Part I Chapter I §1: Explanation of the Term 'Sacrament'

Part I: The Sacraments in General

Chapter I: Definition, Division, and Number

§1: Explanation of the Term ‘Sacrament’

PART I THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL CHAPTER I DEFINITION, DIVISION, AND NUMBER In this Chapter we shall first define the term “Sacrament/’ then show how it has been applied to various rites in the Old and the New Testament, and finally demonstrate that under the New Law there are seven Sacraments, neither more nor less. General Readings: — Peter Lombard, Liber Sent., IV, dist. i sqq. — St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 3a, qu. 60 sqq., and his commentators, notably the Salmanticenses, Cursus TheoL, Vol. XVIII (ed. Paris 1880) ; Billuart, De Sacramentis in Communi (ed. Lequette, Paris, Vol. VI, pp. 97 sqq.), etc. — *Suarez, De Sacramentis (ed. Vives, Paris 1856 sqq.). — Bellarmine, Controvers, de Sacrament, in Genere (ed. Fevre, Vol. Ill, pp. 325 sqq., Paris 1870). — Allen, De Sacramentis in Genere, etc., Antwerp 1576. — *M. Cano, Relectio de Sacramentis in Genere (ed. Rome 1890). — *De Lugo, Disputationes de Sacramentis in Genere (ed. Fournials, Vol. Ill, Paris 1892). This last-mentioned treatise is especially thorough and valuable. Among later writers : Drouvenius, De Re Sacramentaria contra Per duellos Haereticos, Venice 1737; *Tournely, Prael. TheoL de Sacramentis, Paris 1739; N. Muszka, S. J., De Sacramentis Novae Legis, Vienna 1758. Among modern authors: Bautz, Einig, Heinrich-Huppert, 3

Hurter, Simar, Hunter, Wilhelm-Scannell, et al, in their respective treatises on the Sacraments, and in addition to these the following : Merlin, Traite Historique et Dogtnotique sur les Paroles ou Formes des Sept Sacretnents de VEglise, Paris 1844 (Migne, Theol. Cursus Completus, Vol. XXI). — Besson, Les Sacrements ou la Grace de VHomme-Dieu, Paris 1879. — Katschthaler, Theol. Dogmatica Cath. Specialis, Vol. IV, Ratisbon 1884. — *Franzelin, De Sacramentis in Genere, 4th ed., Rome 1888. — *De Augustinis, De Re Sacramentaria, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Rome 1889. — Billot, De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, Vol. I, 4th ed., Rome 1907. — P. Schanz, Die Lehre von den Sakramenten der kath. Kirche, Freiburg 1893. — Oswald, Die dogmatische Lehre von den hi. Sakramenten, Vol. I, 5th ed., Munster 1894. — *Chr. Pesch, Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Vol. VI, 3rd ed., Freiburg 1908.— G. B. Tepe, Institutions Theologicae, Vol. IV, Paris 1896. — J. B. Sasse, De Sacramentis Ecclesiae, Vol. I, Freiburg 1897. — Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. IX, Mainz 1901.— H. Lahousse, S. J., De Sacramentis in Genere, etc., Bruges 1900. — A. Paquet, De Sacramentis, Vol. I, Quebec 1900. — Scheeben-Atzberger, Dogmatik, Vol. IV, Part 2, Freiburg 1901. — Noldin, De Sacramentis, Innsbruck 1901. — N. Gihr, Die hi. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1902. — G. van Noort, De Sacramentis, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Amsterdam 1910. — P. Pourrat, La Theologie Sacramentaire, 4th ed., Paris 1910 (English tr., Theology of the Sacraments, 2nd ed., St. Louis 1914).— -D. J. Kennedy, art. ” Sacraments,” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII. — W. Humphrey, S. J., The One Mediator, London 1890. — A. Devine, C. P., The Sacraments Explained, 3rd ed., London 1905. Non-Catholic authors worth consulting are : Hahn, Die Lehre von den Sakramenten in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung innerhalb der abendldndischen Kirche bis sum KonzU von Trient, Breslau 1864, and Alex. Maltzew, Die Sakramente der orthodoxkatholischen Kirche des Morgenlandes, Berlin 1898. *) The asterisk before an author’s name indicates that his treatment of the subject is especially clear and thorough. As St. Thomas is invariably the best guide, the omission of the asterisk before his name never means that we consider his work inferior to that of other writers. There are vast stretches of theology which he scarcely touched.

SECTION i explanation of the term “sacrament” i. Derivation and History of the Term. — “Sacrament” is a word of Latin origin. It is derived from sacrare 1 and denotes a thing which * produces holiness — a means of sanctification. The concept sacramentum was enriched by the inclusion in it of the Greek m^^iov, (from to shut the mouth or eyes), and thus came to denote a thing both sacred and mysterious.2 Such sacred and mysterious things were: (a) venerable objects, as the truths of religion,8 and especially (b) signs directing men to God, as, for instance, the types employed in the Old Testament.4 This usage was adopted by the Fathers 5 and retained by the early Schoolmen,6 even after the term “Sacrament” had come to be technically restricted to “a definite number of sensible signs of sanctification, given to man by Christ, who has 1 As test amentum from testari, 4 Cfr. Tertullian, Contra MarUnimentum from Knire, etc. cion., V, 4. 2 Res sacra et arcana, 5 E. g., St. Augustine. 8 Cfr. Eph. I, 9, III, 3 sqq. ; Col. 6 E. g., Hugh of St. Victor. I, 27; 1 Tim. Ill, 16. 5 annexed to the due use of these signs the power of working that which they signify.” 7 The usage mentioned was common alike to profane and ecclesiastical literature. Thus, in the early days of Rome, when a lawsuit was brought, the parties were often bound to deposit a sum of money with the priests, and that portion of it forfeited by the loser was called sacramentum, i. e. res sacra, and employed to provide sacrifices for the gods. The Romans used the word sacramentum also to denote a solemn engagement, especially a soldier’s military oath of allegiance. Tertullian no doubt had this particular usage in mind when he referred to the baptismal vow as a sacramentum in the sense of a sacred obligation entered into under the sanction of an oath.8 Since whatever is sacred has ref ert ence to the Deity, and the Deity is of its very na♦ ture mysterious, the term sacramentum gradually came to include the various meanings of the “Greek word pvanqpiov. Hence the indiscriminate use of sacramentum and mysterium in the Vulgate9 and the ancient liturgies. St. Augustine read in his Itala Bible: Si sciero omnia sacramenta (i Cor. XIII, 2), where our Vulgate has: Si noverim mysteria omnia/’ 7Cfr. S. J. Hunter, S. J., Out- » E. g., Tob. XII, 7: * Sacralines of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. mentum regis dbscondere bonum III, pp. 167 sq. est” 8De Idol, c. 6, 19. The words sacramenta and mysteria were further applied indiscriminately to symbols or signs representative of the “holy mysteries,” that is to say, all sacred usages and ceremonies, even such as were not sacramental rites in the technical sense. Thus St. Augustine in his sermons speaks of the “Sacrament of the Lord’s Prayer.” 10 In the Eleusinian Mysteries the term /w^pta Was applied both to doctrines and rites.11 From this vague and indefinite usage it follows that not every rite called sacramentum in the primitive Church was necessarily a Sacrament in the later and more precise sense of the term. To understand what is meant in each case we must carefully attend to the context. Thus, for instance, it would be a mistake to attempt to prove from St. Paul’s phrase “magnum sacramentum’9 that he regarded Matrimony as a Sacrament. The Apostle simply meant to say that it is a great mystery.12 Similarly the Fathers and early ecclesiastical writers employ the term Sacrament very loosely, as may be gathered from the fact 10 Serm., 228, n. 3: ” Sermonem ad altare Dei debemus hodie infantibus de sacramento altaris. Tractavimus ad eos de sacramento symbolic quod credere debeant, tractavimus de sacramento orationis dominicae, quomodo petant, et de sacramento fontis et baptismi.” 11 The rite of initiation, Phallic worship, etc. On the mysteries of the Mithraic cult, which the Romans got from Persia, see Blotzer, ” Das heidnische Mysterienwesen zur Zeit der Entstehung des Christentums,” in the Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, 1906, 1907. On the mysteries of Eleusis cfr. P. Foucart, Les Mysteres d’ Eleusis, Paris 1914. 12 For further information on this point cfr. the dogmatic treatise on Matrimony. that Tertullian 13 refers to the Gnostic systems as “sacramenta haereticarum idearum,” while St. Augustine repeatedly applies the term to the external worship of God and to sacrifice in general.14 It was reserved for the Schoolmen, notably Peter Lombard and St. Thomas, to define the term Sacrament, and to restrict its use to certain rites.15 2. Definition of a Sacrament in the Re-, stricted Sense of the Term. — Generally speaking, a Sacrament is, as we have seen, “a symbol of a sacred and mysterious thing.” Now, as there exists a vast number of such symbols that are not Sacraments in the technical sense, it is necessary to eliminate from the formal definition of the term all those symbols which do not refer to man’s personal sanctification. Only the visible signs of internal sanctification are called Sacraments in the proper sense.16 To distinguish the Sacraments of the Old Testament from the far more excellent and effective ones of the New, we must add, as a characteristic mark of the 13 Contra Marcion., I, 13. 14 Ad Marcellin., ep. 138, n. 7: * Signa, quum ad res divinas pertinent, sacramenta vocantur. — Contra Faust., XIX, 11: “In nullum nomen religionis seu verum sen falsum coagulari homines possunt, nisi aliquo signaculorum vel sacramentorum visibilium consortio colligentur.* — De Civ. Dei, X, 5: * Sacrificium visibUe invisibilis so* crificii sacramentum, i. e. sacrum signum est.” is Cfr. Pourrat, La ThSologie Sacramentaire, pp. 1-46, Paris 19 10. (English ed., Theology of the Sacraments, 2nd edition, pp. 1-47, St Louis 1914)16 Petrus Lomb., Sent, IV, dist x : * Sacramentum est invisibilis gratiae tsanctificantisj visibilis forma.* THE TERM “SACRAMENT” 9 latter, that they not only signify but actually ♦ confer grace. Hence Peter Lombard’s famous definition: “Sacramentum proprie id dicitur quod ita est signum gratiae Dei et invisibilis gratiae forma, ut ipsius imaginem gerat et causa existat,” or, more concisely, “Sacramentum est signum efficax gratiae sanctificantis” — a Sacrament is an efficacious sign of sanctifying grace. a) The note of “personal sanctification” eliminates a multitude of signs or symbols which were formerly included in the term Sacrament, e. g., such Old Testament types as the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea, the brazen serpent, the manna, and in general all those signs, rites, symbols, and ceremonies which had for their chief purpose the glorification of God rather than the sanctification of man, for example, the sacrifices of the Old Law, the Mass, the physical universe as a manifestation of the Creator’s greatness, and so forth.17 Similarly, the dove as a symbol of the Holy Ghost, the Bible, images of the saints, the sign of the cross, are indeed signa rei sacrae, but not Sacraments, because they signify or symbolize something else than the sanctification of the soul. Even among the sensible signs of interior sanctification, only those are truly Sacraments that were permanently instituted for this purpose by God Himself. Such was, for instance, circumcision under the Old Law, such is Baptism under the New. By this criterion we must eliminate merely transient rites, as the communication of the Holy Spirit by breathing, etc.18 To exclude 17 Cfr. Ps. XVIII, x. 18 Cfr. John XX, 22.

io THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL from the definition of a Sacrament a number of rites or signs that are merely sacramentals, it is necessary to emphasize with De Lugo 19 that a true sacrament not only signifies but actually causes interior sanctification. In the complete and perfect sense this is true only of the seven Sacraments of the New Law. b) As there were undoubtedly true Sacraments, though of an inferior order, under the Old Law, we must find some note by which to distinguish the Sacraments of the Christian dispensation from those of the Ancient Covenant, and elaborate a generic definition applicable to both classes. The existence of Sacraments under the Old Law may be deduced from the constant belief of the Fathers20 and Scholastics,21 and especially from the positive teaching of the Church. The Council of Trent defines : ” If anyone saith that these Sacraments of the New Law do not differ from the Sacraments of the Old Law, save that the ceremonies are different, and different the outward rites, let him be anathema.” 2-2 It is not easy to formulate a generic definition that will fully answer the requirements laid down. According to the exposition of doctrine drawn up by Eugene IV for the Armenian delegates at the Council of Florence, A. D. 1439, the essential difference between the Sacraments of the Old and those of the New Testament consists in this that the former merely 19 De Sacramentis, disp. i, sect. 2. dixerit, ea ipsa Novae Legis sa~ 20 Cfr. St. Augustine, Contra cramenta a sacramentis antiquae Faust., XIX, 11. Legis non differre nisi quia caeri21 Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa moniae sunt aliae et ritus alii, anaTheol., ia 2ae, qu. 102, art. 5. thema sit” (Denzinger-Bannwart, 22 Sessio VII, can. 2: “Si quis n. 845).

THE TERM “SACRAMENT” n \symbolize, or prophetically typify, sanctifying grace, whereas the latter ” contain ” and actually ” confer ” it.28 In other words, the distinguishing characteristic of the Sacraments of the New Law is the efhcacia signi, that of the Sacraments of the Old Law, the inefficacia signi. But if the Sacraments of the Ancient Covenant were inefficacious signs, — if they did not somehow truly effect or convey grace, how can they be called Sacraments ? Holy Scripture makes a distinction between a twofold sanctity, the legal ” sanctity of the flesh,” 24 and the theological ” sanctity of the spirit.” 25 The Sacraments of the Old Law foreshadowed but did not of themselves (ex op ere operato) confer “theological sanctity,” i. e. sanctifying grace, but they actually conferred “legal sanctity,” and in so far at least were endowed with the necessary causality or efficacia signi. They were efficacious signs of legal sanctity in the present, and inefficacious signs of theological sanctity for the future, and consequently types or models of the Sacraments of the New Testament. To exercise this twofold function they had been instituted by God Himself as a permanent institution, to last till the coming of the Messias. This distinction enables us to formulate an adequate generic definition as follows: “A Sacrament is a visible sign of sanctity, instituted by God, the efficaciousness of which is determined by the particular economy of grace to which it belongs.” 26 23 ” Novae Legis sacrament a multum a sacramentis differunt antiquae Legis; ilia enitn non causabant gratiam, sed earn solum per passionem Christi dandam esse figurabant, haec vero nostra et continent gratiam et ipsam digne suscipientibus conferunt.” (DenzingerBannwart, n. 695). 24 Sanctitas legalis seu carnis. 25 Sanctitas theologica seu gratia sanctificans. 26 On the question whether this definition applies in exactly the same sense or only analogically to the Sacraments of both Testaments, see Bellarmine, De Sacramentis, I, 12. 12 THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL 3. Theological Discussion of the Definition.— The important part played by the word “sign” in both the specific and the generic definition of a Sacrament, makes it necessary to explain the meaning of that term. a) A sign (signum, ayfUiov) is some thing, the knowl* edge of which leads to the knowledge of some other thing. There are here two distinct elements. The material element is ” some thing known ; ” the formal element, the aptitude of the material to convey ” the knowledge of some other thing as yet unknown.” ” A sign,” says St. Augustine, ” is a thing which, over and above the impression it makes on the senses, causes something else to come into the mind as a consequence of itself ; as when we see a footprint, we conclude that an animal, whose footprint this is, has passed by; and when we see smoke, we know that there is fire beneath.” 27 For the purposes of the present treatise we may disregard visible signs of visible things 28 and invisible signs of invisible things,29 and concentrate our attention on the visible signs of invisible things. b) Signs may be divided according to the point of view from which they are regarded. a) Between a sign and the thing it signifies there must be some connection. This connection may either arise from the nature of the two, independently of any free-will act, or it may be purely conventional. Thus it is owing to 27 De Doctrina Christ., II, i: “Signum est res praeter speciem, quam ingerit sensibus, aliud aliquid ex se faciens in cogitationem venire, sicut vestigio viso transiisse animal cuius vestigium est cogitamus et fumo viso ignem subesse cognoscimus” 28 Such as foot-prints, images of saints, etc. 20 E. g., peace of mind as an indication of the state of grace, the sacramental character conferred by Baptism, etc the very nature of things that there should be fire where there is smoke, and vice versa; smoke is therefore the natural sign of fire. A purely conventional sign bears no innate relation to the nature of things, but originates in an arbitrary act of one person, which is subsequently recognized by others. To which of these two classes do the Sacraments belong? They are not purely natural signs of invisible grace because their signification is owing to a free act of God. Nor can they be regarded as purely conventional or arbitrary signs because between the sacramental rite and its effects there is a striking similarity, which results in a sort of affinity between the symbol and the thing symbolized. In other words, the Sacraments are arbi-\ trary but at the same time deeply significant signs of’ grace. It was this observation which led St. Augustine to say : “If the Sacraments did not possess some kind of resemblance to the things which they signify, they wouIJTiof be Sacraments.” 80 Cardinal Bellarmine 81 divides signs, according to their origin, into three classes : (1) Those which signify some thing by nature, regardless of any act of the free-will (e. g. footprints, photographs) ; (2) those which originate entirely in the free-will of the inventor and are strictly conventional (e. g. signals, the ringing of a bell) ; (3) those which involve what may be called an obvious symt>olisip (e. g. the sign of the cross). It is to this last-mentioned category that the Sacraments belong. Being naturally adapted to symbolize interior grace, they have been chosen to perform this office and formally instituted for this purpose by Christ. Thus the external 30 Ep., 98, 9 (ad Bonifac.) : * Si sunt, non hdberent, omnino non sacrament a quondam similitudinem essent sacramenta.* earum rerum, quorum sacramenta 81 De Sacramentis, I, 9.

ablution in Baptism fitly symbolizes the cleansing of the soul from sin; Holy Communion under the species of bread and wine is an apt symbol of the spiritual nourishing of the soul, and so forth. ft) Another classification, important for our purpose, is that into speculative and practical signs. A speculative sign merely symbolizes that which it signifies (e. g. the national flag, an image), while a practical sign both symbolizes and effects it. Thus the act of handing over the keys of a fortress to the general of an invading army not only symbolizes the surrender of the stronghold, but actually puts it into effect. From what has been said about the essential distinction between the Sacraments of the Old and those of the New Testament, it is evident that the Sacraments are not merely speculative but practical signs. This is true of the ” weak and needy elements ” of the Old Covenant,82 and, in a still higher sense, of the Sacraments of the New Testament. y) Signs may also be divided with respect to past, present, or future events. A sign that refers to some past event is called in Scholastic terminology signum rememorativum. To this category belong paintings representing battles, commemoratory medals, etc. A sign that refers to some present happening is called signum demonstrativum. Such is, for example, the hoisting of a flag to signify the presence of a ruler. A sign that points to some future occurrence is called signum prognosticum (e. g. the blowing of a whistle to announce the impending arrival or departure of a train). The sacramental signs of the New Testament belong to all three of these categories. They recall the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, they symbolize sanctifying grace as here and now present in the soul, and they foretell the future glory 32 Gal. IV, 9.

of the elect. This teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas88 and of practically all other Catholic theologians has been adopted into the Roman Catechism.84 Its truth can be clearly demonstrated from Scripture. Of Baptism, St. Paul teaches : ( 1 ) that * we are baptized in Jesus Christ, in his death * ; 85 (2) that by virtue of this Sacrament * we walk in newness of life ; * 86 and (3) that Baptism makes us like Christ, as in death, so also in the resurrection.37 Holy Communion ” shows the death of the Lord ” in the\ past,88 confers spiritual life in the present,89 and guaran- v tees resurrection * in the last day. 40 For the other five Sacraments this threefold signification cannot be proved with the same convincingness, but it is virtually included in the indisputable Scriptural truth that the present reception of any one of them postulates as its meritorious cause the Passion of Christ, which is an event of the past, and carries within itself as a reward the future glory of Heaven. Note, however, that the sacramental signs are always primarily signa demonstratives and only secondarily signa rememorativa and prognostica. This is owing to the fact that the Sacraments by their very nature must produce that which they signify, i. e. sanctifying grace here and now present in the soul, because it is sanctifying grace that they actually effect, whereas they merely signify the Passion of Christ and the glory of Heaven, the former as an indispensable requisite, the latter as a promise and a guaranty. 8) In this connection the Fathers and Catholic theologians are wont to enlarge on a truth of great speculative 33 Summa Theologica, 3a, qu. 60, 37 Rom. VI, 5. art. 3. 38 Cfr. 1 Cor. XI, 26. 34 Cat. Rom., P. II, cap. 1, n. 12. 89 Cfr. John VI, 57. 35 Rom. VI, 3. 40 John VI, 5586 Rom. VI, 4.

importance with reference to the intrinsic relation between the Sacraments of the Old and those of the New Testament and between the latter and the glory of Heaven or eternal beatitude. As the ancient Synagogue was merely a type foreshadowing the Church, they say, so the New Covenant is but a type prefiguring the Heavenly Jerusalem, where we shall behold God as He is, without sign or symbol. This idea is intimated by St. Paul when he says in his Epistle to the Hebrews : ” For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of things.” 41 In other words, the New Testament, too, is but a ” shadow ” and an ” image ” of ” things ” which shall not be unveiled to our eyes until we are in Heaven. St. Ambrose succinctly expresses this thought as follows : * A shadow in the law, an image in the Gospel, truth in Heaven.* 42 The relation of the two Testaments with their respective Sacraments to the beatific vision of God in Heaven has been beautifully described by St. Bruno of Asti , who says : ” The first tabernacle, therefore, is the Synagogue; the second, the Church; the third, Heaven… . The first was in a shadow and an image, the second is in an image and in truth, and the third [will be] in the truth alone. In the first, life is foreshadowed ; in the second it is given ; in the third it is possessed.” 48 This teaching was adopted by the Scholastics. ” There is a threefold state for men,” says St. Thomas ; ” the first is that of the Old Law, … 41 Hcb. X, i : ” Umbram (cki&p) enim habens lex futurorum bonorum [scil. N. 7], non ipsam imaginem rerum (o6k aitr^v tV eUdva twp irpayn&Ttav)* 42 In Ps., 38, n. 25 : * Umbra in Lege, imago vero in Evangelio, Veritas in coelestibus.” 48 Horn., 34: ” Pfimum igitur tabernaculum est Synagoga, secundum Ecclesia, tertium coelum… . Primum in umbra fuit et figura, secundum in figura est et veritate, tertium lerit] in veritate sola. In primo ostenditur vita, in secundo datur, in tertio possidetur” St. Bruno of Asti was Bishop of Segni and died A. D. X123. the second that of the New Law, … the third follows not in this, but in the future life, i. e. in the fatherland. But as the first of these states is figurative and imperfect with regard to the state of the Gospel, so this latter is figurative and imperfect with regard to the state of our eternal home, by which it will be supplanted.” 44 c) There is a final though less important distinction between sensible and insensible signs. The former are in some manner perceptible by the senses, while the latter can be recognized only by immaterial beings. Sensible signs are, e. g., peace of mind, as indicative of the state of sanctifying grace, the sacramental character imprinted by Baptism, etc. The sacramental signs are all sensible. When a sick man is anointed with holy oil, this can be seen with the eyes; when absolution is pronounced in the tribunal of Penance, this can be heard with the ears; when a person receives Holy Communion, he can perceive the Sacrament with several senses simultaneously. Ockam45 held that, absolutely speaking, God might have attached sacramental efficacy to a purely spiritual and immaterial sign, such as ” contemplative prayer ” or “meditation on the Passion,” — a view combated by Bellarmine for the convincing reason that a Sacrament,