Sect. 248The Minister of the SacramentsThe Minister of the Sacraments
I. We have seen in a preceding section (§ 232) that the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, exercises in His name imperial, magisterial, and ministerial functions. To these last belongs the administration of the sacraments. Christ, our Lord, being no longer present on earth in His bodily form, makes use of the agency of men for the performance of those acts which He has raised to the dignity of sacraments. These acts are morally His, and they derive their supernatural value entirely from His merits; the persons who perform the acts being simply His agents acting in His behalf. “So let a man think of us as the ministers of Christ and the dispensers (οἰκονόμους) of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1). Though these functions are intended for the good of all, they are not capable of being exercised by all. Christ did not say to all, “Do this in commemoration of Me,” but only to the Apostles and their successors. So, too, He did not say to all, “Whose sins ye shall forgive,” etc. In like manner, St. Paul’s words (1 Tim. 4:14), “Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood,” were meant for Timothy and those who have received similar ordination; and it was to the ancients of the Church that he said, “Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole Church, in which the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God” (Acts 20:28). Again, the same Apostle says, “God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors.… Are all Apostles? are all prophets? are all doctors?” (1 Cor. 12:28, 29; cf. Eph. 4:2); “Every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins.… Neither doth any man take the honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was” (Heb. 5:1, 4).
In accordance with this doctrine, the Church has never suffered the sacraments to be administered, whether publicly or privately, by any one who has not received ordination. Baptism alone has been excepted from this rule, because it is necessary for salvation, and an ordained minister cannot always be had. When St. Peter exhorts the faithful to be “living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood (ἱεράτευμα) to offer up spiritual (πνευματικὰς) sacrifices” (1 Pet. 2:5), he refers to an internal and spiritual priesthood, which consists in the offering of the sacrifice of a contrite heart (Ps. 1:6), good works, etc. And St. John, in the Apocalypse (1:6), means a heavenly priesthood when he says that “Christ hath loved us … and hath made us a kingdom and priests to God” (cf. 20:6). “All the children of the Church,” says St. Ambrose, “are priests; for we are anointed to a holy priesthood, offering ourselves as spiritual sacrifices to God” (In Cap. vi. Lucæ; cf. De Sac. iv. 1).
II. Granting that the efficacy of the sacraments depends entirely upon the merits of Christ, we may go on to inquire whether heresy or mortal sin incapacitates an otherwise competent person from being the minister of a sacrament; and, further, what is required in order that the person should actually exercise this ministry. In other words, we have now to discuss the difficult questions concerning the faith, the worthiness, and the intention of the minister. To enable us to understand these, we must carefully distinguish between valid and invalid, lawful and unlawful, administration. A sacrament may be really and truly conferred, yet the minister may be acting against the law by conferring it. Thus, a lay person performing without necessity the ceremony of baptism over a child not previously baptized, would really and truly confer the sacrament, but would commit a sin by so doing. In the present discussion we are concerned only with the question of validity.
I. Whether heresy is a bar to valid administration was the root of the famous controversy between St. Cyprian Faith not and Pope St. Stephen. The former maintained that outside the Church there were no true sacraments; and that, consequently, those who had been baptized by heretics should be rebaptized, or, more strictly speaking, baptized, since the previous ceremony had been null and void. The Roman Pontiff, when appealed to, condemned this practice. “In days gone by,” says Vincent of Lerins, “Agrippinus, of blessed memory, Bishop of Carthage, the first of all mortal men against the Divine canon [Holy Scripture], against the rule of the universal Church, against the sense of all his fellow-priests, against the custom and institutes of our forefathers, held that baptism ought to be repeated.… When, therefore, on every side men protested against the novelty of the practice, and all the priests in every direction, each according to his zeal, did oppose, then Pope St. Stephen, of blessed memory, prelate of the Apostolic See, assisted with the rest of his colleagues indeed, but still beyond the rest (præ ceteris); thinking it, I suppose, becoming that he should excel all the rest as much in devotion for the faith as he surpassed them in authority of place (quantum loci auctoritate superabat). In fine, in an epistle which was then sent to Africa, he issued a decree in these words: ‘Nothing is to be innovated [nothing] but what has been handed down (nihil innovandum nisi quod traditum est).’ What, therefore, was the result of the whole matter? What, indeed, but the usual and accustomed one? Antiquity, to wit, was retained; novelty exploded” (Adv. Hæres., n. 6). “Do not object against us the authority of Cyprian in favour of repeating baptism,” says St. Augustine, “but adhere with us to the example of Cyprian in favour of preserving unity. For that question about baptism had not then been as yet thoroughly examined with care; but the Church, notwithstanding, adhered to a most wholesome practice—to amend what was evil in the heretics and schismatics themselves, but not to repeat what had been given; to make whole what was wounded, not to heal what was whole (corrigere quod pravum est, non iterare quod datum est; sanare quod vulneratum est, non curare quod sanum est)” (De Bapt., lib. ii. c. 7). Although St. Stephen’s decree was primarily a disciplinary rule, yet it practically decided the doctrinal question which lay at the root of the controversy. The Council of Aries (314) repeated the rule, and in spite of the sanctity, the learning, and the influence of St. Cyprian’s adherents, the practice of rebaptism of heretics fell into disuse. We shall presently see, however, that the question of rebaptism assumed a new form later on. Any doubts concerning the doctrinal question were set at rest by the decision of the Council of Trent, that baptism given by heretics, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is true baptism (sess. vii., De Bapt., can. 4).
2. While St. Cyprian was contending for the rebaptism of heretics, the Novatians went further, and maintained that baptism conferred by sinners was invalid. Early in the next century this error was taken up by the Donatists, at least as far as notorious sinners were concerned. Long afterwards the Waldenses, Wyclif, and Huss held similar opinions, and were condemned by the Councils of Constance, Florence, and Trent (sess. vii., De Sacr. in Gen., can. 12). The Donatists found a strenuous opponent in St. Augustine, whose writings contain numberless passages against them: “That water over which the Name of God is invoked is not profane and adulterous, even though the invoker is adulterous and profane; for neither the created thing nor the name is adulterous.… The light of the sun, or even of a lamp, when shed abroad through foul places, contracts nothing vile thereby. And can Christ’s baptism be contaminated by any one’s crimes?” (De Bapt., lib. iii. c. 10.) “Baptism takes its quality from the quality of Him in whose power it is given, not from that of him by whose ministry it is conferred (Baptisma tale est qualis est ille in cujus potestate datur; non qualis est ille per cujus ministerium datur).… What was given by Paul and what was given by Peter are both Christ’s; and if it was given by Judas it was Christ’s” (In Joan. tract, v. 6; cf. Contra Cresconium, passim). That is to say, the minister acts like an instrument or channel; and, consequently, the action derives its force and value from the prime mover or principal cause. Just as a medical man, though ill himself, can cure others; just as a pipe, no matter whether it is of silver or of lead, can conduct water; so can the ministers of the Church confer the sacraments, even though they themselves may be sinners (St. Thom., 3, q. 64, a. 5).
3. Without going into details concerning the various kinds of attention and intention, we may state generally that the minister of a sacrament must be aware of what he is doing, and must really and truly intend to do it. Though he is an instrument in Christ’s hands, he is not simply a tool; he is a living instrument, and therefore the action of his will must come in. Moreover, he must at least have “the intention of doing what the Church does” (faciendi quod facit Ecclesia; Council of Trent, sess. vii., De Sacr. in Gen., can. 11). What, however, is the precise import of this formula is a matter of discussion among theologians. All agree that the minister need not have the specific intention of doing what the Roman Catholic Church does; that he need not intend to produce the effect of the sacrament; and that he need not even believe that the rite is a sacrament at all, or know what a sacrament is. They agree, too, that he must intend to perform a ceremony which is held as sacred and religious by the Church of Christ. The reason is plain. What is indeterminate needs to be determined, otherwise its character is not fixed. Now, washing can be performed for various purposes, e.g. cleanliness, health, amusement, or devotion. In order to make it really and truly a sacrament, it needs to be determined by the intention of the minister, which intention is expressed by the words, “I baptize thee in the Name of the Father,” etc. (St. Thom., 3, q. 65, a. 8). But whether it is enough to mean to perform seriously the external rite, while internally having no further intention, or even an opposite intention (e.g. “The Church of Rome holds matrimony to be a sacrament, but I do not; I will go through the ceremony, but I do not intend to confer any sacrament”), is a disputed point. See Drouin, l.c., vii. sect. 2; Franzelin, l.c. thes. xvii.; Pourrat, p. 315.
I. We have seen in a preceding section (§ 232) that the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, exercises in His name imperial, magisterial, and ministerial functions. To these last belongs the administration of the sacraments. Christ, our Lord, being no longer present on earth in His bodily form, makes use of the agency of men for the performance of those acts which He has raised to the dignity of sacraments. These acts are morally His, and they derive their supernatural value entirely from His merits; the persons who perform the acts being simply His agents acting in His behalf. “So let a man think of us as the ministers of Christ and the dispensers (οἰκονόμους) of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1). Though these functions are intended for the good of all, they are not capable of being exercised by all. Christ did not say to all, “Do this in commemoration of Me,” but only to the Apostles and their successors. So, too, He did not say to all, “Whose sins ye shall forgive,” etc. In like manner, St. Paul’s words (1 Tim. 4:14), “Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood,” were meant for Timothy and those who have received similar ordination; and it was to the ancients of the Church that he said, “Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole Church, in which the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God” (Acts 20:28). Again, the same Apostle says, “God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors.… Are all Apostles? are all prophets? are all doctors?” (1 Cor. 12:28, 29; cf. Eph. 4:2); “Every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins.… Neither doth any man take the honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was” (Heb. 5:1, 4).
In accordance with this doctrine, the Church has never suffered the sacraments to be administered, whether publicly or privately, by any one who has not received ordination. Baptism alone has been excepted from this rule, because it is necessary for salvation, and an ordained minister cannot always be had. When St. Peter exhorts the faithful to be “living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood (ἱεράτευμα) to offer up spiritual (πνευματικὰς) sacrifices” (1 Pet. 2:5), he refers to an internal and spiritual priesthood, which consists in the offering of the sacrifice of a contrite heart (Ps. 1:6), good works, etc. And St. John, in the Apocalypse (1:6), means a heavenly priesthood when he says that “Christ hath loved us … and hath made us a kingdom and priests to God” (cf. 20:6). “All the children of the Church,” says St. Ambrose, “are priests; for we are anointed to a holy priesthood, offering ourselves as spiritual sacrifices to God” (In Cap. vi. Lucæ; cf. De Sac. iv. 1).
II. Granting that the efficacy of the sacraments depends entirely upon the merits of Christ, we may go on to inquire whether heresy or mortal sin incapacitates an otherwise competent person from being the minister of a sacrament; and, further, what is required in order that the person should actually exercise this ministry. In other words, we have now to discuss the difficult questions concerning the faith, the worthiness, and the intention of the minister. To enable us to understand these, we must carefully distinguish between valid and invalid, lawful and unlawful, administration. A sacrament may be really and truly conferred, yet the minister may be acting against the law by conferring it. Thus, a lay person performing without necessity the ceremony of baptism over a child not previously baptized, would really and truly confer the sacrament, but would commit a sin by so doing. In the present discussion we are concerned only with the question of validity.
I. Whether heresy is a bar to valid administration was the root of the famous controversy between St. Cyprian Faith not and Pope St. Stephen. The former maintained that outside the Church there were no true sacraments; and that, consequently, those who had been baptized by heretics should be rebaptized, or, more strictly speaking, baptized, since the previous ceremony had been null and void. The Roman Pontiff, when appealed to, condemned this practice. “In days gone by,” says Vincent of Lerins, “Agrippinus, of blessed memory, Bishop of Carthage, the first of all mortal men against the Divine canon [Holy Scripture], against the rule of the universal Church, against the sense of all his fellow-priests, against the custom and institutes of our forefathers, held that baptism ought to be repeated.… When, therefore, on every side men protested against the novelty of the practice, and all the priests in every direction, each according to his zeal, did oppose, then Pope St. Stephen, of blessed memory, prelate of the Apostolic See, assisted with the rest of his colleagues indeed, but still beyond the rest (præ ceteris); thinking it, I suppose, becoming that he should excel all the rest as much in devotion for the faith as he surpassed them in authority of place (quantum loci auctoritate superabat). In fine, in an epistle which was then sent to Africa, he issued a decree in these words: ‘Nothing is to be innovated [nothing] but what has been handed down (nihil innovandum nisi quod traditum est).’ What, therefore, was the result of the whole matter? What, indeed, but the usual and accustomed one? Antiquity, to wit, was retained; novelty exploded” (Adv. Hæres., n. 6). “Do not object against us the authority of Cyprian in favour of repeating baptism,” says St. Augustine, “but adhere with us to the example of Cyprian in favour of preserving unity. For that question about baptism had not then been as yet thoroughly examined with care; but the Church, notwithstanding, adhered to a most wholesome practice—to amend what was evil in the heretics and schismatics themselves, but not to repeat what had been given; to make whole what was wounded, not to heal what was whole (corrigere quod pravum est, non iterare quod datum est; sanare quod vulneratum est, non curare quod sanum est)” (De Bapt., lib. ii. c. 7). Although St. Stephen’s decree was primarily a disciplinary rule, yet it practically decided the doctrinal question which lay at the root of the controversy. The Council of Aries (314) repeated the rule, and in spite of the sanctity, the learning, and the influence of St. Cyprian’s adherents, the practice of rebaptism of heretics fell into disuse. We shall presently see, however, that the question of rebaptism assumed a new form later on. Any doubts concerning the doctrinal question were set at rest by the decision of the Council of Trent, that baptism given by heretics, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is true baptism (sess. vii., De Bapt., can. 4).
2. While St. Cyprian was contending for the rebaptism of heretics, the Novatians went further, and maintained that baptism conferred by sinners was invalid. Early in the next century this error was taken up by the Donatists, at least as far as notorious sinners were concerned. Long afterwards the Waldenses, Wyclif, and Huss held similar opinions, and were condemned by the Councils of Constance, Florence, and Trent (sess. vii., De Sacr. in Gen., can. 12). The Donatists found a strenuous opponent in St. Augustine, whose writings contain numberless passages against them: “That water over which the Name of God is invoked is not profane and adulterous, even though the invoker is adulterous and profane; for neither the created thing nor the name is adulterous.… The light of the sun, or even of a lamp, when shed abroad through foul places, contracts nothing vile thereby. And can Christ’s baptism be contaminated by any one’s crimes?” (De Bapt., lib. iii. c. 10.) “Baptism takes its quality from the quality of Him in whose power it is given, not from that of him by whose ministry it is conferred (Baptisma tale est qualis est ille in cujus potestate datur; non qualis est ille per cujus ministerium datur).… What was given by Paul and what was given by Peter are both Christ’s; and if it was given by Judas it was Christ’s” (In Joan. tract, v. 6; cf. Contra Cresconium, passim). That is to say, the minister acts like an instrument or channel; and, consequently, the action derives its force and value from the prime mover or principal cause. Just as a medical man, though ill himself, can cure others; just as a pipe, no matter whether it is of silver or of lead, can conduct water; so can the ministers of the Church confer the sacraments, even though they themselves may be sinners (St. Thom., 3, q. 64, a. 5).
3. Without going into details concerning the various kinds of attention and intention, we may state generally that the minister of a sacrament must be aware of what he is doing, and must really and truly intend to do it. Though he is an instrument in Christ’s hands, he is not simply a tool; he is a living instrument, and therefore the action of his will must come in. Moreover, he must at least have “the intention of doing what the Church does” (faciendi quod facit Ecclesia; Council of Trent, sess. vii., De Sacr. in Gen., can. 11). What, however, is the precise import of this formula is a matter of discussion among theologians. All agree that the minister need not have the specific intention of doing what the Roman Catholic Church does; that he need not intend to produce the effect of the sacrament; and that he need not even believe that the rite is a sacrament at all, or know what a sacrament is. They agree, too, that he must intend to perform a ceremony which is held as sacred and religious by the Church of Christ. The reason is plain. What is indeterminate needs to be determined, otherwise its character is not fixed. Now, washing can be performed for various purposes, e.g. cleanliness, health, amusement, or devotion. In order to make it really and truly a sacrament, it needs to be determined by the intention of the minister, which intention is expressed by the words, “I baptize thee in the Name of the Father,” etc. (St. Thom., 3, q. 65, a. 8). But whether it is enough to mean to perform seriously the external rite, while internally having no further intention, or even an opposite intention (e.g. “The Church of Rome holds matrimony to be a sacrament, but I do not; I will go through the ceremony, but I do not intend to confer any sacrament”), is a disputed point. See Drouin, l.c., vii. sect. 2; Franzelin, l.c. thes. xvii.; Pourrat, p. 315.
Seção 86% da obra, de A Manual of Catholic Theology (Wilhelm & Scannell, sobre a Dogmatik de Scheeben). Ver o original.