Sect. 250Number and Division of the SacramentsNumber and Division of the Sacraments
I. It is of faith that there are in the New Law neither more nor less than seven sacraments properly so called, and that these are Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony (Council of Trent, sess. vii. can. 1). The obvious way of proving this doctrine is to show that each of these sacred rites is really and truly a sacrament (which will be done in the succeeding chapters); and also that no other sacred rite combines all the elements required for a true sacrament. Here, in this section, we shall point out that besides this method we can prove that the sevenfold number was explicitly held by the Church long before the Tridentine definition.
1. Before Luther and his followers began their attempts to divide the Church, it had been admitted on all hands, both in the East and West, that the sacraments were seven in number. Even from an historical point of view, this unanimity is a sufficient proof of antiquity. “Is it likely that so many and such great Churches should have gone astray into one faith? Never is there one result among many chances. The error of the Churches would have taken different directions. Whatever is found to be one and the same among many persons is not an error, but a tradition” (Tertullian, De Præscr., c. 28; cf. vol. i. p. 68).
(a) At the very opening of the Scholastic epoch of theology we find the sevenfold number taught, and taught not as some new discovery, but as handed down from our Lord. Thus, St. Otho of Bamberg: “As I am about to leave you, I deliver to you the things which were delivered to us by the Lord … viz. the seven sacraments of the Church” (Apud. Bolland, tom. i. Julii, pp. 396, 397). Peter Lombard, in the fourth book of the Sentences, distinctly enumerates our seven sacraments; and the Scholastic commentators, though they freely criticize him in other matters, and widely differ among themselves, all unanimously accept this doctrine. The same was decreed by many provincial councils from the twelfth century onwards. The teaching of the old Church of England is abundantly clear from the Constitutions of Richard, Bishop of Salisbury, renewed in the Council of Durham (1217 or 1223); the statutes issued by Cardinal Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, to be read in the Council of Oxford (1222); the “Chapters of the Council of London,” held under the presidency of the Papal legate (1237); and the English “Synodal Constitutions” of the same year. The sevenfold number was acknowledged at the Council of Constance even by the followers of John Huss, and was mentioned in the Decretum pro Armenis at Florence.
(b) As far as the Greek (schismatic) Church is concerned, it should be noted that in the various disputes with the Western Church there was no dissension as to the number of the sacraments, though there was considerable discussion concerning the rites and ceremonies connected with them. When overtures for union were made by the Protestants at the end of the sixteenth century to the Eastern schismatics, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Jeremias, distinctly pointed out that, contrary to the Augsburg Confession, “the sacred ceremonies and sacraments recognized in the Catholic Church by orthodox Christians are seven in number: viz. Baptism, the Unction of the Divine chrism, the Divine Communion, Ordination, Matrimony, Penance, and Holy Oil (Extreme Unction); just as there are seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to Isaias (4:2), so are there seven sacraments which the Holy Ghost works, neither more nor less.” See Perpétuité de la Foi, tom. v. lib. i. ch. 3; Pourrat, p. 262.
2. Though the Fathers treat of the various sacraments in detail, we are not surprised to find that they nowhere expressly state that these are seven in number. It was no part of their method to compose systematic theological treatises unless, indeed, on such subjects as the Incarnation and Blessed Trinity, which were keenly controverted. As soon as theology began to be reduced to a system, we find the number seven immediately accepted by all. Besides, “the discipline of the secret,” to which frequent reference must be made when dealing with the sacraments, would easily account for the silence of the Fathers on many points connected with them. Moreover, the word “sacrament” was not restricted to its technical sense until later.
The answer to the arguments of those who maintain other sacraments besides these seven, notably, the Washing of Feet (John 13:1–15), may be found in Drouin, q. iii. cap. 2, sect. 2; Franzelin, p. 286 sqq.
II. These seven Sacraments may be divided into various classes.
1. We have already spoken of the distinction between “Sacraments of the Living” and “Sacraments of the Dead.”
2. Another important distinction is that the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, whereas others, however useful, are not necessary (supra, § 45).
3. Again, three of the sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, and Order) impress a “Character,” and therefore cannot be repeated. This “Character” or mark is defined by the Council of Trent to be “a certain spiritual and indelible sign (signum quoddam spirituale et indelibile)” (sess. vii., De Sacr., can. 9).
(a) That these three sacraments impress a Character was distinctly taught by all the mediæval theologians (St. Thom. In 4 Dist. q. 1, a. 1). There was, indeed, considerable disagreement as to the precise nature of the Character; and some (Scotus, Biel, Cajetan) went so far as to deny that its existence could be proved from Scripture or the Fathers; but even these accepted it on the authority of the Church. This universal consent is sufficient proof that the doctrine is a tradition and not an error (supra, p. 373).
(b) But the Fathers, notably St. Cyprian and St. Augustine, had already maintained the existence of the Character, though not in the exact technical language of the Schoolmen. In the early controversies concerning heretical Baptism and Order, both parties agreed that it had been handed down from the Apostles that these sacraments could not be repeated. The Catholics maintained that the reason of this prohibition was that these sacraments produced an effect quite independent of grace—an effect which could be produced outside the Church, and remained even in those who quitted her fold. This was called a seal (sigillum), or mark (signum, character), impressed upon the soul, and designating the subjects of it as the sheep of Christ’s flock, or as the soldiers and ministers of His kingdom. “The sacrament of Christian Baptism is valid and sufficient for consecration, even though it is not sufficient for the participation of eternal life; and this consecration makes the heretic a culprit (reum facit) who bears the character outside the Lord’s flock; nevertheless, sound doctrine bids that he should be corrected, not consecrated anew” (St. Aug., Ep. xcviii. n. 5). And, again, addressing a Donatist: “Thou art a sheep of my Lord’s flock. Thou hast gone astray with His mark (signum) on thee, and because of that I seek thee the more.… Dost thou not know that the deserter is condemned for having the service mark (character), whereas the fighting soldier is rewarded for it?” (Ad Pleb. Cæsar., n. 4). The Greek Fathers frequently use similar expressions. Thus Clement of Alexandria (De Divite Servando, c. 42) speaks of Baptism as “the seal of the Lord (σφραγῖδα τοῦ Κυρίου);” St. Basil (Bapt., n. 5), “the unassailable seal (σφραγίς ἀνεπιχείρητος);” St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Procatech., n. 16), “a holy and indelible seal (σφραγίς ἅγια καὶ ἄλυτος).” Cf. St. Greg. Naz., Or. 40, In Bapt., n. 4; St. John Chrysost., In 2 Cor., hom. iii. n. 7.
(c) It is clear, then, that the doctrine of the Character must have come down from the Apostles, and hence, even though it could not be proved from the text of Sacred Scripture taken alone, nevertheless such expressions as “sealing” and “signing” must, according to the Catholic rule of interpretation, be taken to refer to the sacramental Character. “He that hath anointed us is God, Who also hath sealed (ὁ σφραγισάμενος) us and given the pledge (ἀραβῶνα) of the Spirit in our hearts” (2 Cor. 1:21, 22); “You were signed (ἐσφραγίσθητε) with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Eph. 1:13); “Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby (ἐν ᾡ) you are sealed (ἐσφραγίσθητε) unto the day of redemption” (ibid. 4:30). Sec St. Thom., 3, q. 63; Drouin, q. v. c. 2; Franzelin, theses xii., xiii.; Billot, p. 138; Pourrat, p. 185.
On the number of the Sacraments see Billot, p. 191; Pourrat, p. 232; Franzelin, De Sacr. in Gen., cap. vi.; Drouin, De Re Sacramentaria, Qu. iii. cap. ii.
I. It is of faith that there are in the New Law neither more nor less than seven sacraments properly so called, and that these are Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony (Council of Trent, sess. vii. can. 1). The obvious way of proving this doctrine is to show that each of these sacred rites is really and truly a sacrament (which will be done in the succeeding chapters); and also that no other sacred rite combines all the elements required for a true sacrament. Here, in this section, we shall point out that besides this method we can prove that the sevenfold number was explicitly held by the Church long before the Tridentine definition.
1. Before Luther and his followers began their attempts to divide the Church, it had been admitted on all hands, both in the East and West, that the sacraments were seven in number. Even from an historical point of view, this unanimity is a sufficient proof of antiquity. “Is it likely that so many and such great Churches should have gone astray into one faith? Never is there one result among many chances. The error of the Churches would have taken different directions. Whatever is found to be one and the same among many persons is not an error, but a tradition” (Tertullian, De Præscr., c. 28; cf. vol. i. p. 68).
(a) At the very opening of the Scholastic epoch of theology we find the sevenfold number taught, and taught not as some new discovery, but as handed down from our Lord. Thus, St. Otho of Bamberg: “As I am about to leave you, I deliver to you the things which were delivered to us by the Lord … viz. the seven sacraments of the Church” (Apud. Bolland, tom. i. Julii, pp. 396, 397). Peter Lombard, in the fourth book of the Sentences, distinctly enumerates our seven sacraments; and the Scholastic commentators, though they freely criticize him in other matters, and widely differ among themselves, all unanimously accept this doctrine. The same was decreed by many provincial councils from the twelfth century onwards. The teaching of the old Church of England is abundantly clear from the Constitutions of Richard, Bishop of Salisbury, renewed in the Council of Durham (1217 or 1223); the statutes issued by Cardinal Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, to be read in the Council of Oxford (1222); the “Chapters of the Council of London,” held under the presidency of the Papal legate (1237); and the English “Synodal Constitutions” of the same year. The sevenfold number was acknowledged at the Council of Constance even by the followers of John Huss, and was mentioned in the Decretum pro Armenis at Florence.
(b) As far as the Greek (schismatic) Church is concerned, it should be noted that in the various disputes with the Western Church there was no dissension as to the number of the sacraments, though there was considerable discussion concerning the rites and ceremonies connected with them. When overtures for union were made by the Protestants at the end of the sixteenth century to the Eastern schismatics, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Jeremias, distinctly pointed out that, contrary to the Augsburg Confession, “the sacred ceremonies and sacraments recognized in the Catholic Church by orthodox Christians are seven in number: viz. Baptism, the Unction of the Divine chrism, the Divine Communion, Ordination, Matrimony, Penance, and Holy Oil (Extreme Unction); just as there are seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to Isaias (4:2), so are there seven sacraments which the Holy Ghost works, neither more nor less.” See Perpétuité de la Foi, tom. v. lib. i. ch. 3; Pourrat, p. 262.
2. Though the Fathers treat of the various sacraments in detail, we are not surprised to find that they nowhere expressly state that these are seven in number. It was no part of their method to compose systematic theological treatises unless, indeed, on such subjects as the Incarnation and Blessed Trinity, which were keenly controverted. As soon as theology began to be reduced to a system, we find the number seven immediately accepted by all. Besides, “the discipline of the secret,” to which frequent reference must be made when dealing with the sacraments, would easily account for the silence of the Fathers on many points connected with them. Moreover, the word “sacrament” was not restricted to its technical sense until later.
The answer to the arguments of those who maintain other sacraments besides these seven, notably, the Washing of Feet (John 13:1–15), may be found in Drouin, q. iii. cap. 2, sect. 2; Franzelin, p. 286 sqq.
II. These seven Sacraments may be divided into various classes.
1. We have already spoken of the distinction between “Sacraments of the Living” and “Sacraments of the Dead.”
2. Another important distinction is that the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, whereas others, however useful, are not necessary (supra, § 45).
3. Again, three of the sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, and Order) impress a “Character,” and therefore cannot be repeated. This “Character” or mark is defined by the Council of Trent to be “a certain spiritual and indelible sign (signum quoddam spirituale et indelibile)” (sess. vii., De Sacr., can. 9).
(a) That these three sacraments impress a Character was distinctly taught by all the mediæval theologians (St. Thom. In 4 Dist. q. 1, a. 1). There was, indeed, considerable disagreement as to the precise nature of the Character; and some (Scotus, Biel, Cajetan) went so far as to deny that its existence could be proved from Scripture or the Fathers; but even these accepted it on the authority of the Church. This universal consent is sufficient proof that the doctrine is a tradition and not an error (supra, p. 373).
(b) But the Fathers, notably St. Cyprian and St. Augustine, had already maintained the existence of the Character, though not in the exact technical language of the Schoolmen. In the early controversies concerning heretical Baptism and Order, both parties agreed that it had been handed down from the Apostles that these sacraments could not be repeated. The Catholics maintained that the reason of this prohibition was that these sacraments produced an effect quite independent of grace—an effect which could be produced outside the Church, and remained even in those who quitted her fold. This was called a seal (sigillum), or mark (signum, character), impressed upon the soul, and designating the subjects of it as the sheep of Christ’s flock, or as the soldiers and ministers of His kingdom. “The sacrament of Christian Baptism is valid and sufficient for consecration, even though it is not sufficient for the participation of eternal life; and this consecration makes the heretic a culprit (reum facit) who bears the character outside the Lord’s flock; nevertheless, sound doctrine bids that he should be corrected, not consecrated anew” (St. Aug., Ep. xcviii. n. 5). And, again, addressing a Donatist: “Thou art a sheep of my Lord’s flock. Thou hast gone astray with His mark (signum) on thee, and because of that I seek thee the more.… Dost thou not know that the deserter is condemned for having the service mark (character), whereas the fighting soldier is rewarded for it?” (Ad Pleb. Cæsar., n. 4). The Greek Fathers frequently use similar expressions. Thus Clement of Alexandria (De Divite Servando, c. 42) speaks of Baptism as “the seal of the Lord (σφραγῖδα τοῦ Κυρίου);” St. Basil (Bapt., n. 5), “the unassailable seal (σφραγίς ἀνεπιχείρητος);” St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Procatech., n. 16), “a holy and indelible seal (σφραγίς ἅγια καὶ ἄλυτος).” Cf. St. Greg. Naz., Or. 40, In Bapt., n. 4; St. John Chrysost., In 2 Cor., hom. iii. n. 7.
(c) It is clear, then, that the doctrine of the Character must have come down from the Apostles, and hence, even though it could not be proved from the text of Sacred Scripture taken alone, nevertheless such expressions as “sealing” and “signing” must, according to the Catholic rule of interpretation, be taken to refer to the sacramental Character. “He that hath anointed us is God, Who also hath sealed (ὁ σφραγισάμενος) us and given the pledge (ἀραβῶνα) of the Spirit in our hearts” (2 Cor. 1:21, 22); “You were signed (ἐσφραγίσθητε) with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Eph. 1:13); “Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby (ἐν ᾡ) you are sealed (ἐσφραγίσθητε) unto the day of redemption” (ibid. 4:30). Sec St. Thom., 3, q. 63; Drouin, q. v. c. 2; Franzelin, theses xii., xiii.; Billot, p. 138; Pourrat, p. 185.
On the number of the Sacraments see Billot, p. 191; Pourrat, p. 232; Franzelin, De Sacr. in Gen., cap. vi.; Drouin, De Re Sacramentaria, Qu. iii. cap. ii.
Seção 87% da obra, de A Manual of Catholic Theology (Wilhelm & Scannell, sobre a Dogmatik de Scheeben). Ver o original.