Part I Chapter III §1: The Efficacy of the Sacraments Ex Opere Operato

Chapter III: The Efficacy of the Sacraments and Their Manner of Operation

§1: The Efficacy of the Sacraments Ex Opere Operato

CHAPTER III THE EFFICACY OF THE SACRAMENTS AND THEIR MANNER OF OPERATION We have now to explain the efficacy of the Sacraments and the manner in which they produce their effects. As we have seen, the Sacraments produce internal grace.1 The question now arises whether they cause this effect ex opere operatOj i. e. by the work performed, independently of the merits of minister and recipient, and if so, whether they are to be regarded as the physical or as the moral causes of the grace they confer. The first question involves an article of faith, the second merely a free opinion, on which theologians may and do differ. l V. Ch. II, Sect. 2, supra. 121 SECTION i THE EFFICACY OF THE SACRAMENTS EX OPERE OPERATO i. The Protestant Sacramental System and the Definition of the Council of Trent. — The Protestant Reformers regarded the Sacraments 0£Cfily as “exhortations designed to excite faith” (Luther) or as “tokens of the truthfulness of the divine promises” (Calvin) or as “mere signs of Christian profession by which the faithful testify that they belong to the Church of Jesus Christ” (Zwingli and the Socinians). The Council of Trent condemned these erroneous opinions and solemnly defined that the Sacraments are means of grace, which produce the grace they “contain” ex opere operato in all those who do not place an obstacle. a) The sacramental system of the Reformers flowed quite logically from their false idea of justification. If justification really consisted in a merely extrinsic appli\ cation of the merits of Jesus Christ, which cover the sini ner and hide his wickedness from the sight of God, and v if faith were the only thing whereby man is justified,2 2 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Grace, Actual and Habitual, pp. 285 sqq., St Louis 1915. 122 EFFICACY 123 it would be perfectly proper to regard the Sacraments in the sense of Luther as a kind of acted sermons calculated to sustain the faith (signa paraenetica or concionatoria). Quite consistently, therefore, did the Augsburg Confession * condemn those who hold that the Sacraments work justification ex opere operato.* Calvin, in keeping with his theory of “absolute predestination,,, declared that ” the Sacraments are given to us by God as bearers of good tidings are sent by men,” and that they merely announce and declare the gifts we owe to the liberality of God, or at most are pledges calculated to make us sure of these gifts.4 Zwingli was even more radical. He taught that the Sacraments are merely discriminating labels of Christian profession, separating the followers of Christ from unbelievers. ” It would be difficult to go any further,” rightly observes Pourrat, “and to lower still more the value of the Sacraments of the New Law.” 5 Zwingli’s conception of the Sacraments was later adopted by the Socinians.6 b) Against these heretical errors the Council of Trent insisted on the objective efficacy of the Sacraments, declaring that the subjective activity of the recipient is merely dispositive in character, and defining the causality of the Sacraments as a true eflicacia ex opere operato. 8 Art 13, quoted in Miiller, Die symbolischen Bucket, p. 42 : * Dominant illos qui docent, quod sacratnenta ex opere operato iustificant.* On the changes in Luther’s teaching see Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. VI, 3rd ed„ p. 46. 4 Calvin, Instit., IV, 14, §12: “Hoc unicum est sacramentorum ofdcium, ut Dei promissiones oculis nostris spectandas subiiciant et earum nobis sint pignora” 5 Pourrat, Theology of the Sacraments, p. 181. 6 On the development of the doctrine among Protestants see Herzog’s Realenzyklop’ddie, Vol. XVII, 3rd ed., pp. 369 sqq., Leipzig 1906 (condensed in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. X, pp. 143 sq„ New York 191 1). 124 THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL ” If any one saith that the Sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished among men from unbelievers, let him be anathema.” 7 Therefore, the Sacraments are more than signs instituted for the purpose of nourishing the faith.8 They infallibly confer grace, not only on the predestined, but on ” all who receive them rightly.” 9 Their efficacy is ex op ere operato, i. e. derived from the objective value of the rite itself, not from the merits of minister or subject.10 2. The Dogmatic Teaching of the Church Explained and Defended. — It is an article of faith, as we have seen, that the Sacraments of the New Law produce their effects ex opere operato; whence it may be concluded that the 7 Cone. Trident., Sess. VII, can. 6: “Si quis dixerit, sacramenta Novae Legis non continere gratiam quatn significant aut gratiam ipsam non ponentibus obicem [. e. disposit is] non conferre, quasi signa tantum externa sint acceptae per fidem gratiae et iustitiae et notae quaedam christianae professionis, quibus apud homines discernuntur fideles ab infidelibus, anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 849). 8 Cone. Trident., Sess. VII, can. 5 : ” Si quis dixerit, haec sacramenta propter solam fidem nutriendam instituta fuisse, anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 848). 9 Cone. Trident., Sess. VII, can. 7: “Si quis dixerit, non dari gratiam per huiusmodi sacramenta semper et omnibus, quantum est ex parte Dei, etiamsi rite ea suscipiant, sed aliquando et aliquibus, anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 850). 10 Cone. Trident., Sess. VII, can. 8: ” Si quis dixerit, per ipsa Novae Legis sacramenta ex opere operato non conferri gratiam, sed solam fidem divinae promissionis ad gratiam consequendam sufficere, anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 851). On the topic of this subdivision cfr. Bellarmine, De Sacramentis in Genere, I, 13-17 EFFICACY 125 formulas employed in their administration are not merely exhortatory, but consecratory. It is also of faith that, in order to receive the Sacraments unto justification, the sinner must receive them “rightly,” that is, with the proper disposition. We shall set forth this teaching in three distinct theses. Thesis I: The Sacraments are really and truly efficient causes, producing their effects ex opere operato, independently of the merits and disposition of the recipient. This proposition is de fide. Proof. The Council of Trent defines the efficacy of the Sacraments both negatively and positively: negatively, by pointing out that they are not merely outward signs instituted for the sake of nourishing the faith, or marks of Christian profession ; positively, by declaring that they “contain the grace which they signify” and confer it in virtue of the act performed (ex opere operato). To say that the Sacraments produce their effects independently of the disposition of the recipient, does not mean that they require no moral preparation on his part. On the contrary, we know that such preparation is necessary to enable the Sacraments to produce the full effect required for justification.11 According to the Tridentine Council, this necessary preparation consists in ” not plac11 Cfr. Pehle-Preuss, Grace. Actual and Habitual, pp. 285 sqq. ing an obstacle to grace/’ i. e. in removing any previous indisposition opposed to the character of the respective Sacrament. ( i ) That the performance of the sacramental rite not merely signifies but actually produces grace, can be shown from both Scripture and Tradition. a) Sacred Scripture again and again points to the causal relation existing between the sacramental sign and grace. Cf r. John III, 5 : “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” 12 An analysis of this text shows that St. John ascribes spiritual rebirth (i. e. justification) to the element of Baptism as its instrumental cause ; for the particle “ex” refers not only to the Holy Ghost, but likewise to the water : “ex aqua et Spiritu Sancio.” As truly, therefore, as the spiritual rebirth of a man is caused principally by the Holy Ghost, so is it caused instrumentally by the water, and consequently, the water of Baptism exercises a causal influence on justification. In confirmation we may quote Tit. Ill, 5 : “He saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost.” 13 The very expression “laver of regeneration” proves the sacl2loa.HI, 5: * Nisi qui* renatus 18 Tit. Ill, 5: * Salvos nos fecit fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, per lavacrum regenerationis et non potest introire in regnum Dei,” renovationis Spiritus Sancti.” EFFICACY 127 ramental efficacy of the baptismal water, and still more the phrasing of the passage : “He saved us by the laver of regeneration/’ In other Biblical texts the ablative of instrument is used to denote the same fact. Cf r. Eph. V, 26: . . cleansing it, by the laver of water in the word of life,” 14 where the Apostle evidently means that a bath of water in the word of life possesses the power of cleansing the interior man, i. e. justifying him. Cfr. Acts XXII, 16: “Be baptized, and wash away thy sins.” 15 When a physician orders a patient to take a medicinal bath, that he may be cured of disease, the bath becomes a means of regaining health. If Baptism, therefore, effects the forgiveness of sins, the former is related to the latter as a cause to its effect. Cfr. Acts II, 38: . . be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins.” 16 Note that those to whom these words were addressed by St. Peter, had already embraced the faith and were sorry for their sins.17 A similar argument can be construed for the other Sacraments — Confirmation, Acts VIII, 17; the Holy Eucharist, John VI, 57 sqq.; Penance, 14 Eph. V, 26: * Mundans lavacro aquae (ry Xovrpa rov Cdaroj) in verbo vitae.* 15 Act. XXII, 16: “Baptizare et ablue peccata tua.” lfl Ibid,, II, 38: Baptizetur unusquisque vestrum in nomine lesu Christi in remissionem peccatorum vestrorum. 17 Cfr. Acts II, 37128 THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL John XX, 22 sq.; Extreme Unction, James V, 14 sq. ; Holy Orders, 2 Tim. I, 6.18 The Scriptural texts cited by Protestants to show the part faith takes in the process of justification are in no wise incompatible with the efficacy of the Sacraments ex opere operato. A careful analysis of these texts shows that they apply either to objective belief, i. e. the doctrine of Christ (the Gospel) 19 or to subjective faith, i. e. belief in the word of God.20 In the first-mentioned case faith, i. e. the object of faith, justifies in so far as divine revelation puts at man’s disposal all the means of justification, including the Sacraments.21 In regard to texts that fall under the latter category it must be remarked that the subjective faith of justification is either fortnata or informis, i. e. a faith vivified by perfect charity or not vivified at all, and therefore dead. The fides fortnata justifies of itself, while the fides informis remains inefficacious until it has absorbed the remaining dispositive acts and achieved its consummation in the Sacrament.22 In both cases we are dealing with a true causality of faith in the matter of justification, though this causality is of a different order than that of the Sacraments. Faith, as such, is merely a dispositive cause of justification, — part of its causa materialis, — whereas a Sacrament is a true efficient cause, though, of course, dependent for its efficacy on the disposition of the recipient, as upon a condition, because ” wet wood cannot catch fire.” 28 18 For more detailed information 21 Cfr. Matth. XVI, 16 sq. on this point we refer the reader 22 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Grace, Acto the special treatises on the differ- tual and Habitual, pp. 298 sq. ent Sacraments. 23 That the fiduciary faith of the 10 Cfr. Rom. I, 16; 1 Cor. XV, 1 Lutherans does not justify, but is an sq.; x Pet. I, 23 sqq.; Jas. I, 18. unscriptural figment, has been dem20 Cfr. Heb. XI, 6. onstrated in our treatise on Grace,

EFFICACY 129 b) The Fathers are clear and positive in their teaching on the efficacy of the Sacraments. Their expressions concerning Baptism, which are characteristic of their whole attitude on the subject, may be grouped around several fundamental conceptions. The Fathers are filled with admiration at the power of the water which, in the Sacrament of Baptism, produces interior holiness. ” Is it not wonderf ul,” says Tertullian, ” that death should be washed away by bathing? But it is the more to be believed if the wonderfulness be the reason it is not believed. For of what kind does it behoove divine works to be, except that they be above all wonder? We also ourselves wonder, but it is because we believe.* 24 St. Cyril of Jerusalem says in an address to his neophytes : * Each one of you was asked whether he believes in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. You have pronounced the salutary profession, you have been thrice immersed in the water, thereby symbolizing Christ’s stay of three days in the tomb. For just as our Saviour spent three days and three nights in the bowels of the earth, so you, in emerging the first time from the water, have imitated the first day, and in being immersed, the night which Christ spent in the earth, … and at the same moment you died and were born again; that salutary pp. 286 sqq. For a more detailed treatment we must refer the student to Franzelin, De Sacramentis in Geneve, thes. 8. Other objections from Holy Scripture are effectively refuted by De Augustinis, De Re Sacramentario, Vol. I, and ed., pp. 84 sqq. 24 De Bapt., c. 2: “Nonne mirandum est, lavacro dilui mortem? At qui eo magis credendum, si quia mirandum est. idcirco non creditur. Qualia enim decet esse opera divina nisi super omnem admirationemf Nos quoque ipsi miramur, sed quia credimus.” 130 THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL wave became alike your grave and your mother … O new and unheard-of species of things ! * 25 The power thus inherent in the baptismal laver is a truly divine power unto justification. * You have seen water,” says Pseudo-Ambrose, ” but not all water heals ; that water heals which has the grace of Christ. The element is one thing, the consecration another ; the work is one thing, the operation another. The work is the water, the operation is of the Holy Ghost. The water does not heal unless the Spirit descends and consecrates it.” 26 Similarly Cyril of Alexandria: “As water poured into a kettle, if exposed to intense heat, absorbs the power thereof, so the material water, through the operation of the [Holy] Spirit, is changed into a divine, unspeakable virtue and sanctifies all on whom it is found.” 27 The influence of the baptismal water is compared to that of the maternal womb. Thus St. Chrysostom says : ” What the womb is for the child, that is water for the faithful Christian ; for in water he is shaped and formed. In the beginning it was said (Gen. I, 20) : ’ Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life/ But since the Lord descended into the Jordan, the water no longer brings forth creeping creatures, but rational souls that bear within themselves the Holy Ghost… . What is formed in the womb, requires time. Not so in the water : there everything happens in an instant.” 28 St. Leo the Great compares the baptismal font to the virginal womb of Mary: ” The origin which [Christ] took in the womb 25 Cat. Myst., 2, c. 4. tus Sancti est. Non sanat aqua, nisi 26 De Sacrament., I, 5 : * Vidisti Spiritus descenderit et aquam illam aquam, sed non aqua omnis sanat; consecraverit.* sed aqua sanat quae habet gratiam 27 In loa., 1. II (Migne, P. G., Christi. Aliud est elementum, aliud LXXIII, 243). consecratio; aliud opus, aliud opera- 28 Horn, in loa., 6, n. 1 (Migne, Ho. Aqua opus est, operatio Spirt- P. G., LIX, 153)*

EFFICACY of the Virgin, He placed in the font of Baptism. He gave to the water what He had given to His mother. For the virtue of the Most High and the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, which caused Mary to bring forth the Saviour, also causes the water to regenerate the believing [Christian].“29 The efficacy of Baptism does not depend on the personal merits of the recipient. St. Augustine says : ” Baptism does not consist in the merits of those by whom it is administered, nor in the merits of those to whom it is administered, but in its own sanctity and truth, on account of Him by whom it has been instituted, [it is] for the perdition of those who use it badly and for the salvation of those who use it well.,, 80 Tertullian attributes a like efficacy to all the Sacraments. ” The flesh is washed off,” he says, ” in order that the soul may be cleansed ; the flesh is anointed, in order that the soul may be consecrated ; the flesh is signed, in order that the soul may be fortified ; the flesh is overshadowed by the imposition of hands, in order that the soul may be illuminated by the Holy Spirit; the flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ, in order that the soul may be nourished by God.* 81 20 Serm. in Nativ. Dom.t 5, c. 5: * Originem quam sumpsit [ChristusJ in utero virginis, posuit in fonte baptismatis. Dedit aquae quod dedit matri. Virtus enim Altissimi et obumbratio Spiritus Sancti, quae fecit ut Maria pareret Salvatorem, eadem facit ut regeneret unda eredentem.” soContr. Crescon., IV, 16, 19: ” Non eorutn merit is, a quibus ministratur, nec eorutn quibus ministratur, constat baptismus, sed propria sanctitate et veritate propter eum, a quo institutus est, male utentibus ad perniciem, bene utentibus ad salutem.* 81 De Resurrect. Cam., c. 8: * Caro abluitur ut anima emaculetur, caro ungitur ut anima consecretur, caro signatur ut anima muniatur, caro manus impositione adumbratur ut et anima Spirit,u illuminetur, caro corpore Christi et sanguine vescitur ut anima de Deo saginetur.” Cfr. Franzelin, De Sacram. in Genere, thes. 6; Bellarmine, De Sacram., II, 5-7. c) The theological argument for our thesis is based partly on the practice of infant Baptism and partly on the fact that the Protestant doctrine entails absurd consequences. a) If infant Baptism (paedobaptismus) blots out original sin by the infusion of sanctifying grace, this cannot be except on the supposition that Baptism produces its effects without regard to human merits. Hence the practice of infant Baptism furnishes an argument for the efficacy of the Sacraments ex opere operato. And since in the primitive Church Baptism was immediately followed by Confirmation and Communion, the administration of these two Sacraments to infants is likewise an argument to the same effect. That the belief in such efficacy of the Sacraments can be traced back to the Apostolic age, is plain from the statement of Origen 82 that infant Baptism was practiced at that time. The cogency of this inference is admitted by Harnack, who says that a ” superstitious idea of Baptism ” is found already in Tertullian 83 and Irenaeus,84 and adds : ” This appears also from the practice of infant Communion, which, though first attested by Cyprian, can hardly be of later origin than infant Baptism. Communion seemed equally indispensable with Baptism, and the child had just as much right to that magic celestial food as the adult.” 35 This is a plain admission that the Catholic view of the efficacy of the Sacraments, as defined by the Tridentine Council, goes back to the first centuries of the Christian era, which is sufficient evidence that it is true. P) That the Lutheran system of justification cannot 82 In Epist. ad Rom., 5,9. 85 Harnack Lehrbuch der Dog83 De Bapt., c. 18. tnengeschichte, Vol. I, 3rd ed., p. 84 Adv. Haer., II, 22, 4. 438.

EFFICACY 133 consistently admit any Sacraments in the Catholic sense of the term, is convincingly demonstrated by the same Rationalist theologian : ” Luther not only did away with the septenary number of the Sacraments, — that is the least thing he did, — but he upset the entire Catholic idea of the Sacraments by triumphantly demonstrating these three propositions: (1) that the Sacraments were instituted for the forgiveness of sins, and for no other purpose; (2) that ’ non implentur dum fiunt, sed dum creduntur;’ (3) that they are a peculiar form of the saving Word of God (of the promissio Dei fulfilling itself), and consequently derive their power from the historic Christ Carrying this teaching to its logical conclusions, Luther reduced the Sacraments to two (three), nay, at bottom to one, viz,: the Word of God.” 86 The question naturally suggests itself: If this is so, why do Protestants baptize their children? What is the use of Sacraments if they are so immensely inferior to preaching and have no reasonable purpose except perhaps to serve as an object-lesson for the ignorant? They do not even serve that purpose well. “According to this view,” says Gutberlet, “the baptismal rite would most effectively fulfil its purpose of awaking the faith, if the preacher proclaimed the divine promise from the pulpit, while the sacristan ostentatiously washed each single baptizandus with as large a quantity of water as possible. The congregation would thus receive a more vivid impression of the purification signified by Baptism than if each person submitted to the operation himself. At all events it would not be necessary for each individual to be baptized. The public Baptism of one would lead hundreds and thousands to believe and be justified. ae Op. tit., Vol. Ill, 3rd ed., p. 72.

Such absurd conclusions are entailed by a denial of the objective efficacy of the Sacraments, a truth so clearly taught in Holy Scripture.” 87 If the ” orthodox ” Lutherans nevertheless persist in holding that sins are remitted in infant Baptism (though only in the sense of a mere covering up of the soul and hiding its wickedness from the sight of God), we can not but conclude that at heart they believe in the efficacy of Baptism ex opere operato, which Luther so vigorously rejected. We must now more fully explain the meaning of the technical phrase ex opere operato. (2) The traditional teaching of the Church regarding the efficacy of the Sacraments was, at the beginning of the thirteenth century, couched in the technical formula : “Sacramento, operantur ex opere operato/’ which was later on officially adopted by the Council of Trent. a) So far as we know the phrase occurs for the first time in the writings of Peter of Poitiers (d. 1204), who says : ” The act of baptizing is not identical with Baptism, because it is an opus operans, while Baptism is an opus operatum.” 88 It was adopted by Pope Innocent III,39 William of Auxerre,40 Alexander of Hales,41 Albert the Great,42 and St. Bonaventure,48 but was not yet in general use when St. Thomas wrote his commentary on 87 Dogmat. Theol, Vol. IV, p. 95. &BSent., P. 5, c. 6: ” Baptizatio … est aliud opus quam baptismus, quia est opus operans, sed baptismus est opus operatum’* 80 De Myst. Missae, III, 5. ioSumma Aurea, 1. IV, art. 2. 41 Summa Theol., 4a, qu. 3, n. 4, art. 1. 42 Comment, in Sent,, IV, dist. 1, art. 5. 48 Comment, in Sent., IV, dist. 1, p. 1, art 1, qu. 5. EFFICACY 135 the Liber ‘Sententiarum, for the Angelic Doctor says: ” By some the sacrament itself is called opus operaturn/’ 44 The grammatical opposition between opus operans and opus operatum shows that in the former phrase operari is used actively, in the latter passively. The use of the past participle of a deponent verb in a passive sense is often met with in conversational Latin and in the more elaborate writings of classical authors, and hence there is no need to seek for a different explanation, as Mohler did when he suggested : * ex opere operato, scilicet a Christo, instead of quod operatus est Christus* 45 Needless to say, the theological sense of the formula is not to be deduced from grammatical considerations but from the decrees of Trent. The Tridentine Fathers wished to oppose the objective character of the Sacraments as effective means of grace, to the subjectivism of the Reformers, and with this purpose in view defined the Catholic teaching as follows : ” If any one saith that by the said Sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred ex opere operato, but that faith alone in the divine promises [opus operantis s. recipientis] suffices for the obtaining of grace, let him be anathema.” 46 The meaning of the formula ex opere operato, therefore, is plainly this : ( i ) that it is the correct use of the sign instituted by Christ which confers the grace of justification; (2) that the grace conferred is not derived from the merits of either the minister or the recipient (ex opere operantis), though both the free action of the former and the moral preparation of the latter (if he be an adult) are required for the validity 44 Comment, in Sent., IV, dist. i, 8: *Si quis dixerit, per ipso Novae art. 4: * Ipsum sacramentum did- Legis sacramenta ex opere operato tur a quibusdam opus operatum.” non conferri gratiam, sed solam 45 Symbolism, §28. fidem {ex opere operantis} … 40 Cone. Trident., Sess. VII, can. suMcere, anathema sit.”

and worthy reception of the Sacrament. To emphasize the last-mentioned requisite the Council adds that the Sacraments ” confer grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto,” and again: “As far as God’s part is concerned, grace is … given through the … Sacraments always and to all men.” 47 The free action of the minister is required, because without his combining matter and form with the corresponding intention (opus operans), there can be no opus operatum. On the other hand, the Sacrament is frustrated in its effects if the subject ” places an obstacle ” (obex gratiae) by not having the right disposition. On this point the teaching of the Council regarding justification 48 applies in full force. It is as necessary to prepare for the worthy reception of a Sacrament as it is to prepare for justification.49 b) This explanation is sufficient to disprove both the intentional and unintentional misunderstandings of the formula ex opere operato found in many Protestant controversial works, beginning with the Augsburg Confession.50 The oft-repeated accusation, invented by Calvin and Chemnitz, that Catholics attribute ” a magic effect ” to the Sacraments, is based on the mistaken assumption that the Church requires neither faith nor a good impulse of the heart for their worthy reception even in the case of lay adults. One expects ” a magic effect ” only from 47 Cone. Trident., Sess. VII, can. 6: … sacr amenta conferre gratiam non ponentibus obicem. — Can. 7: … dari gratiam per sacramenta semper et omnibus, quantum est ex parte Dei. 48 Sess. VI, can. 6-7. 40 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Grace, Actual and Habitual, pp. 272 sqq. 50 Art 13, n. 18: ” Damnamus tdtum populum scholasticorum doctorum qui docent quod sacramenta non ponenti obicem conferant gratiam ex opere operato sine bono motu utentis. Haec simpliciter iudaica opinio est sentire, quod per caeremoniam iustificemur sine bono motu cordis, hoc est, sine fide.” (Mtiller, Die symbol, Bucher, p. 204). EFFICACY 137 an inadequate natural agent or from the devil. Why should we look to the baptismal water for magical effects, .since we attribute the regeneration of the soul principally to the Holy Ghost? The charge, made in the Augsburg Confession, that the Scholastics believed that the Sacraments confer grace sine bono motu cordis et sine fide, is no longer upheld in such a sweeping form by Protestant controversialists, though they still insist that the Schoolmen, from Scotus to Gabriel Biel, regarded every good impulse of the heart as superfluous, until Gropper and Bellarmine, pressed by the Reformers, laid greater stress upon the moral cooperation of the recipient. The simple truth is that the Scholastics, in treating of the Sacraments, assumed the Catholic teaching on justification to be well known, and by no means neglected to insist on the need of a proper preparation. The very passages adduced by our opponents from Scotus and Biel, though badly mutilated, clear these writers of the charge made against them. Scotus, in teaching that ” a Sacrament of the New Law confers grace by virtue of the act performed {ex virtute operis operati), so that there is not required a good impulse of the heart which would merit grace, but it is sufficient that the recipient place no obstacle,” 51 clearly presupposes not only a proper disposition,52 but the removal of obstacles, i. e. due preparation on the part of the recipient. What the ” Subtle Doctor ” denies is simply and solely that it is by the bonus motus required for the worthy reception of a Sacrament that man merits the grace of justification. This is also the plain teaching of 51 Comment, in Sent., IV, dist gratiam, sed suMcit quod suscipiens it qu. 6, n. 10: * Sact amentum non ponat obicem.* Novae Legis ex virtute operis operati 62 Comment, in Sent., IV, disk confert gratiam, it a quod non requi- x, qu. 4: M… aliqualem disptir ritur ibi bonus motus qui mereatur centiam de peccatis et propositum cavendi de cetero”

Gabriel Biel.58 The Protestant objection against the Schoolmen really strikes at Luther’s doctrine that justification is wrought by faith alone. There can surely be no worse preparation for justification than to follow the advice: ” Pecca fortiter, crede fortius.” 84 Thesis II: Since the Sacraments produce their effects ex opere operato, the words which constitute their ” form ” have not merely the value of an exhortation but are in a true sense consecratory. This proposition embodies a theological conclusion. Proof. Whereas in the Lutheran theory of justification the sacramental form is a mere verbum concionale, i. e. purely an exhortation, Catholics regard it as a verbum consecratorium, i. e. as sanctifying. The Tridentine Council declares: “If anyone saith that these Sacraments were instituted for the sake of nourishing faith alone, let him be anathema/’ And : “If anyone saith that the Sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify, or that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto, as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received 58 For a defense of Biel see Bellarmine, De Sacram., II, i, and Franzelin, De Sacram. in Gen., thes. 7. 04 Cfr. Schanz, Die Lehre von den hi. Sakramenten, pp. 131 sqq., Freiburg 1893; Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. IV, § 487; J. Mausbach, Die kath. Moral, ihre Met ho den, Grundsatse und Aufgaben, 2nd ed., pp. 135 sqq., Cologne 1902 (English tr., New York 1 914); A. Seitz, Die Heilsnotwendigkeit der Kirche nach der altchristlichen Literatur bis sur Zeit des hi. Augustinus, pp. 267 sqq., Freiburg 1903. EFFICACY 139 through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished among men from unbelievers; let him be anathema.” 55 Of course the Catholic Church does not exclude the exhortatory element. It is evident from the significant ceremonies surrounding their administration, that the Sacraments are intended also as means of nourishing the faith and as outward pledges of the divine promise of forgiveness. But this purpose is secondary. The primary object of the Sacraments is practical sanctification, not theoretical instruction. They are above all signa practica et efficacia gratiae, and only secondarily signa theoretica concionalia in the meaning previously explained.56 In the light of this explanation it is impossible to accept the Modernist contention that ” the Sacraments are designed solely to recall to man’s memory the everlasting and beneficent presence of the Creator.” 67 a) If we consider Baptism and the Holy Eucharist,— the only two Sacraments which Protestants have retained, — we find that the words of institution, as spoken by our Divine Saviour, do not contain a “sermon of faith” nor a “divine promise/’ but are primarily and principally designed to consecrate the natural elements of water, bread, and wine, in such wise that “thing” and “word” become the matter and form of an external sign which symbolizes and effects internal grace.68 55 Sess. VII, can. 5 and 6. 57 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 2041. 56 V. supra, p. 14. 58 V. supra, Ch. II, Sect. 1. If the Sacraments had for their main object to nourish the faith or to inspire trust in the divine promises, as Protestants assert, it would be more appropriate, in administering Baptism, to employ the words: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” 59 and in giving Communion, the text : * He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life : and I will raise him up in the last day. 60 As a matter of fact, if these words were employed, there would be no Sacrament, because the divinely instituted form of Baptism is : “I baptize.thee,” etc., whilst that of the Consecration runs : ” This is my body,” etc. Note, also, that St. Paul draws a sharp distinction between baptizing and preaching the Gospel : ” Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.”61 b) For the teaching of the Fathers, see Thesis I, supra. Harnack says of Luther: ” He showed that even the most enlightened among the Fathers had but hazy notions on this, the most important point of all [i. e. that the word of God is the only Sacrament]. Augustine has much to say about the sacrament, but very little about the word, and the Scholastics have made the matter still more obscure. Luther attacks both the magic of the opus operatum and the disparity of the salutary effect of the Sacraments according to the disposition of the recipient. … He destroys the convenient, yet so important notion of ‘vehicles of grace/ and puts into the Sacrament the living Christ, who as Christus praedi59 John III, s. misit me Christus baptisare, sed 60 John VI, 55. evangelizare.” (On St Paul’s 61 i Cor. I, 17: ” Non enim teaching see MacRory’s Commentary, Dublin 1 91 5). EFFICACY 141 catus subdues the old man and awakes the new.” 62 If Augustine ” says so much about the sacrament and so little about the word,” as Harnack alleges, how comes it that he is constantly quoted in support of the Lutheran theory that the sacramental form is purely exhortatory? But even here it is a mere straw at which our adversaries grasp. St. Augustine teaches : ” 1 Now you are clean because of the word I have spoken to you.’ Why does He [Christ] not say : You are clean because of the Baptism by which you have been washed? Why does He say: because of the word which I have spoken to you, unless it be for the reason that the word cleanses also in the water? Take away the word, and what is the water but mere water? The word is added to the element, and there is a sacrament, which itself is as a visible word. Whence does this water receive such virtue that it touches the body and cleanses the heart, unless through the operation of the word, not because it is spoken, but because it is believed. For in the very word itself the transient sound is one thing, the virtue that remains, another… . This word of faith has such power in the Church of God that through him who believes, offers up, blesses and washes, it cleanses even the smallest infant, although as yet unable to believe with the heart unto justice and to profess the faith with the mouth unto salvation.” 68 The very fact that Augus62 Lehrbuch d. Dogmengeschichte, Vol. Ill, 3rd ed., p. 72, Freiburg 1896. 68 Tract, in loa., 20, n. 3 : ” lam vos mundi estis propter verbum quod locutus sum vobis. Quare non ait: Mundi estis propter baptismum quo loti estis, sed ait: Propter verbum quod locutus sum vobis, nisi quia et in aqua verbum mundatf Detrahe verbum et quid est aqua nisi aquat Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum etiam ipsum tamquam visibile verbum. Unde ista tanta virtus aquae, ut corpus tangat et cor abluat nisi faciente verbo, non quia dicitur, sed quia crediturf Nam et in ipso verbo aliud est sonus transiens, aliud virtus manens… . Hoc verbum fidei tantum valet in Ecclesia Dei, ut per ipsam credentern, offerentem, benedicentem, tingent em etiam tantillum mundet in142 THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL tine attributes to the ” word ” in conjunction with water such a wonderful power to cleanse the heart, even in the case of infants who have not yet attained the use of reason, shows that he derives the efficacy of Baptism from the rite performed (ex opere operato), not from the word as preached or from the subjective faith of the recipient. Hence, the “word of faith,,, in the passage quoted, is simply the baptismal formula, which, conjointly with the material element, constitutes the Sacrament, consecrates the materia, and at the same time embodies the ” objective faith,” i. e. the baptismal symbol.64 Thesis III: The efficacy of the Sacraments ex opere operato by no means excludes, but rather presupposes, a proper diposition on the part of the recipient. The proof for this thesis will be found in Ch. IV, Sect. 2, infra. Cfr. also Thesis I, supra. Regarding the influence which the disposition of the recipient exerts on the measure of grace he receives, see Ch. II, Sect. 2, Art 1, Thesis III, supra. fantem, quamvis nondum valentem corde credere ad iustitiam et ore confiteri ad salutem.” 64 For a more exhaustive treatment of the argument from Tradition consult Franzelin, De Sacram. in Gen., thes. 9, scbol. 2; De Augustinis, De Re Sacram., Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 163 sqq.