Effect of sacraments on a no-believer?

[didymus]

I just read an interesting biography of a well-known 19th century American.
Apparently his parents (Protestant) did not have him baptised as a child. His fathered died when he was nine (past the age of reason) and he went to a Catholic foster family and his devout foster mother insisted he be baptised rather against his will.

Not sure if he ever made his first Communion or was Confirmation. He married a Catholic and allowed their children to be raised in the Faith but never converted nor professed any Christian faith.

In his final illness his children called a priest to administer Extreme Unction while he was unconscious.

OR

He agreed to receive the Last Rites not because due to a deathbed conversion but so he could be buried with his wife and son in their Catholic cemetery.

Would believing that a Sacrament has no effect negate its effect?

I wondered about the baptism b/c I heard a CA podcast where Jimmy Akin say that if you baptise someone who doesn’t want to be you can “pour gallons of water over him” and it won’t do anything.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

Lack of intent on the part of the recipient can indeed invalidate a sacrament.

I am referring to a person who has reached the age of reason. Infant Baptism (and Chrismation and Communion in the Eastern Catholic Churches) is valid, as the parents and godparents express consent on the part of the infant.

But a person who has reached the age of reason has to (at least minimally) consent in order for the sacrament to be valid.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\ Lack of intent on the part of the recipient can indeed invalidate a sacrament.\

**Wrong.

“Lack of intent” is an issue that only deals with the minister of the Sacrament, and would render one invalid. It has NOTHING to do with the recipient.

A valid Sacrament is ALWAYS valid ex opere operato, regardless of who receives it, but the wrong spiritual disposition of the recipient MIGHT mean the person receives the Sacrament to his own damnation.

Someone asked a similar question about “invalidly receiving Confirmation.” Here is my response:**

Substitute “Communion” for “Confirmed,” and you’ll see the answer to your question.

Just as a person who is not properly disposed MIGHT receive Communion unto his own damnation, a person without the proper dispositions MIGHT receive Confirmation to his own damnation.

In other words, the attitude of the recipient does not adversely affect the validity of the Sacrament received, as such validity depends on whether or not is was a valid minister of the Sacrament (among other things). It is precisely because the Sacrament of Confirmation (or any of them) is valid and efficacious–ex opere operato–that it can work either way depending on the recipient.

Unworthy reception is NOT the same thing as invalid reception (which does not exist). Reception does NOT affect the validity of a valid sacrament.

However, theologians teach that the Sacrament of Confirmation can REVIVE upon repentance, confession and absolution, if need be, and the desire for its graces.

 

[marchoi]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1128 This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: “by the very fact of the action’s being performed”), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that "the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God."50 From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them. [emphasis added]

In other words, a sacrament most certainly has an effect on the recipient by the virtue of the fact that the sacrament was confected. At the same time, the full effects of the sacrament might not be “unpacked” unless the recipient has the proper disposition to do so. For a non-believer, I would imagine that the recipient merely receives the box but doesn’t (perhaps can’t) open it to get to the gift inside.

 

[AJV]

\ Lack of intent on the part of the recipient can indeed invalidate a sacrament.\

**Wrong.

“Lack of intent” is an issue that only deals with the minister of the Sacrament, and would render one invalid. It has NOTHING to do with the recipient.

A valid Sacrament is ALWAYS valid ex opere operato**, regardless of who receives it, but the wrong spiritual disposition of the recipient MIGHT mean the person receives the Sacrament to his own damnation.

Someone asked a similar question about “invalidly receiving Confirmation.” Here is my response:

Substitute “Communion” for “Confirmed,” and you’ll see the answer to your question.

Just as a person who is not properly disposed MIGHT receive Communion unto his own damnation, a person without the proper dispositions MIGHT receive Confirmation to his own damnation.

In other words, the attitude of the recipient does not adversely affect the validity of the Sacrament received, as such validity depends on whether or not is was a valid minister of the Sacrament (among other things). It is precisely because the Sacrament of Confirmation (or any of them) is valid and efficacious–ex opere operato–that it can work either way depending on the recipient.

Unworthy reception is NOT the same thing as invalid reception (which does not exist). Reception does NOT affect the validity of a valid sacrament.

However, theologians teach that the Sacrament of Confirmation can REVIVE upon repentance, confession and absolution, if need be, and the desire for its graces.

No, the validity of the sacrament DOES depend on the intention of the recipient when he/she is of age. PhilotheaZ is right - this intention does not have to include a full understanding, or be an intention for the effects, or similar – but it must be present. I’m a bit pressed for time so I can’t go into it, but I think I did a post in the past laying out the reasons for this… or better still you could look it up in Aquinas’ Summa.

In another thread on baptism someone had drawn a similar analogy between the Eucharist and Baptism. However, the Eucharist is different from Baptism or Confirmation because as Aquinas says, it is already a sacrament. The Eucharist is accomplished in the consecration of the bread and the wine, the matter - in the others, the matter is applied to someone else. Thus the act of the Holy Communion is not analogous to the reception of Baptism/Confirmation. The intention of the recipient does not really enter into the equation with the Eucharist but it does for Baptism and Confirmation.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\No, the validity of the sacrament DOES depend on the intention of the recipient when he/she is of age. PhilotheaZ is right\

**PhilotheaZ is not right, and you are not either.

The disposition of the recipient does not affect the validity or efficacy of a Sacrament.

One improperly disposed, or even receiving it with total unbelief, well receives the Sacrament unto his own damnation.

But that’s PRECISELY because the Sacrament is indeed valid and grace-filled, regardless of the recipient.

What you are saying means (among other things) that if an unbeliever receives the Eucharist, the host in question suddenly deconsecrates.

Man’s sin (or other limitation) does NOT nullify God’s grace in the Sacrament. As I said elsewhere, the Sacraments bring grace: grace for salvation, or else grace for judgement.**

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I would say that the effects of the Grace recieved though the Sacraments depends on the intent of the individual receiving the Sacrment.

In his final illness his children called a priest to administer Extreme Unction while he was unconscious.

Extreme Unction, which is now call the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick can not be applied to an unconscious individual.

 

[Mintaka]

If this Sacrament can be administered to people who’ve been dead four hours, on the off chance that the soul hasn’t gone because the person isn’t All the Way Dead, one would think that just being unconscious (especially since many “unconscious” people actually do know what’s going on, though they are unable to respond) wouldn’t be any bar.

I mean, are you actually saying that you can be too sick to qualify to receive the Anointing of the Sick? Surely it’s not a Sacrament for people only sorta-kinda in danger of death? Are you actually saying that if you’re really about to go, you’re out of luck and the Church kicks you out into the snow sacramentless?

I’m sure that’s not what you meant to say, of course.

All that canon law says is that the person must:

1. Be a member of the faithful,
2. Have reached the age of reason,
3. Have begun to be in danger of death,
4. Have at least implicitly requested it while in control of faculties,
5. Not be obstinate about continuing in grave sin.

Being any kind of Catholic would usually be seen as being an implicit request. You don’t have to leave a living will requesting Anointing if something should happen to you. Similarly, giving any kind of sign of repentance would count as not being obstinate, in danger of death. The Church has every interest in being generous in spreading around graces, at the point of a person’s death.

Canon law also says that in case of any doubt whether the person is dangerously ill, has reached the age of reason, or is dead, you give 'em the benefit of the doubt and darned well administer the Sacrament.

So clearly, there’s no sort of requirement that the person be able to answer detailed questions or be even partially conscious. It’s good if they are, because they can go to Confession; but you can Anoint the apparently dead, much less the unconscious.

I’m really concerned that people realize this, because nobody who could benefit from the Anointing of the Sick should be deprived of it by a mere misunderstanding.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

If this Sacrament can be administered to people who’ve been dead four hours

It can not be given to those who are dead.

 

[bpbasilphx]

It occurred to me that PhilotheaZ and AJV are confusing two terms.

VALIDITY of a Sacrament refers to whether it was indeed truly “confected” (in theological language) using the proper form, matter, and intention by a proper minister.

LICEITY or REGULARITY (a synonym) refers to the circumstances surrounding its celebration. A Priest can celebrate a Sacrament validly, and it still be illicit, that is against the rules. (Extreme example: reading only the Canon over bread and wine, omitting all the other prayers and not wearing the proper vesture.)

In the same way, a person can receive a validly confected Sacrament ILLICITLY–that is, in an irregular way that contravenes liturgical or spiritual norms, or without the proper spiritual dispositions.

But illicit reception of a Sacrament does NOT make what was received invalid. It may, however, become the sin of sacrilege.

 

[AJV]

It occurred to me that PhilotheaZ and AJV are confusing two terms.

VALIDITY of a Sacrament refers to whether it was indeed truly “confected” (in theological language) using the proper form, matter, and intention by a proper minister.

LICEITY or REGULARITY (a synonym) refers to the circumstances surrounding its celebration. A Priest can celebrate a Sacrament validly, and it still be illicit, that is against the rules. (Extreme example: reading only the Canon over bread and wine, omitting all the other prayers and not wearing the proper vesture.)

In the same way, a person can receive a validly confected Sacrament ILLICITLY–that is, in an irregular way that contravenes liturgical or spiritual norms, or without the proper spiritual dispositions.

But illicit reception of a Sacrament does NOT make what was received invalid. It may, however, become the sin of sacrilege.

I do understand the difference between something being valid and something being licit.I also understand that there are many cases where things are merely illict and not invalid. Intention of the recipient, however, is not one of them. That intention of a recipient in a sacrament is necessary has been acknowledged for a long time.

Again, I point you in the direction of the Summa Theologica of Aquinas.

Again, see the entry of the old Catholic Encyclopedia under “Intention”
newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm