SACRAMENTS
303
SACRAMENTS
difficulty and (/3) does not make the sacraments (i. e.
the external, Divinely appointed ceremonies) the real
cause of grace. Theologians are perfectly free to dis-
pute and differ as to the manner of instrumental caus-
ality. Lis est adhuc sub judice.
VI. Minister of the Sacraments. — (1) It was altogether fitting that the ministration of the sacra- ments be given, not to the angels, but to men. The efficacy of the sacraments comes from the Passion of Christ, hence from Christ as a man; men, not angels, are like unto Christ in His human nature. Miracu- lously God might send a good angel to administer a sacrament (St. Thomas, III, Q. Ixiv, a. 7). (2) For administering Baptism validly no special ordination is required. Any one, even a pagan, can baptize, provided that he use the proper matter and pronounce the words of the essential form, with the intention of doing what the Church does (Deer, pro Armen., Den- zinger-Bannwart, 696). Onty bishops, priests, and in some cases, deacons may confer baptism solemnly (see Baptism). It is now held as certain that in matrimony the contracting parties are the ministers of the sacrament, because they make the contract and the sacrament is the contract raised by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. Leo XIII, Encycl. "Arcanum", 10 Febr., 1880; see Matrimony). For the validity of the other five sacraments the minister must be duly ordained. The Council of Trent anathem- atized those who said that all Christians could ad- minister all the sacraments (Sess. VII, can. 10). Only bishops can confer sacred orders (Council of Trent, sess. XXIII, can. 7). Ordinarily only a bishop can give confirmation (.see Confirmation). The priestly order is required for the valid administration of pen- ance and extreme unction (Cone. Trid., sess. XIV, can. 10, can. 4). As to the Eucharist, those only who have priestly orders can consecrate, i. e. change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Con- secration presuppo.sed, any one can distribute the Eucharistic species but, out.side of very extraordinary circumstances this can be lawfully done only by bish- ops, priests, or (in some cases) deacons. (3) The care of all those sacred rites has been given to the Church of Christ. Heretical or schismatical minis- ters can administer the sacraments validly if they have valid orders, but their ministrations are sinful (see Billot, op. cit., thesis 16). Good faith would excuse the recipients from sin, and in ca.ses of nec(!ssity the Church grants the jurisdiction necessary for penance and extreme unction (see Excommunication: V, Ef- fects OF Excommunication).
(4) Due reverence for the sacraments requires the minister to be in a state of grace: one who .solemnly and officially administers a sacrament, being himself in a state of mortal sin, would certainly be guilty of a sacrilege (cf. St. Thomas, III, Q. Ixiv, a. 6). Some hold that this sacrilege is committed even when the minister does not act officially or confer the sacra- ment solemnly. But from the controversy between St. Augustine and the Donatists (q. v.) in the fourth century and especially from the controversy between St. Stephen and St. Cyprian (q. v.) in the third cen- tury, we know that personal hoUness or the state of grace in the minister is not a prerequisite for the valid administration of the sacrament. This has been solemnly defined in several general councils including the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, can. 12, ibid., de bapt., can. 4). The reason is that the sacraments have their efficacy by Divine institution and through the merits of Christ. Unworthy ministers, validly conferring the sacraments, cannot impede the efficacy of signs or- dained by Christ to produce grace ex opere operato (cf. St. Thomas, III, Q. Ixiv, aa. 5, 9). The knowl- edge of this truth, which follows logically from the true conception of a sacrament, gives comfort to the faithful, and it should increase, rather than diminish, reverence for those sacred rites and confidence in their
efficacy. No one can give, in his own name, that which
he does not possess; but a bank cashier, not possessing
2000 dollars in his own name, could write a draft
worth 2,000,000 dollars by reason of the wealth of the
bank which he is authorized to represent. Christ
left to His Church a vast treasure purchased by His
merits and sufferings: the sacraments are as creden-
tials entitUng their holders to a share in this treasure.
On this subject the Anglican Church has retained
the true doctrine, which is neatly proved in article
XXVI of the Westminster Confession: "Although in
the visible church the evil be ever mingled with the
good, and sometimes the evil hath the chief authority
in the ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet
forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name,
but in Christ's, and do minister by His commission and
authority, we may use their ministry both in hearing
the Word of God and in receiving the Sacraments.
Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away
by their wickedness nor the grace of God's gifts from
such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the sacra-
ments ministered unto them; which be effectual, be-
cause of Christ's institution and promise, although
they be administered by evil men " (cf . BiUuart, de
sacram., d. 5, a. 3, sol. obj.)
(5) Intention of the Minister. — (a) To be a minister of the sacraments under and with Christ, a man must act as a man, i. e. as a rational being; hence it is abso-
•lutely necessary that he have the intention of doing what the Church does. This was declared by Eu- gene IV in 1439 (Denzinger-Bannwart, 695) and was solemnly defined in the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, can. II). The anathema of Trent was aimed at the innovators of the sixteenth century. From their fundamental error that the sacraments were signs of faith, or signs that excited faith, it followed logically that their effect in no wise depended on the intention of the minister. Men are to be "ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God" (I Cor., iv, 1), and this they would not be without the intention, for it is by the intention, says St. Thomas (III, Q. Ixiv, a. 8, ad l^m) that a man subjects and unites himself to the principal agent (Christ). Moreover, by rationally pronouncing the words of the form, the minister must determine what is not sufficiently de- termined or expressed by the matter applied, e. g. the significance of pouring water on the head of the child (St. Thomas, loc. cit., a. 8). One who is de- mented, drunk, asleep, or in a stupor that prevents a rational act, one who goes through the external cere- mony in mockery, mimicry, or in a play, does not act as a rational minister, hence cannot administer a sacrament, (b) The necessary object and quali- ties of the intention required in the minister of the sacrament are explained in the article Intention. Pourrat (op. cit., ch. 7) gives a history of all contro- versies on this subject. Whatever may be said specu- latively about the opinion of Ambrosius Catherinus (see Politi, Lancelot) who advocated the sufficiency of an external intention in the minister, it may not be followed in practice, because, outside of cases of neces- sity, no one may follow a probable opinion against one that is safer, when there is question of something required for the validity of a sacrament (Innoc. XI, 1679; Denzinger-Bannwart, 1151).
(6) Attention in the minister. — Attention is an act of the intellect, viz. the application of the mind to what is being done. Voluntary distraction in one administering a sacrament would be sinful. The sin would however not be grave, unless (a) there be dan- ger of making a serious mistake, or (b) according to the common opinion, the distraction be admitted in consecrating the Eucharistic species. Attention on the part of the minister is not necessary for the valid administration of a sacrament, because in virtue of the intention, which is presupposed, he can act in a rational manner, notwithstanding the distraction.
