons in their last moments, as now some attempt to introduce.

Similarly, a heretic who does not admit the sacrament of Penance, indeed positively refuses to receive it, has the will of saving himself; how could it be said with any probability that by this very fact he wills to receive Penance?

2. Such an intention is not absolute, but merely conditioned concerning the future: for the will of receiving a sacrament, say Baptism, is contained in contrition only conditionally. This is only the will of observing the precepts, but is not immediately the will of Baptism; immediately it is the will of examining the religion of Christ if it is proposed, and, if it is known to be true, of receiving Baptism; whence one who has this will immediately intends to fulfill the known precepts, and would will Baptism if its obligation were known, but he does not know this and does not will it. Therefore one who has only the will of salvation cannot validly receive the sacraments.¹ With this will, indeed, one can belong to the soul of the Church through grace and charity, but not to the social body of the Church, and consequently cannot receive Baptism and, a fortiori, the other sacraments: for these are social bonds by which we are joined to the body.

¹ Hence it cannot be said with Génicot that by the Holy Office only a certain mode of acting is recommended.

Therefore, just as for conferring a sacrament a certain general intention of saving or sanctifying does not suffice, but a determined intention of sanctifying through such a determined means or sacrament is required, so for receiving a sacrament the general will of salvation does not suffice, but a determined intention of saving oneself through a determined sacrament is demanded.

3. Hence in all ecclesiastical documents there is constantly presupposed in the one receiving not only the will of salvation, but the intention of receiving the sacrament. Thus the Ritual, t. 2, c. 3, n. 1: "let him be baptized only knowingly and willingly; and in danger of death, if he is unable to ask for Baptism, it is required that he have manifested in some probable way the intention of receiving Baptism"; which words the Code repeats, can. 752, and it also requires that an adult "ask for Baptism, each one by his own movement of soul" (can. 745). In the same way the Ritual prescribes, t. 5, c. 1, n. 8: "Extreme Unction cannot be given except to a faithful person" (can. 940), and n. 11: "to the sick who, when they were in possession of their mind, asked for it at least implicitly or would probably have asked for it" (can. 943). And the Holy Office, to the question "whether a missionary can confer Baptism in the article of death upon a Mohammedan adult who in his errors is supposed to be in good faith (and therefore has the will of saving himself), if he has already lost advertence...," answered, March 30, 1898: "Concerning Mohammedans dying and already deprived of their senses, one must answer as in the decree of the Holy Office, September 18, 1850: If previously they have given signs of willing to be baptized, or in the present state by a nod or in another way have shown the same disposition, they can be baptized under condition, insofar, however, as the missionary, after considering all the circumstances of things, has thus prudently judged." From this response it is clear that the Holy Office does not esteem the contrary opinion as probable, since it is held as not to be attended to in practice.²

² So Suarez, Lugo, Noldin, Marc, Prümmer, Umberg.

94. Practical conclusions. - In practice, an implicit habitual will of receiving the sacrament is had:

1. for Baptism, in the will of receiving the Christian religion or of being a Christian and living as a Christian;

2. for Confirmation, in the will of being a perfect Christian or of living or acting as a good Christian;

3. for Viaticum and Extreme Unction, in the will of dying according to Christian custom or of not dying without the sacraments; and this also suffices for Penance, in the article of death, provided some confession of sins or manifestation of contrition has preceded.

But such a will does not suffice, and an explicit one is required:

a) for receiving Holy Communion in other circumstances, because the will of living as a Christian does not contain the will of receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist so often and at such a time;

b) for Order and Matrimony, in which a new state with new offices must be undertaken.

95. Corollaries. - From what has been said it follows that the sacrament is invalid:

1. which someone receives with a neutral intention, neither consenting nor dissenting but conducting himself negatively;

2. which someone receives in simulation, with essential fiction, for example, playfully and mockingly;

3. which is received through mere force, with the soul resisting.

On the contrary, it is validly conferred upon those sleeping, drunk, fallen into madness, deprived of the senses, who previously had the intention of receiving those things; but it is illicit unless in probable danger of death, or unless the impediment of the use of reason is perpetual.

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.