Part I Chapter IV §1: The Conditions of Valid Administration

Chapter IV: The Minister of a Sacrament

§1: The Conditions of Valid Administration

CHAPTER IV THE MINISTER OF A SACRAMENT The primary or principal minister (minister primarius sive principalis) of the Sacraments is our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.1 Those whom He employs as His representatives are called secondary or instrumental ministers (ministri secundarii sive instrument ales). l V, supra, pp. 146 sqq. I6l SECTION i THE CONDITIONS OF VALID ADMINISTRATION The conditions of the valid administration of a Sacrament depend partly on the qualification of the minister and partly on his interior disposition. The minister need not be in the state of grace, nor need he have the faith (negative disposition), but he must have the right intention (positive disposition). The combination of matter and form into a sacramental sign (confectio), and its application to the individual recipient (administratio) , — two factors which, with the sole exception of the Holy Eucharist, invariably coincide, — require a minister who has the full command of reason. Hence lunatics, children, and others who have not the full use of reason are incapable of administering a Sacrament.2 Besides this there are several other requisites of valid administration. 2 Decretum pro Armenis: ” Omnia tentione faciendi quod facit Ecclesia: sacramenta tribus perficiuntur, vide- quorum si aliquod desit, non perlicet rebus tamquam materia, verbis Hcitur sacramentum.** (Denzingertamquam forma et person^ ministri Bannwart, n. 695). conferentis sacramentum cum inARTICLE 1 THE PERSON OF THE MINISTER

PERSON OF THE MINISTER 163 i. The Minister of a Sacrament Must be in the Wayfaring State. — This condition excludes the angels and the departed. Christ conferred His powers upon living men,3 and the Apostles in their turn chose living men for their successors.4 “It is those who inhabit the earth, and walk upon it,” says St. Chrysostom, “who are called to administer heavenly things, and who have received a power which God has granted neither to the angels nor to the archangels.” 5 This truth, so clearly inculcated by Sacred Scripture and Tradition, is entirely consonant with reason ; for as the Sacraments are means of grace intended for the living, it is obvious that they must be administered by living agents. True, certain Saints (e. g. St. Stanislaus Kostka) are said to have received Holy Communion through the medium of angels. But Holy Communion is, so to speak, a permanent Sacrament, already consummated, and if some privileged Saint received it at the hands of an angel, this does not argue that the consecration of the species took place through the same agency. Following the lead of St. Augustine,8 Aquinas teaches: “As God did not bind His power to the Sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the Sacrament; neither did He bind His power to the ministers of the Church, so as to be unable to give angels power to administer the Sacraments.” 7 3Cfr. Matth. XXVIII, 19; John 5 De Sacerdotio, III, 5. XX, 22; Luke XXII, 19. « Contra Ep. Parmen., II, 15. 4Cfr. 1 Cor. IV, 1 sqq.; Eph. IV, 7 Summa TheoL, 3a, qu. 64, art. 8 sqq. 7: ” Sicut Deus virtutem suam non 164 THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL It is well, however, to exercise great caution in regard to such alleged happenings. Thus the statement of Nicephorus Callistus,8 that St. Amphilochius was consecrated by an angel, and that his fellow-bishops confirmed the act as valid, is open to serious objections. Such extraordinary reports must be established by incontrovertible evidence, lest the certainty of the sacramental economy be exposed to grave danger. Luther exceeded all bounds by asserting that the devil can validly baptize, consecrate, and absolve,9 — a possibility which had been denied by St. Thomas Aquinas and Thomas of Argentina.10 2. The Minister of a Sacrament Must be a Duly Qualified Person. — The Tridentine Council teaches against Luther: “If anyone saith that all Christians have power to administer the word and all the Sacraments, let him be anathema/’ 11 It follows that, in order to be able to administer at least some of the Sacraments, a person must be specially qualified. Such qualification is imparted by the Sacrament of Holy Orders. The only two exceptions to this rule are Baptism and Matrimony. The secondary minister -in the administration of a Sacrament acts * in persona Christi* 12 as Christ’s peralligavit sacramentis, quin possit sine sacramentis effectum sacrament orum conferre, ita etiam virtutem suam non alligavit Ecclesiae ministris, quin etiam angelis possit virtutem tribuere ministrandi sacramenta.’* 6 Hist. Eccles., XI, 20. 9 Von der Winkelmesse and Pfaffenweihe, 1533. 10 Comment in Sent., IV, dist 6, qu. i( art. x. 11 Sess. VII, can. 10: * Si quis dixerit, Christianos omnes in verbo et omnibus sacramentis administrandis habere potestatem, anathema sit.* (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 853). l2Cfr. 2 Cor. II, 10. PERSON OF THE MINISTER 165 sonal representative. It stands to reason that not every man is such a special representative of Christ, but only he who has been expressly commissioned. In civil life an ordinary citizen cannot perform official acts unless he is duly authorized. The exception in favor of Baptism and Matrimony is apparent rather than real. The parties to a marriage, by entering into the matrimonial contract, do not become either civil officials or public ministers of Christ ; they may be said to represent the person of Christ only in so far as they mutually administer the Sacrament to each other, but not in the full sense in which the term minister is used in regard to the other Sacraments. The question is even simpler in respect of Baptism. Its solemn administration requires a bishop, priest or deacon ; only in cases of urgent necessity can this Sacrament be conferred by a lay person, acting not as a public official of the Church, but merely as a private helper in need. According to Suarez 18 this is true even of priests when they baptize without the prescribed ceremonies in urgent cases. Luther claimed that every Christian is a priest, because St. Peter says : ” You are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood.” 14 But 1 Pet. II, 9 by no means proves this contention. The priesthood in which all the faithful share is purely metaphorical, as appears from 1 Pet. II, 5 : “Be you also … a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices.” 15 If the term Updrevfw, (priesthood) were to be strictly interpreted in this passage, we should also have to take pavlkeiov (kingly) in its literal sense, which is manifestly impossible. 13 De Sacram., disp. 16, sect. 4. 15 1 Pet. II, 5: ”… sacerdo14 1 Pet. II, 9: ” Vos autem Hum sanctum Qepdrevfia &yiov)t genus electum, regale sacerdotium offerre spirituales hostios.” ((3a

3. No One Can Administer a Sacrament to Himself. — The minister of a Sacrament and its recipient must be separate persons. This requirement is based ( 1 ) on the nature of things, because in most instances it is impossible for the minister to apply the matter and form of a Sacrament to himself; (2) on the divine economy of grace, it having pleased God to make men dependent on one another ; and (3) on Christ’s positive command to His Apostles and their successors, to dispense the means of grace to others. The only exception is the Holy Eucharist, which can be administered and received by the same individual. As the sacramental sign is the inanimate medium of grace,16 so the minister is its animate instrument in the hands of Christ. Both together constitute the instrumentum adaequatum gratiae. The human minister, being a person, not only exercises an instrumental activity of his own, but is possessed of certain moral qualities. The question arises whether one who is in the state of mortal sin, or has lost the true faith, can validly administer the Sacraments. We will set forth the Catholic teaching on these points in two theses. Thesis I: The validity of a Sacrament does not depend on the personal worthiness of the minister. This proposition embodies an article of faith. Proof. The early Donatists asserted that a ARTICLE 2 REQUISITES OF VALID ADMINISTRATION 16 V. Ch. Ill, supra.

REQUISITES OF VALIDITY 167 minister, in order to confer a Sacrament validly, must be in the state of sanctifying grace. This teaching was revived in the Middle Ages by the Waldenses, the Fraticelli, the Albigenses, the Wiclifites, and the Hussites. Innocent III demanded of the Waldenses a profession of faith in which this error was expressly repudiated.17 The Council of Constance (A. D. 1418) condemned Wiclif ‘s assertion that a bishop or priest who is in the state of mortal sin can neither baptize nor consecrate nor confer holy Orders.18 Lastly, the Council of Trent defined: “If anyone saith that a minister, being in mortal sin, — if he observe all the essentials which belong to the effecting or conferring of a Sacrament, — neither effects nor confers the Sacrament, let him be anathema/’ 19 Our thesis cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture, but rests wholly on Tradition and reason. a) The Church has always regarded the administration of a Sacrament in the state of mortal sin as a sacrilege, and insists on the personal sanc17 Prof ess. Fidei Waldensibus ab 19 Sess. VII, can. 12: “Si quis Innocentio III. Praescripta: “So- dixerit, ministrum in peccato mortali cramenta, … licet a peccatore sa- existentem, modo omnia essentialia cerdote ministrentur, dum Ecclesia quae ad sacramentum conficiendum eum redpit, in nullo reprobamus.* aut conferendum pertinent serva(Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 424). verit, non conficere aut conferre 18 * Si episcopus vel sacerdos exi- sacramentum, anathema sit,* (Denstat in peccato mortali, non ordinat, zinger-Bannwart, n. 855). non consecrat, non baptisat.* (Dcnzinger-Bannwart, n. 584). 168 THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL tity of her priesthood; 20 but she has never conditioned the validity of a Sacrament on the moral worthiness of the minister. Her early teaching on the subject is clearly apparent from the writings of St. Optatus of Mileve and St. Augustine against the Donatists. Aside from certain peculiar views of Tertullian 21 and Origen,22 the question regarding the moral disposition of ” the minister arose later than that regarding his orthodoxy, which was hotly debated in the controversy that raged about the question of the rebaptizing of those who had been baptized by heretics.28 When bishops and priests began to apostatize in time of persecution, conscientious Catholics quite naturally asked themselves : ” Can such unworthy men validly baptize or confer Holy Orders ? ” It was this question, in fact, which may be said to have given rise to the Donatist schism. In the year 311, Bishop Felix of Aptunga, who was (falsely) accused of having delivered the sacred books of the Christians to their enemies, consecrated a certain archdeacon named Caecilian to the episcopal see of Carthage. A party of zealots in the lastmentioned city denounced this act as invalid and set up another bishop in the person of one Majorinus, who was soon after succeeded by Donatus the Great. Optatus, bishop of Mileve, in his work De Schismate Donatistarum (written about 370), triumphantly demonstrated that the validity of a Sacrament does not depend on the disposition of the minister. It remained, however, for St. Augustine to break the backbone of the new heresy. Starting from the favorite Donatist distinction between ” pub20 V. infra, pp. 188 sq. 22 In Matth., t. XII, 14. 21 Dg Pudic, c. 21, 23 V. infra. Thesis II.

REQUISITES OF VALIDITY 169 He ” and ” private ” sinners, he argued as follows : The Sacrament of Baptism is administered either by a private or a public sinner. If by a private sinner, Baptism among the Donatists themselves is uncertain, since they, too, have private sinners among their number. If by a public sinner, the case stands no better, since all guilty of mortal sin, whether public or private, are on a par before God. Consequently, the validity of a Sacrament can not depend on the worthiness of the minister. In matter of fact, there is no Baptism of Donatus or Rogatus, etc., but only the one Baptism of Jesus Christ, which confers grace by reason of its innate power, independently of human merit.24 In the East, at about the same time, St. John Chrysostom taught : ” It may happen that the rulers of a nation are bad and corrupt, and their subjects good and pious, that the laity live moral lives while the priests are guilty of iniquity. But if grace always required worthy [ministers], there would be no Baptism, no body of Christ [Eucharist], no sacrifice [of the Mass]. Now God is wont to operate through unworthy men, and the grace of Baptism is in no wise stained by the [sinful] life of the priest.” 25 Several Patristic writers exemplify this truth by striking metaphors. Thus St. Gregory of Nazianzus compares a Sacrament to a signet ring and says that the emperor’s iron ring has the same power of making a 24 Cf r. St. Augustine, Contra erat, Christus baptizavit” — A list of Crescon., II, 21, 26: ” Baptizant, St. Augustine’s writings against the quantum attinet ad visibile ministeri- Donatists can be found in Bardenum, et boni et malt, invisibiliter hewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 484 autem per eos ille baptizat, cuius sq. Several of the most important est et visibile baptisma et invisibilis of them are translated into English gratia.* — Idem, Tract, in Ioa., V, in Dods, The Works of Aurelius n. 18: * Si quos baptizavit ebriosus, Augustine, Vol. Ill, Edinburgh quos baptizavit homicida, quos bap- 1872. tizavit adulter, si baptismus Christi 25 Horn, in Ep. 1 ad Cor., 8, n. x. mark as a ring of gold ; 28 and St. Augustine calls attention to the fact that the rays of the sun shine upon filth without being contaminated by it.27 The same ideas were again brought forward in the conflict with the spiritualistic sects of the Middle Ages. b) From the philosophical point of view the following considerations are pertinent. As far as mere possibility is concerned, there can be no doubt that Jesus Christ, had He so willed, could have limited the power of conferring His Sacraments to members of the true Church, and made it dependent on the subjective disposition of the minister. However, in His wisdom our Lord preferred to tolerate innumerable sacrileges rather than limit too narrowly the requisites of valid administration. By making the Sacraments independent of the personal merit or demerit of the minister, He safeguarded three important truths: (i) their objective efficacy, depending in no wise on the moral character of the minister; (2) His own priesthood, which cannot be tainted by His representatives; and (3) the certainty to which the faithful have a right in matters pertaining to eternal salvation. If the validity, power, and effect of the Sacraments had been made to depend on the subjective condition of the minister, the doctrine of their objective efficacy ex opere operato would have been endangered as well as the important truth that all human ministers are but representatives of the one great High Priest, the God-man Jesus Christ, and the faithful would have had no certainty with regard to the valid reception of Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Orders, etc. Such a state of affairs would have produced insufferable qualms of conscience and brought contempt and disregard upon 26 Or. de Bapt., 40, n. 26. 27 De Bapt. c. Donat,, III, 10, 15.

REQUISITES OF VALIDITY 171 the divinely instituted means of grace.28 Nor would it be possible, without this safeguard, to uphold the hierarchical order. To assure themselves that the Sacraments were validly administered, the laity would pry into the private life of the clergy, and there would arise a system of espionage which would necessarily entail denunciation, calumny, slander, quarrels, and scandals. The administration of the Sacraments would thus be surrounded by conditions which would make them a source of evil rather than of blessing. Thesis II: The validity of a Sacrament does not depend on the orthodox belief of the minister. This thesis is de fide in respect of Baptism. Proof. It is the formal and solemn teaching of the Tridentine Council that heretics baptize, validly if they observe the prescribed form and have the intention of doing what the Church does. “If anyone saith that the Baptism which is given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true Baptism, let him be anathema.” 29 A pari, and because of the established practice of the Church, theologians regard it as iidei proximum 28 Cfr. St. Bonaventure, Brevil., * Si quis dixerit, baptismum qui VI, 5 : * Si sacramenta dispensari etiam datur ab haereticis in nomine solum possent a bonis, nullus esset Patris et Filii et Spirit us Sancti cum certus de susceptione sacramenti, intentione faciendi quod facit Ecet sic oporteret semper iterari et clesia, non esse verum baptismum, malitia unius praeiudicaret alienae anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannsaluti.” wart, n. 860). 29 Sess. VII, De Bapt, can. 4:

that heretics can validly administer all the other Sacraments, with the sole exception of Penance,80 which cannot, barring cases of urgent necessity, be validly conferred by heretical and schismatic priests; — not on account of their lack of orthodoxy, but because they have no ecclesiastical jurisdiction. a) With the outbreak of schisms and heresies there naturally arose doubts concerning the validity of Baptism when administered by heretics or, generally, by those outside the fold. As early as 256, Pope Stephen I decided against the practice of rebaptizing heretics, which had been introduced by St. Cyprian and his fellow-bishops in Africa.81 Up to the third century it was regarded as an Apostolic rule to recognize Baptism conferred by heretics as valid. About 220, Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, began to rebaptize converted heretics. The new practice received the sanction of two councils (A. D. 255 and 256), presided over by St. Cyprian.82 When Pope Stephen had decided against it, Cyprian wrote to Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea, to ascertain the views of the churches of Asia Minor. These, at a council held in Iconium, sanctioned the African practice, but their 80 Maldonatus and Morinus mistakenly except also Confirmation and Holy Orders. 81 ” Si qui ergo a quacumque haeresi venient ad vost nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est, ut manus Wis imponatur in poenitentiam.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 46). 82Cfr. St. Cyprian, Ep., 73, n. 13 (ed. Hartel, II, 787): ” Proinde frustra quidam, qui ratione vincunturt consuetudinem nobis opponunt, quasi consuetudo maior sit veritate out non id sit in spiritualibus se* quendum, quod in melius fuerit a S. Spiritu revelotum.” REQUISITES OF VALIDITY 173 decision was annulled by the Pope, in 253, under threat of excommunication. St. Dionysius the Great of Alexandria prevented a schism,88 but Firmilian stuck to his opinion, and in reply to St. Cyprian’s inquiry said: ” We join custom to truth and oppose to the custom of Rome that of the truth.” 84 The very fact that both Cyprian and Firmilian confessedly acted in opposition to an ancient tradition shows that the Roman practice was of Apostolic origin. “This most wholesome custom,” says St. Augustine, ” according to the Blessed Cyprian, began to be what is called amended by his predecessor Agrippinus, but … we ought to believe that it rather began to be corrupted than to receive correction at the hands of Agrippinus.,, 85 And Vincent of Lerins says: “The antiquity was retained, the novelty was exploded.” 86 The doubts that arose on various later occasions had nothing to do with the principle itself, but merely concerned its practical application. Often it was not easy to determine whether this or that particular sect used the proper formula in baptizing. Thus St. Basil (d. 379) was in doubt about the Encratites and the Pepuzians. St. Augustine, in his controversy with the Donatists, confidently appealed to tradition. He drew a clearer distinction between character and grace than St. Cyprian had done, and declared that, while a Sacrament may be validly administered by heretical ministers, yet its effects might not be visible among their sects.87 88Cfr. Eusebius, Hist. Bccles., VII, 2. 84 Inter Ep. Cypr., 75, n. 19 (ed. Hartel, II, 822): * Ceterum nos veritati et consuetudinem iungimus et consuetudini Romanorum consue* tudinem sed veritatis opponimus.* zsDe Bapt. c. Donat., II, 7, xi: ” Hanc ergo saluberrimam consuetudinem per Agrippinum praedecessorem suum dicit S. Cyprianus quasi coepisse corrigi, sed … verius creditur per Agrippinum corrumpi coepisse, non corrigi.” 86 Commonit., I, 6 : ” Retenta est scil. antiquitas, explosa novitas.* 87 Cfr. St. Augustine, Contra Donat., VI, 1: * Non ob aliud b) The theological reason for the validity of Baptism when conferred by a heretical minister, is to be sought in the maxim so constantly urged by St. Augustine : “It is Christ who baptizes.” 38 Let it not be objected that no one can give what he does not himself possess (nemo dat quod non habet) ; for he who confers Baptism, whether he be himself baptized or unbaptized, orthodox or heretical, pure or unclean, does not confer his own Baptism but the Baptism of Christ.39 What we have said of Baptism applies also to the remaining Sacraments, especially to Confirmation and Holy Orders. The practice of the Church with regard to them is the same and based on the same reasons. Only the Sacrament of Penance, is, as a rule, considered invalid if administered in heretical sects, even such as have validly ordained bishops and priests ; not, however, as we have already remarked, because these ministers have not the power to absolve, but because, except in cases of urgent necessity, they lack ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Even the most orthodox Catholic confessor cannot give absolution if he lacks jurisdiction and is generally known visum est quibusdam, etiam egregiis viris, antistitibus Christi, inter quos praecipue b. Cyprianus eminebat, non esse posse apud haereticos vel schismaticos baptismum Christi, nisi quia non distinguebatur sacramentum ab effectu vel usu sacramenti; et quia eius effectus atque usus in liberatione a peccatis et cordis rectitudine apud haereticos non inveniebatur, ipsum quoque sacramentum non illic esse putabatur.” For further information we refer the student to Part II of this volume, on Baptism. The historical aspects of the controversy are well treated by J. Ernst, Die Ketsertaufangelegenheit in der altchristlichen Kirche nach Cyprian, Mainz iqoi; Idem, Papst Stephen I. und der Ketsertaufstreit, Mainz 1905. See also B. Poschmann, Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche nach der Lehre des hi. Cyprian, pp. 49 sqq., 114, Paderborn 1908. 88 * Christus est qui baptizaU* 89Cfr. 1 Cor. I, 13. THE RIGHT INTENTION 175 to lack it Where good faith and a titulus coloratus may be presumed, the Church supplies the defect. For this reason confession among the schismatic Greeks or Russians cannot be rejected as invalid. Sacramento, propter homines, — the Sacraments have been instituted for the sake of men, and we may safely assume that the Church, desiring to aid those who are blamelessly in error, supplies the lack of jurisdiction in schismatical ministers.40 i. Preliminary Remarks. — Intention (intentio) may be defined as an act of the will by which that faculty efficaciously desires to reach an end by employing the necessary means.41 Intention is not synonymous with attention, for man can act with a purpose even when his mind is distracted. a) It is customary to distinguish various kinds of intention by which an act may be prompted. There is, first, the actual intention, operating with the full advertence of the intellect. When a minister wishes here and now to confer, e. g., the Sacrament of Baptism, he has an actual intention. Secondly, there is the virtual intention. Its force is borrowed from a previous volition, which is accounted as continuing in some result produced by it. Thus, if a 40Cfr. Billot, De Sacramentis Ec- Theol., 1a 2ae, qu. 12, art. 1, ad 3: clesiae, Vol. I, 4th ed., p. 158, Rome ” Intentio nominal actum voluntatis 1907. praesuppositd ordinatione rationis 41 Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa ordinantis aliquid in finem,” ARTICLE 3 NECESSITY OF A RIGHT INTENTION

minister begins with an actual intention, but is distracted while administering the Sacrament, he has a virtual intention. Thirdly, an habitual intention is one that once actually existed, but of the present continuance of which there is no positive trace. The most that can be said of it is that it has never been retracted. A priest subject to somnambulism, who would administer Baptism in his sleep, might be said to act with an habitual intention. Fourthly, an interpretative intention is an intention that would be conceived if one thought of it, but which for want of thinking of it, is not elicited. It is simply the purpose which it is assumed a man would have had in a given contingency, had he given thought to the matter. There has been and is no actual movement of the will.42 An intention of some sort is necessary in the minister for the valid administration of a Sacrament. It need not be actual. Distractions cannot always be avoided. A virtual intention is sufficient. Not so, however, an habitual or interpretative intention, which is really not in existence while the action is performed, and consequently can have no effect upon it. b) With regard to quality, an intention may be either direct or reflex, according as the minister realizes the full import of his action or performs it without being fully conscious of its character and effects. Thus, a priest who, in baptizing an infant, explicity desires to cleanse the soul from original sin and to bestow sanctifying grace, acts with a reflex intention. One who simply performs all that is prescribed by the ritual has a direct intention. Theologians also distinguish an indirect intention, by 42 Cfr. J. F. Dclany in the Catho- Thos. Slater, Moral Theology, Vol. lie Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII, p. 69; II, p. 28.

THE RIGHT INTENTION 177 virtue of which a man intends an action not in itself but in its cause (voluntarium in causa sive indirectum) , as when one under the influence of liquor does something which he had made up his mind to do when sober. Such an indirect intention is not sufficient in the minister of a Sacrament ; if it were, Baptism could be administered, or the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated, by a priest in the state of intoxication. A direct intention suffices for the valid administration of the Sacrament. A species of the direct intention is the so-called intentio mere externa. It may be defined as the purpose of performing the external rite of a Sacrament while internally withholding the intention to administer the same. The term was invented by Ambrosius Catharinus in order to safeguard the objectivity of the Sacraments. Catharinus, and some other theologians who followed his lead, thought that such an intention of performing the external rite, even if coupled with an internal refusal to do what the Church does, would suffice for the validity of a Sacrament. To-day this opinion has scarcely any adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention, viz.: the will to accomplish what Christ instituted the Sacraments to effect, in other words, truly to baptize, absolve, etc., is required.48 2. Dogmatic Theses Concerning the Intention of the Minister. — To administer a Sacrament validly, the minister must have a real intention to do what the Church does (Thesis I). For this the mere external intention postulated by Catharinus is not sufficient (Thesis II). 48 Dclany, /. c.

Thesis I: To administer a Sacrament validly, the minister must have the intention at least to do what the Church does. This proposition embodies an article of faith. Proof. The Decretum pro Armenis defines that the intention to do what the Church does is a necessary requisite for the valid administration of a Sacrament.44 The Tridentine Council solemnly declares: “If anyone saith that in ministers, when they effect and confer the Sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does, let him be anathema.” 45 To understand the full significance of this declaration it should be noted that the Council does not say, “what the Church intends/’ but merely, “what the Church does.” Consequently, all that is necessary for the valid administration of the Sacraments is the direct intention, i. e. the purpose of performing the rite as is usual among Catholics. To demand in addition a reflex intention, either for the administration of the Sacrament as such, or for the production of the sacramental character and the infusion of grace, would be to make the validity of the Sacrament depend upon the orthodoxy of the minister, — an assumption which we have shown to be false.46 44 V. supra, p. 162, n. 2. 45 Cone. Trident., Sess. VII, can. 1 x : ” Si quis dixerit, in ministris, dum sacramenta conficiunt et con’ ferunt, non requiri intent ionem saltern faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, anathema sit,” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 854). 46 V, supra, Art. 2, Thesis II. THE RIGHT INTENTION 179 a) The Apostle says: “So let men account us as ministers of Christ.” 47 It follows from this that the minister of a Sacrament, being a servant or minister of Christ, must have the intention of exercising the powers delegated to him by the Master. Now, since the Church acts in the name of her Divine Founder, one who has not the intention of doing at least what the Church does, does not conduct himself as a minister of Christ, nor does he exercise the powers conferred by Him. Consequently, without the intention of doing what the Church does there can be no Sacrament. This Biblical argument can be supported by philosophical considerations. We know from John XX, 23, that by the power of absolving which, in the Sacrament of Penance, he exercises in the name of Christ, a confessor may either forgive or retain sins. Hence he must, after hearing the penitent, make up his mind either to absolve him or to send him off without absolution. He can do neither the one nor the other without having some kind of an intention. Matrimony is not only a Sacrament, but it is also a contract requiring the mutual consent of both parties. There can be no true consent without an intention to get married. A priest who, in saying Mass, would refuse to subject himself to the will of Christ, in whose name he speaks and acts, would not have the right intention, and consequently would not act as a minister of Christ, and the 47 1 Cor. IV, 1 : ” Sic nos exxstimet homo ut ministros Christi.” (Cfr. the Westminster Version). i8o THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL words of consecration pronounced by him would be void. The same, mutatis mutandis, holds true of the other Sacraments. b) The teaching of Tradition on this point has undergone a lengthy process of clarification. The most ancient testimony that has come down to us is contained in a letter of Pope Cornelius (251-253) to Fabius of Antioch. The Pontiff relates how the anti-pope Novatian, who was the leader of the rigorist party, enticed three ignorant provincial bishops to Rome, made them drunk, and compelled them to give him episcopal consecration. The Pope distinctly says that this consecration was invalid.48 The reasons plainly are : first, because the consecrating bishops were under the influence of liquor and therefore irresponsible; second, because they acted under compulsion (cogit). There is an old legend that Bishop Alexander received into the Christian fold certain companions of St. Athanasius, whom the boy had baptized at play.49 This is probably a mere fable, but if it were true, it would prove that very liberal notions were current in the third century regarding the intention of the minister of a Sacrament, though we can not help wondering why Bishop Alexander did not inquire whether the baptized boys had the intention necessary to receive the Sacrament. St. Augustine was evidently not quite clear on this matter, for he hesitated to declare that Baptism is invalid if administered in jest or as a farce. ” But where [if] … the whole thing were done as a farce, or a comedy, or a jest, I should think that to know whether the Baptism thus 48 Cfr. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., dam et inani manuum impositione VI, 43: Eos Me a quibusdam sui episcopatum sibi trader e per vim simillimis, quos ad id comparaverat, cogit. inclusos hort decimd, temulentos et 49 Cfr. Rufinus, Hist. Eccles., I, a crapula oppressos adumbratd qua- 14.

THE RIGHT INTENTION 181 conferred should be approved, we ought to pray for the declaration of God’s judgment through the medium of some revelation . . 50 In the primitive Church there was a tendency to regard every Sacrament administered according to the prescribed rite as valid, without inquiring into the intention of the minister, which was always presumed to be right. The philosophic discussion concerning the necessity of the right intention as a requisite of validity was reserved to the Schoolmen. Hugh of St. Victor, so far as we know, was the first theologian to insist on this point.51 William of Auxerre (d. 1223) invented the formula: * Intentio faciendi quod facit Ecclesia* This was introduced into the terminology of the schools and more adequately explained by Alexander of Hales, whose teaching was followed by St. Bonaventure,62 Scotus, and the whole Franciscan school. St. Thomas, following his master Albert, proves the necessity of a right intention on the part of the minister from the proposition that every free instrumental cause must voluntarily accommodate itself to the principal cause, — in this case Christ, the author and chief administrator of the Sacraments. “There is required on the part of the minister that intention by which he subjects himself to the principal agent, i. e. intends to do what Christ does and the Church.” 58 The entire Thomist school faithfully adhered to this doctrine, which was adopted even by Durandus and the Nominalists BOCfr. St. Augustine, De Bap’ tismo contra Donatistas, VII, 53, 102: ” Ubi autem … totum ludicre et mitnice et ioculariter ageretur, utrum approbandus esset baptismus, qui sic daretur, divinum iudicium … implorandum censerem.* 51 Summa, tr. 6, c 4; De Sacram., II, 6, 13. 52 Brevil., VI, 5: * Dispensatio sacrament or urn est opus hominis ut ratio nalis, ut ministri Christi, et ut ministri salutis; hinc est quod tiecesse est quod fiat ex intention*.* 53 Cfr. Summa TheoL, 3a, qu. 64, art. 8, ad 1 : * Requiritur eius intentio, qua se subiiciat principali agenti, ut scil. intendat facere quod facit Christus et Ecclesia.” 182 THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL and finally became the common teaching of Catholic theologians. Innocent III, Martin V, and Eugene IV, by employing the Scholastic formula in official pronouncements, prepared the way for its dogmatization by the Council of Trent.54 c) The theological argument for our thesis is based on three facts : ( i ) the minister of a Sacrament acts as the representative of Christ; (2) without some definite intention the administration of a Sacrament would be an indifferent act; and (3) the contrary proposition leads to absurd consequences. (1) The minister of a Sacrament, as we have repeatedly pointed out, acts not in his own name but in the name of Christ and as His representative. To do this he must have the intention of doing one thing in preference to another, vis. : what Christ wishes him to do. As the will of the Church in the administration of the Sacraments necessarily coincides with that of her Divine Founder, it suffices to have the intention of doing what the Church does. (2) The confectio of a Sacrament, i. e. the combination of matter and form into the sacramental sign, is not necessarily of itself a sacramental act, but indifferent and ambiguous, inasmuch as the minister, being a free agent, may act with any one of a number of different purposes, e. g., to practice, to play a joke, to make a mockery of religious ceremonies, etc. It depends entirely on his free will whether what he does is intended as a •4 Cfr. Schanz, Die Lehre von den hi, Sakramenten, pp. 173 sqq., Freiburg 1893.

THE RIGHT INTENTION 183 sacramental rite or not. Hence the necessity of a proper intention. (3) The contrary teaching of Luther entails utterly absurd consequences. If no intention were required in the administration of the Sacraments, a mother would baptize her baby by bathing it in a tub and invoking the name of the Trinity ; a priest reading the words of consecration from the Bible would nolens volens consecrate a loaf of bread accidentally lying near him, and so forth. Thesis II: A merely external intention in the sense of Catharinus is not sufficient for the validity of a Sacrament. This proposition may be technically qualified as communis. Proof. Catharinus teaches that all that is required for the validity of a Sacrament on the minister’s part is that he have the intention of performing the external rite, even though he withhold interior assent.55 This teaching seems to have been forecast by Aureolus (d. 1322) and Sylvester Prierias (d. 1523), but did not come prominently forward until the seventeenth century, when it was espoused by a number of French and Belgian theologians, notably Contenson, Farvacques, Duhamel, Juenin, Serry, and Drouin. In the nineteenth century this theory was sporadically defended by L. Haas, Glossner, and Oswald. The lastmentioned writer retracted his earlier teaching in the 65 V. supra, p. 177. fifth edition of his treatise on the Sacraments, published in 1894. His ablest opponents were Morgott56 and Franzelin.67 The question at issue may be briefly formulated thus : Does a minister who has the intention of performing the external rite, but withholds his interior assent from the mind of the Church, validly confer a Sacrament? Catharinus and his followers answer this question affirmatively. a) Though their opinion has never been directly and formally condemned, it runs counter to a number of conciliary and papal decisions. Innocent III demanded of the Waldenses that they subscribe to a profession of faith containing these words in regard to the Holy Mass : ” For which celebration three things are necessary, as we believe, namely, a certain person, i. e. the priest, … those solemn words [of institution], … and the honest intention of the one who pronounces them.” 58 Can he who interiorly repudiates what he externally does, be said to have an ” honest intention ” ? Note, too, that the Pope mentions the ” fidelis intentio” as something independent of and separable from the act of uttering the words of consecration. This last-mentioned point is brought out more clearly in the following question, addressed to certain suspected Wiclifites and Hussites by command of Martin V: “Does he believe that a bad priest, employing the proper matter and form, and having the intention of doing what the 56 Fr. Morgott, Der Spender der hi, Sakramente nach der Lehre des hi. Thomas, pp. 132 sqq., Freiburg 1886. 57 De Sacramentis, thes. 17. 58 ” Ad quod ofUcium tria sunt, ut credimus, necessaria, scil, certa persona, i, e, presbyter … et ilia solemnia verba tinstitutionis} … et fidelis intentio proferentis” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 424), THE RIGHT INTENTION 185 Church does, truly consecrates, truly absolves, truly baptizes, truly confers the other Sacraments ? ” 59 He who employs the proper matter and form, manifestly has the external intention postulated by Catharinus and means to perform the external rite in the prescribed way. But this is not sufficient, or else the Pope would not add : ” and having the intention of doing what the Church does.” Eugene IV in his famous Decretum pro Artnenis (1439), besides the putting together of matter and form (in which the intentio mere externa of Catharinus is sufficiently guaranteed), expressly demands the intentio faciendi quod facit Ecclesia as a distinct conditio sine qua non of validity. Now this intention, in addition to the external performance of the sacramental rite, coincides with the internal intention which we defend. It is evidently this interior intention that the Council of Trent means when it commands the minister of a Sacrament to do what the Church does.60 A minister who, while carefully observing the prescribed rite, would withhold interior assent to the mind of the Church, could have no other intention than to play the hypocrite. The correctness of this interpretation may be judged from the Council’s declaration as to the right intention of confessors: . . The penitent ought not so to confide in his own personal faith as to think that — even though there be … no intention on the part of the priest of acting seriously and absolving truly — he is nevertheless … absolved, . • . nor would he be otherwise than most careless of his own salvation who, knowing that a priest absolved him in jest, should not carefully seek for another 50 ”… utrum credat, quod malms vere absolvat, vere baptizet, vere sacerdos cum debita materia et conferat alia sacramenta.” (Denforma et cum intentione faciendi zinger-Bannwart, n. 672). quod facit Ecclesia, vere conficiot, 60 V, supra, Thesis I.

who would act in earnest.* 61 In this passage the Holy Synod mentions two separate and distinct intentions: that of * acting seriously ” and that of ” absolving truly.” These two intentions are either substantially identical or they are separate and distinct. If they are identical, the second phrase is merely an explanation of the firsthand the intention of acting seriously coincides with that of absolving truly, which latter is evidently an interior intention. If they are not identical, then the intention of acting seriously (which is precisely Catharinus’ intentio mere externa), is not sufficient for valid absolution, because there is further required the intention of absolving truly. In either case the merely external intention is insufficient. The opinion of Catharinus sustained a severe blow62 by the condemnation pronounced by Alexander VIII (1690) against the proposition that “Baptism is valid if conferred by a minister who observes the whole external rite and form of the Sacrament, but interiorly in his heart says : I do not intend to do what the Church does.” 63 This proposition was extracted from the writings of the Belgian theologian Farvacques, who was an ardent champion of the intentio mere externa, and hence it is perhaps not too much to say that Catharinus’ theory stands condemned.64 61 Cfr. Cone. Trident., Sess. XIV, cap. 6: “Non debet poenitens adeo sibi de sua ipsius fide blandiri, at etiamsi … sacerdoti animus serio agendi et vere absolvendi desit, putet tamen se … esse absolutum, … nec is esset nisi salutis suae negligentissimus, qui sacerdotem iocose absolventem cognosceret, et non alium serio agent em sedulo requireret* (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 902). 62 V. Benedict XIV, De Synodo Dioecesana, VII, 4, 8. 68 * Valet baptismus collatus a ministro, qui omnem ritum externum formamque baptizandi observat, intus vero in corde suo apud se resolvit: Non intendo quod facit Ecclesio.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 13 18). 64 Serry’s evasive arguments on this subject are convincingly refuted by Tepe, Instit. Theol, IV, 79 SQQ» THE RIGHT INTENTION 187 b) The arguments alleged in favor of the sufficiency of a merely external intention are inconclusive. The laudable desire manifested by our opponents to safeguard the objective efficacy of the Sacraments against the wiles of unworthy men and to give the faithful as great a certainty as possible of receiving the sacramental graces, must not lead us to overlook the necessity of an interior intention. Two elements, the one objective, the other subjective, enter into the composition of every Sacrament : the external rite and the interior intention. No Sacrament is complete without them. Nor is it safe to extol the former to the prejudice of the latter. It is not pertinent to compare the external rite to a fire65 which, laid to dry wood, at once kindles it, even when there is no intention of arson on the part of him who brings about the contact. On the other hand, Divine Providence has seen fit to entrust the administration of the Sacraments to human beings. We must therefore be satisfied with such moral certitude as can generally be had.66 66 As the followers of Catharinus do. 66 V. supra, Thesis I. Cfr. Pesch, PraelecU DogmaU, Voi. VI. 3rd ed., pp. 119 sqq.; De Augustinis, De Re Sacrament aria, I, 2nd ed., pp. 235 sqq.