Chapter II §3: The Sacraments Instituted by Jesus Christ

§3. The Sacraments Instituted by Jesus Christ

External sign and interior grace constitute the two internal causes (materialis and formalis) of a Sacrament. Its external or efficient cause (causa efficiens) is its institution by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Christ is the author of the Sacraments in a threefold sense: (1) He has merited their sanctifying power by His passion and death; (2) He has personally instituted them; and (3) He has so determined the matter and form of each that the Church cannot alter their substance, though she is free to institute new ceremonies and sacramentals. We shall demonstrate this in four separate and distinct theses.

Thesis I: Christ Himself instituted all the Sacraments in the sense that He alone, by His passion and death, is their meritorious cause.

This proposition is de fide.

Proof. The Tridentine Council teaches: “If anyone saith that the Sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord … let him be anathema.”¹ Hence the institution of the Sacraments by Christ is an article of faith, at least in this sense that they derive their sanctifying power solely from the merits of the atonement, and, consequently, owe their existence to the human will of our Lord.²

a) The principle underlying this thesis (viz., that in the present economy there is and can be no grace not derived from the merits of Christ) has been sufficiently demonstrated in Soteriology.³ If Christ is the meritorious cause of the Sacraments, He must also be their author, inasmuch as against or without His will no grace can be bestowed on those whom He has redeemed.⁴ It follows that Christ is, either immediately or mediately, the author of all the Sacraments.

b) From the speculative point of view the following considerations are pertinent.

α) In regard to the institution of the Sacraments we may distinguish a threefold power: the divine potestas auctoritatis, the theandric potestas excellentiae, and the purely human potestas ministerii. The potestas auctoritatis belongs to God alone, the potestas excellentiae to Christ in His human capacity, the potestas ministerii to His ministers or representatives on earth.

As regards the potestas auctoritatis, evidently no one but God was able to attach internal grace to external signs and thus to institute real sacraments. Hence if such visible means of grace exist, they must owe their existence to Him.

The Sacraments derive their origin from, and owe their institution to, Christ, not only as God, but also as man. He is the natural mediator between God and man both in His divine and in His human nature. The graces which He merited for us, and which He distributes through the Sacraments, were merited in His human nature. Consequently, in the institution of the Sacraments, Christ acted not only with His divine but also with His human will. Although His human activity asserted itself only instrumentally and ministerially, it was most excellent for the reason that His humanity, on account of the Hypostatic Union, must be considered as instrumentum coniunctum of the Divinity and on account of its dignity stands out as the causa ministerialis principalis. It follows that the Sacraments, while they are truly instrumental causes of interior sanctification, are merely instrumenta separata, and their human administrators, though ministerial causes of the distribution of grace, are merely causae ministeriales subordinatae. Consequently, the human potestas ministerii mentioned above, is as far beneath the potestas excellentiae of Christ qua man, as the potestas excellentiae is inferior to the divine potestas auctoritatis.⁵

β) The potestas excellentiae Christi, which is so important a factor in the institution of the Sacraments, operates in a fourfold manner.

(1) The merits of Christ are the sole operative power of all the Sacraments. This truth is the very foundation and corner-stone of the Catholic doctrine of the Sacraments.⁶

(2) Christ’s potestas excellentiae also manifests itself in the fact that there can be no Sacraments except those administered in His name and by His power. The administration and distribution of graces is entirely subject to Him who has merited and accumulated them.⁷

(3) There can be no Sacrament that does not depend, either mediately or immediately, upon the human will of Christ as its author; for it is as man that Christ is our natural Mediator, the fount of grace, and the High Priest of humanity.⁸

(4) The potestas excellentiae also reveals itself in this, that Christ, as man, is independent of the Sacraments, inasmuch as He can remit sins and impart graces without their instrumentality — a prerogative denied to His human representatives.⁹

Thesis II: The Sacraments of the Christian dispensation have been immediately and personally instituted by Christ.

This proposition may be technically qualified as propositio certa.

Proof. After showing that the Sacraments have Christ for their author, we have now to demonstrate that He instituted them immediately and personally, and not through the instrumentality of His Apostles or the Church.

Before the Tridentine Council some theologians held that Christ personally instituted most of the Sacraments, but not all. Hugh of St. Victor, Peter Lombard, and St. Bonaventure, for instance, thought that Confirmation and Extreme Unction were instituted by the Apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.¹⁰ Alexander of Hales even went so far as to maintain that Confirmation cannot be traced farther back than the Council of Meaux, A.D. 845. This was an egregious historical blunder, as the Council of Meaux passed only disciplinary regulations.¹¹

Since the Council of Trent Catholic theologians are so firmly convinced of the immediate institution of the Sacraments by Christ that some of them¹² teach it as a dogma, while all without exception regard it as doctrina certa.¹³ Though the Tridentine Council, out of regard for the authority of such eminent theologians as St. Bonaventure, purposely refrained from defining the immediate institution of the Sacraments by Jesus Christ as an article of faith, its teaching on the subject is quite unmistakable in its implications.

(1) Whenever a personal name is connected with the institution of a rite, the bearer of that name must manifestly have instituted the rite in person. In the Tridentine definition “Jesus” and “Christ” are thus connected with the institution of the Sacraments (see Thesis I above). Moreover, the Council itself draws a sharp distinction between the ceremonies ordained by the Church¹⁴ and the Sacraments instituted by Christ.¹⁵

(2) Wherever it speaks of the institution of those Sacraments that were undoubtedly instituted by our Divine Saviour in person, the Council employs precisely the same terms as in the canon just referred to;¹⁶ consequently, that canon must be understood as establishing the immediate institution of all the Sacraments by Christ.

(3) Had the Church received from her Divine Founder the power to institute Sacraments, she would also have the power of changing the substance of any Sacrament, both with regard to matter and form. But this is expressly denied by the Council.¹⁷

(4) The Council teaches in regard to Extreme Unction, the Sacrament mainly in dispute, that it is “a Sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord and promulgated by the blessed Apostle James,”¹⁸ — a phrase which positively excludes the theory that this Sacrament may have been instituted by the Apostles or the Church.

In the light of these considerations the reader will be able to form his own opinion of the contention of Loisy,¹⁹ condemned in the so-called “Syllabus of Pius X,” that Christ did not institute a single one of the traditional Sacraments, but that they were all introduced in course of time by the Church.²⁰

a) Holy Writ furnishes direct evidence that at least two of the Sacraments were instituted immediately by Christ, namely, Baptism (Matth. XXVIII, 19; John III, 5) and the Holy Eucharist (Matth. XXVI, 26 sqq., et passim). Besides these there is good scriptural reason to suppose that our Saviour personally instituted Penance (John XX, 23) and Holy Orders (Luke XXII, 19).

While we have no direct evidence concerning the other three Sacraments, we are justified in assuming that they derive their existence from the same divine origin. Like Baptism, the Eucharist, Penance, and Holy Orders, Confirmation, Extreme Unction, and Matrimony are veritable pillars of the Catholic religion. All three are plainly mentioned in Holy Scripture²¹ and therefore cannot possibly have been instituted in post-Apostolic times. That they are not of Apostolic origin may safely be inferred from the fact that the Apostles never appear as the authors but invariably as the administrators of the Sacraments. Cfr. 1 Cor. IV, 1: “Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.” 1 Cor. III, 4 sq.: “What then is Apollo? and what is Paul? The ministers of him whom you have believed.”²²

b) The Fathers know of no distinction between mediate and immediate institution in respect of the Sacraments.

Pseudo-Ambrose asks: “Who is the author of the Sacraments if not the Lord Jesus? These Sacraments have come from heaven.”²³ Special importance attaches, as Vasquez points out,²⁴ to the testimony of St. Augustine, who says: “In the first place, therefore, I want you to hold … that the Lord Jesus Christ … subjected us to a light yoke and an easy burden. Hence He bound the society of the new people with Sacraments very few in number, easy of observance, eminent in signification, as, for instance, Baptism consecrated by the name of the Trinity, the communication of His own body and blood, and whatever else is commended in the canonical Scriptures.”²⁵ Baptism and the Holy Eucharist are here ascribed immediately to Christ, together with the other Sacraments commended in the canonical Scriptures, i.e. all seven as we know them.

Where he speaks of the deeds of our Lord on earth, Augustine says: “In the time of servitude, under the Old Law, the people, bound by fear, were burdened with many sacraments. This was useful for them, that they might desire the grace of God which the prophets had predicted. When it came, the wisdom of God, through the assumption of the man by whom we were called to liberty, instituted a few highly useful Sacraments, which were to bind together the society of the Christian people, that is, of the multitude enjoying freedom under the one God.”²⁶ Augustine is well aware of the fact that Christ might have granted the faculty of instituting Sacraments to His Apostles, yet he says: “[Christ] did not wish this, in order that the hope of the baptized be in Him by whom they acknowledge their Baptism. … Therefore, lest there be said to be as many baptisms as [there are] ministers who baptize, having received the power to do so from the Lord, the Lord kept for Himself the power of baptizing, giving His servants [merely] the ministry.”²⁷ The latter part of this passage indicates the reason why Christ instituted the Sacraments immediately and personally. The idea is more fully developed by St. Thomas.²⁸

c) Theologians grant the abstract possibility of a mediate institution of the Sacraments by the Apostles or by the Church, but they grant it only conditionally, that is in so far as it does not involve a denial of the doctrine set forth in our first thesis.²⁹ Though some³⁰ are unwilling to admit that Christ could have imparted His power to mere men, the common opinion is that, had He so willed, He could have empowered the Apostles and the Church to institute Sacraments at His behest. Of course, the distinction between the divine potestas auctoritatis and the theandric potestas excellentiae must always be kept in mind. The former is incommunicable, while the latter may, to a certain limited extent, be bestowed upon creatures.³¹

Thesis III: Christ so determined the matter and form of the Sacraments that they are immutable for all time.

This proposition embodies a sententia communis.

Proof. The matter and form of a Sacrament may be determined individually, specifically, or generically.

They are determined individually if everything is minutely regulated in detail, as, for instance, the exact method of pouring out the water and the precise words to be pronounced by the minister in Baptism. The history and practice of the Greek Church furnish ample evidence that our Lord did not thus determine the matter and form of the Sacraments in individuo.

By specific determination we understand a designation of matter and form in infima specie. Theologians are agreed that Christ specifically determined the matter and form of some of the Sacraments (e.g., Baptism and the Eucharist), but not of all (especially Confirmation and Holy Orders).³²

Generic determination is a designation of matter and form only quoad genus. Some theologians³³ assert that Christ determined the rite of ordination in such a general way, leaving the choice of a specific sign to His Church. This would account for the differences existing in the Eastern and the Western Churches. We admit that this theory enables us to explain more satisfactorily, from the historic point of view, the differences that have developed in the administration of other Sacraments (e.g., Confirmation and Penance) in the course of centuries. According to the unanimous teaching of theologians, the phrase “matter and form” comprises all those elements, and those elements only, which Christ Himself instituted either in specie, or at least in genere, and over these the Church has no power.

Nevertheless, solid arguments can be adduced in support of the proposition that Christ Himself so determined both the matter and the form of all the Sacraments, not only in genere, but likewise in specie, that the Church has never made any essential change in regard thereto, and could not make such a change if she would.

a) One of these arguments may be formulated as follows: Christ immediately and personally instituted all the Sacraments.³⁴ Now every Sacrament consists essentially of matter and form.³⁵ Consequently, Christ, who instituted the Sacraments, must have determined their matter and form. If the Apostles or the Church had determined the matter or the form of any Sacrament, they would have mediately instituted that Sacrament. And if it were true, as some theologians assert, that for the Sacrament of Holy Orders the Church took the specification of matter and form into her own hands and carried it out differently in the East and in the West, it would have to be admitted that she has changed the Sacrament essentially. For whoever changes the matter and form of a Sacrament, changes the Sacrament itself. Moreover, if the Church had at any time in the past possessed the power to determine the matter and form of a Sacrament, she would have the same power to-day, in accordance with Toletus’ principle: “Cuius est facere, est etiam mutare.”³⁶ But the Church herself expressly denies that she has any such power.³⁷ Consequently, the matter and form of all the Sacraments — including Confirmation, Holy Orders, and Matrimony — have been specifically determined by Christ Himself.

Tradition affords no evidence that the Church ever introduced any particular sign as the matter and form of a Sacrament, or that she substituted any new sign for one already in use. Pope Benedict XIV, who firmly held the theory just expounded, boldly challenged his opponents to produce any evidence in support of their claim. “Let them tell us,” he says, “where, when, by what council or pope such a change was made,” and adds: “The contrary seems to be evident from the Tridentine Council,³⁸ which declares that Christ gave His Church the power to ordain or change whatsoever she may judge expedient in the dispensation of the Sacraments, their substance remaining untouched; a change of matter and form would touch, not the rite and dispensation, but the substance.”³⁹ Well-nigh the only reason why some theologians incline to the opposite opinion, is the difference existing between the rite of ordination in the Eastern and the Western Church. In the Orient, the matter of this Sacrament is the imposition of hands, in the Occident, the traditio instrumentorum. This difference, however, as we shall show in our treatise on Holy Orders, does not affect the essence of the Sacrament.⁴⁰

b) The determination of matter and form is not equally specific in the different Sacraments. In the case of Baptism, for instance, the “ablution,” which represents the matter, both proximate and remote, of the Sacrament, may be carried out in three different ways — by immersion, by effusion, or by aspersion — while the words constituting the form may be pronounced either in Latin or in Greek or in the vernacular, and may be indicative or deprecatory. The underlying principle may be briefly stated as follows: the matter of a Sacrament remains within the sphere of its determined species as long as it retains, in the popular estimation, its peculiar properties, while the form remains specifically unchanged as long as the logical and theological sense of the formula is preserved intact. Alterations, additions or omissions which do not run counter to this principle are to be regarded as merely accidental changes. Certain doubtful instances will be treated later in connection with the several Sacraments.

It should be noted, however, that the validity of a sacramental form may also depend on the intention of the minister, who has it in his power, either through ignorance or purposely, to corrupt the form. If a mistake is made through ignorance, the Sacrament is valid so long as the wrongly pronounced formula may be morally held to retain the objective sense which Christ wished to connect with it. If the corruption is intentional, the form retains its specific integrity only on condition that its objective sense is not essentially altered or the intention to do what the Church wishes to do is not positively excluded. Should the minister of a Sacrament be led by a desire for novelty purposely to render the meaning of a prescribed form ambiguous, or heretically to exclude the right intention, it is evident that he desires to employ another form than that instituted by Christ, and the Sacrament consequently becomes invalid.

Thesis IV: Though the Church has no right to institute Sacraments, she possesses the power to institute sacramentals.

This proposition may be qualified as certa.

Proof. In the three preceding theses we have explained what the Church cannot do in regard to the Sacraments. The present one defines what she can do.

There are two kinds of sacramentals: (1) such as accompany the administration of the Sacraments (e.g. the exorcisms pronounced in Baptism, the use of salt, the anointing of the forehead), and (2) such as may be used independently of the Sacraments and have a quasi matter and form of their own (e.g. the different ecclesiastical blessings). The former are called sacramental ceremonies, the latter sacramentals in the strict sense of the term.

1. That the Church has power to institute sacramental ceremonies or rites is clear from the following declaration of the Tridentine Council: “If anyone saith that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed by every pastor of the churches into other new ones, let him be anathema.”⁴¹

a) In proof of this dogma the Holy Synod adduces the example of St. Paul, who concludes his remarks on the Eucharist with these words: “And the rest I will set in order, when I come.”⁴² There is abundant Patristic evidence for the antiquity of the sacramental ceremonies employed by the Church. Most of those now in use can be traced far beyond the ninth century, as a glance at the Sacramentary of Gregory the Great and the writings of Rhabanus Maurus, Alcuin, and Isidore shows. In the early days of Christianity different ceremonies were in vogue, as may be gathered from the works of Tertullian.⁴³

The theological argument for our thesis rests mainly on the fact that the Church possesses legislative power to ordain whatever she judges fit to beautify her services and promote the salvation of souls. The sacramental ceremonies serve both these purposes by giving visible expression to the ideas that underlie the sacred mysteries of religion, and by stimulating, nourishing, and augmenting the devotion of the faithful.⁴⁴

b) A word regarding the use of the Latin language in the administration of the Sacraments. In the first place, no solid argument can be alleged in favor of the vernacular. Those who are ignorant of Latin lose nothing of the sacramental effect, since the Sacraments produce their effects ex opere operato, and the meaning of the accompanying words can be easily explained to the faithful.

On the other hand, the substitution of a living tongue for Latin would entail very serious inconveniences. Unity of worship is intimately bound up with unity of language, and the adoption of different rituals and liturgies in different vernaculars would, externally at least, split up the Church into an equal number of national churches. Moreover, if the liturgical books were composed in a living tongue, it would be necessary to rewrite them from time to time, and there would naturally be danger lest the doctrine itself should become more and more obscured to the detriment of explicit and well-determined faith. The use of a dead language obviates all these difficulties. There is another point. If Latin were not the language of the Church, the clergy would be exposed to the danger of neglecting this important tongue, which is the key to the Vulgate and the writings of the Western Fathers, and thus more easily become a prey to ignorance and intellectual lethargy, which could not but result in injury to the Church and religion.

2. Sacramentals in the strict sense are rites resembling those of the sacraments but independent of them, instituted by the Church for the supernatural advantage of the faithful.

a) The term itself seems to have been coined by Alexander of Hales.⁴⁵ Hugh of St. Victor speaks of the sacramentals as sacramenta minora in contradistinction to the sacramenta maiora s. principalia. St. Thomas refers to them as sacra and again as sacramentalia.

Sacramentals differ from Sacraments in three essential respects: (1) unlike the Sacraments, the sacramentals were not immediately instituted by our Lord, but partly by His Apostles (e.g. the sign of the cross) and partly by the Church (e.g. the blessing of the baptismal font); (2) they do not communicate sanctifying grace, but work other inferior though salutary effects; (3) they produce these effects not ex opere operato, but ex opere operantis. They resemble the Sacraments in this, that they ordinarily consist of matter and form and produce a spiritual effect in the recipient.

The blessings and exorcisms of the Church have their prototype in Christ.⁴⁶ The ceremony of washing the feet was directly instituted by Him, while the other sacramentals derive their justification from the legislative power of the Church.

Harnack shows a woful lack of understanding when he writes that the theory and practice of the benedictions and sacramentals, taken together with indulgences, reveal how far the Catholic Church has progressed towards Paganism — that in adopting indulgences she has in praxi created another Sacrament of Penance, and that in the sacramentals she has created new Sacraments more convenient than the old, because entirely under her own control; in both respects, he charges, she has legitimized Rabbinism and the practice of the Pharisees and Talmudists.⁴⁷

This is absolutely false. If the sacramentals were mere remnants of Paganism, Phariseeism, and Talmudism, the same would be true of the Sacraments, whereas their power rests on the divinity of Christ in exactly the same way as that of the sacramentals rests on the divinity of the Church. True, Harnack denies both these premises; but as a historian he ought in fairness to judge the sacramentals not from the rationalistic but from the Catholic point of view. Surely it cannot be affirmed historically that Christ employed a Pagan or Talmudic rite when He exorcised demons or when He blessed bread and wine before the consecration. Why, then, accuse the Church of Paganism when, following the example of her Divine Founder, she blesses persons and objects, calls down a benediction upon the fields, and pronounces exorcisms against evil spirits? That indulgences take the place of the Sacrament of Penance, and that the sacramentals have supplanted the original Sacraments, is an utterly gratuitous assertion. An indulgence is merely a remission of temporal punishment, whereas in the Sacrament of Penance sins are forgiven. The sacramentals derive their efficacy from the disposition of the recipient, and consequently by no means render superfluous the Sacraments, which produce their effects ex opere operato.

That the spiritual effects of both Sacraments and sacramentals depend on external signs and symbols, far from involving an insult to the Christian religion, responds to a normal postulate of human nature, which is a compound of spirit and matter, in which the spiritual must be attained by means of the senses. The use of the sacramentals remains optional, while to receive certain Sacraments is of strict obligation. The only thing that is forbidden in connection with the sacramentals is contempt and superstitious use. Educated Catholics may not relish all the sacramentals, but they know that the Church, as a kindly mother, supplies all reasonable needs and demands of her children, even those of the weak and simple. In extending her blessings to every province of nature, she constantly reminds us that the earth is still groaning under the curse of sin and that man’s true home is not here below. It is a truly magnificent conception that underlies the Catholic doctrine of the sacramentals.⁴⁸

b) As regards the classification of the sacramentals, an attempt has been made to reduce them to six, embodied in the ancient hexameter: “Orans, tinctus, edens, confessus, dans, benedicens.” Aside from the fact that public prayer (orans), the general avowal of faults made in the recitation of the Confiteor (confessus), and almsgiving (dans) are not sacramentals in the true sense of the term, it is to be remarked that the actual number of sacramentals is by no means limited to the other three rites enumerated above, viz.: the use of holy water (tinctus), the eating of blessed food (edens), and papal, episcopal, and sacerdotal blessings (benedicens).

Equally inadequate is the sevenfold division of the sacramentals indicated in the line: “Crux, aqua, nomen, edens, ungens, iurans, benedicens.” To pronounce the Holy Name of Jesus (nomen) is merely an ejaculatory prayer, while the sign of the cross (crux), the use of holy water (aqua), the eating of blessed food (edens), the use of holy oil (ungens), exorcisms (iurans), and ecclesiastical benedictions (benedicens), though true sacramentals, by no means exhaust their number.

A more comprehensive division is that made by St. Thomas, to which Harnack adverts in the passage quoted above. The Angelic Doctor distinguishes consecrations (consecratio s. benedictio constitutiva) and benedictions (benedictio invocativa). To this has been added as a third species, exorcism (adiuratio daemonum). A consecration is a rite by which the Church dedicates a person (e.g. an abbot) or an object (e.g. an altar) to the service of God. A benediction is an ecclesiastical rite by virtue of which some benefit, either spiritual or corporal, is applied to a designated person. The application may be either immediate (as in the case of the papal blessing) or mediate (as in the use of a blessed object, such as holy water). The term sacramentals is by a well-known figure of speech applied to consecrated or blessed objects, though strictly speaking it belongs only to the act of consecration or benediction, or to the use of consecrated or blessed objects. The exorcisms are partly integral constituents of sacramental ceremonies, and partly direct adjurations of the devil, or of natural objects with a view to withdraw them from the curse of sin and the power of Satan.⁴⁹

c) With regard to the efficacy of the sacramentals we must never lose sight of the fundamental principle that they neither obliterate mortal sin nor infuse sanctifying grace. If they were capable of working these effects, there would be no difference between them and the Sacraments. Theologians argue as to whether the sacramentals may confer other graces ex opere operato (as, for example, the forgiveness of venial sins, the remission of temporal punishments) and not merely through the intercession of the Church or the action of the one who uses them. Some writers (e.g. Dominicus Soto and Bellarmine) do not hesitate to attribute such efficacy to the sacramentals, whereas the majority reject the assumption, and justly so, for three reasons: first, because the Church is not empowered to institute efficacious signs of grace; second, because the sacramentals do not produce their effects infallibly; and third, because the Church in her rites makes use, not of affirmative, but of deprecatory expressions, which shows that she looks to the divine mercy for the effect. Hence the sacramentals derive their efficacy entirely ex opere operantis.

This efficacy is nevertheless very special in that it owes its power not to the opus operans (i.e. the pious acts) of the faithful alone, but also to the opus operans (i.e. the intercession) of the Church. If this were not so, it might make no difference whether a Catholic would sprinkle himself with holy water or with ordinary water, because in both cases his piety and devotion might be the same, and there would be no other source of efficacy. The purely deprecative character of the sacramentals is also revealed by the fact that any priest, regardless of his personal worthiness, can validly bless and consecrate; it is the Church that blesses and consecrates through him. This explains the theory of some theologians that the operation of the sacramentals lies midway between the opus operatum and the opus operans, in regard to which theory it may be well to remark that the opus operatum is simply the opus operans of the Church. These considerations afford a standard for measuring the mode and extent of the effects wrought by the sacramentals. Aside from the personal devotion of the user there can be no effects other than those for which the Church prays and which are deducible from her official formularies.⁵⁰

d) The fruits or effects of the sacramentals may be similarly divided into three categories. Consecration (benedictio constitutiva) results in the effective withdrawal from profane use of the person or thing upon which it is bestowed, and its dedication to the purpose of divine worship (e.g., the tonsure, minor orders, the blessing of oil, the dedication of a church, an altar, a vestment). Benediction (benedictio invocativa) has four distinct effects: forgiveness of venial sins, remission of temporal punishments, bestowal of actual graces, and material benefits. The forgiveness of sins resulting from the use of sacramentals is ascribed by St. Thomas to an implied act of contrition.⁵¹ The remission of temporal punishments due to sin requires something more, viz.: an ardent love of God elicited during the use of the sacramentals.⁵² There is only one exception to this rule, viz.: when indulgences are attached to the use of blessed objects (e.g. rosaries, medals), because an indulgence is a remission of temporal punishments by virtue of the power of the keys entrusted by Christ to His Church. The bestowal of actual graces in connection with sacramentals depends partly on the subjective devotion and receptivity of the faithful, partly on the effective intercession of the Church. Lastly, the sacramentals may also bring down upon their users material benefits (blessing of bread, dwellings, fields, etc.), provided, of course, that the benefits asked for by the Church do not conflict with the divine economy of grace or the salvation of souls. The effect of exorcisms (adiuratio daemonum) consists solely in a moral power enabling man to overcome the attacks and temptations of the devil and to weaken or frustrate his assaults.

Readings: St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 3a, qu. 64, art. 1-4. — Bellarmine, De Sacramentis, I, 23. — De Lugo, De Sacramentis, disp. 7, sect. 1-2. — Franzelin, De Sacramentis in Genere, thes. 14, Rome 1888. — De Augustinis, De Re Sacramentaria, t. I, 2nd ed., pp. 125 sqq., Rome 1889. — W. Humphrey, S.J., The One Mediator, or Sacrifice and Sacraments, London 1890. — P. Schanz, Die Lehre von den Sakramenten der kath. Kirche, § 8, Freiburg 1893. — Tepe, Instit. Theologicae, Vol. IV, pp. 19 sqq., Paris 1896. — B. J. Otten, A Manual of the History of Dogmas, Vol. I, St. Louis 1917, pp. 348 sq.; Vol. II (1918), pp. 295 sqq. On the sacramentals cfr. Probst, Kirchliche Benediktionen und ihre Verwaltung, Tübingen 1857; idem, Sakramente und Sakramentalien in den drei ersten christlichen Jahrhunderten, Tübingen 1872. — G. M. Schuler, Die kirchlichen Sakramentalien, Bamberg 1867. — Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. IX, § 481, Mainz 1901. — Ad. Franz, Die kirchlichen Benediktionen im Mittelalter, 2 vols., Freiburg 1909. — A. A. Lambing, The Sacramentals of the Holy Catholic Church, New York 1892. — H. Leclercq, O.S.B., art. “Sacramentals,” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII.