Faith and Sacraments

[e_c]

There are three things to note with respect to this question:

1. Validity
2. Licitness Liceity
3. Hindrances

With regards to validity, a Sacrament is valid or not depending on the intention and form of the minister confecting the Sacrament. And the intention of the recipient, as well as the recipient’s disposition, one might say, especially in matrimony. If the minister intends by his actions to do what the Church intends by that action, and if he adheres to the correct form of the Sacrament, as defined by the Church, then the Sacrament is valid, regardless of anything else.** And the recipient is good to go.**

With regards to licitness, a Sacrament may only be performed licitly as long as the minister of the Sacrament has be so authorized by the Church to do so, and within the strictures and guidelines that the Church has established for each Sacrament. A Sacrament may be performed licitly, but not validly, and a Sacrament may be performed validly, but not licitly. For example, a Black Priest (a validly ordained priest who has become Satanic) may validly consecrate the Eucharist, but does so illicitly. Likewise, a priest in good standing with the Church may perform the Eucharistic Sacrament licitly, but if he does not believe in the real presence (for example), then the Sacrament is not completed validly.Such a priest is in mortal sin and so liceity is affected. Validity might be, unless we admit that it is possible to have a “futile intention.” He intends to do what the Church intends, but he thinks it’s impossible. Not so clear…

The third thing to consider are hindrances to the Sacramental Graces. A Sacrament may be completed validly and licitly, and still not convey the graces that the Sacrament intends. Hindrances to these graces lie with the person who is receiving the Sacrament, and may consist in deficient knowledge or understanding of what the Sacrament is and does, or deficient intention in the reception of the Sacrament. ** Distinguish between grace and character… Character is more robust.**

So, a person may be Confirmed both licitly and validly, but of the confirmand either does not understand the Sacrament, or does not want to receive it (for example), but is being pressured to do so, then the graces that the Sacrament intends to convey are hindered.** Ignorance is not a hindrance to grace in itself.**

Likewise, for example, with Penance, if the one confessing is not properly disposed (i.e., not really sorry). The Sacrament, ministered by the Priest, may be completed licitly and validly, but the graces of the Sacrament can be hindered by the one receiving it. No, if the penitent doesn’t have attrition at least, then his sins are not forgiven. The absolution is invalid.

Baptism is ministered by any validly baptized person, cleric or lay, and the same rules apply. Or anyone intending to baptize.

Marriage is ministered by the couple, not the priest, which is why the intention of either the Bride or Groom may render the Sacrament invalid, because they may not be intending to accomplish by the marriage what the Church intends by it. In the Latin Rite.

I hope this helps.

 

[Usagi]

There is some of my question - what does “going to work” mean?

The idea is that each sacrament really does something, makes a change in the universe, objectively. This change is generally invisible and spiritual (which is why God has provided us with the words and actions of the sacrament so that we can know when it happens), but it happens by the power of God and does not depend on the beliefs or attitudes of those involved, the same way a toaster still toasts bread even if someone is present who doesn’t understand electricity and doesn’t believe that power can come out of a wall to heat things.

This is easiest to see with the Eucharist. When the sacrament is properly confected, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, objectively. They don’t change just for those who believe or only for the duration of Holy Communion. Hence we guard against mishandling of the sacred species, ask those who do not share our faith not to receive them, and dispose of any remaining species properly. Someone who receives Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin still receives Jesus, but compounds his sin with one of sacrilege rather than receiving the grace normally imparted. The reality is the same, the sacrament still happened, but the effects can depend on the disposition of the recipient.

Baptism, confirmation, and holy orders are thought to make a permanent mark on the soul of the recipient. A baptized or confirmed person who falls away from the faith (or was baptized as an infant but for some reason never brought up in the faith) is still objectively a Christian, even if he ends up in Hell. Likewise, the Church can forbid a priest from acting as a priest, but has no way to remove the powers that were conferred at his ordination, which he can still use in emergency cases. (And even if he uses them illicitly, against the will of the Church, they still work – Archbishop Lefebvre and the four men he ordained after the Pope forbade him to do so all earned excommunication by the act, but even before the excommunications were recently lifted, the surviving men were all true Catholic bishops with the power to make more priests and bishops in turn.) I think the usual answer for what happens if you receive one of these sacraments with a poor attitude or in a state of sin is that the sacrament is still conferred, but the grace you would have received is “on hold” until you are ready for it. I believe it is possible to set your will against being baptized, confirmed, or ordained such that it doesn’t “take” for you, but just being kind of apathetic doesn’t seem to be enough to trigger that.

Matrimony is the only sacrament I know of that can be subsequently found never to have been in effect based on the recipients’ state of mind at the time, even if there were no objective errors of matter or form. Conversely, matrimony seems to enjoy an even more powerful form of the “waiting to take effect” I mentioned earlier. The sacrament of matrimony occurs only between two baptized people; any other combination makes a natural marriage, valid in terms of permitting licit sex and reproduction and mostly indissoluble, but not technically the sacrament. However, if the unbaptized party or parties are later baptized, the marriage immediately becomes a sacramental one win no additional ceremony required.

 

[MrSnaith]

1. Licitness **Liceity
   **

Okay, yes. Liceity is the word that the Church uses.

With regards to validity, a Sacrament is valid or not depending on the intention and form of the minister confecting the Sacrament. And the intention of the recipient, as well as the recipient’s disposition, one might say, especially in matrimony.

I agree with your position here as regards marriage, since in marriage the recipients and the ministers are the same people. The Sacrament of Penance also depends on the recipient’s disposition, as repentance is an essential element of the Sacrament. The CCC 1491 clearly indicates that the Sacrament itself includes the actions of the penitent (repentance, confession, intention of reparation).

So, thank you for challenging my earlier assertions, as it has brought about this clarification.

However, in all other cases, the Sacrament is valid based upon the intentions of the minister and the form of the act, not on the disposition of the recipient.

A priest in good standing with the Church may perform the Eucharistic Sacrament licitly, but if he does not believe in the real presence (for example), then the Sacrament is not completed validly.**Such a priest is in mortal sin and so liceity is affected. Validity might be, unless we admit that it is possible to have a “futile intention.” He intends to do what the Church intends, but he thinks it’s impossible. Not so clear…
**

Yes, you’re right, being in mortal sin affects liceity. Thank you. It was a poor demonstration. A better example would be that a confession is completed licitly, but the form of absolution isn’t made correctly (such as not absolving in the name of the Father, the Son, etc… perhaps by accidental error), rendering the absolution invalid.

I would agree that there may be lack of clarity regarding a priest’s intention and validity. But, I rather think this scenario isn’t that murky. If a priest disbelieves in Transubstantiation, then I would suggest he simply can’t intend what the Church intends by the action.

What I mean to say is, there is a difference between intending the Church’s intention, and having a parallel intention to the Church. Perhaps I can clarify by example: Fr. Thomas says “I intend that the Church’s intention be completed by my action.” vs. “I intend for the substance of this bread to change into the substance of the Hypostatic Union.” In the first case, the priest’s intention is focused on the Church… and in this sense, we might have to admit a futile intention. But I don’t think that’s what the Church means when it teaches that the priest has to have the same intention as the Church.

Rather, I think She means what is demonstrated in the second case, that the priest’s intention matches, or is the same as, the Church’s. If a priest disbelieves in Transubstantiation, how can he intend to accomplish it.

Of course, this is a separate question from that of a priest who has doubts because he doesn’t understand it, but accepts the Church’s authority in the matter, and prays continuously that his doubts about the matter be resolved. In this case, I think the priest can intend what the Church intends, even though his belief in the matter may not be complete.

Hindrances to these graces lie with the person who is receiving the Sacrament, and may consist in deficient knowledge or understanding of what the Sacrament is and does, or deficient intention in the reception of the Sacrament. **Distinguish between grace and character… Character is more robust.
**

Thank you for the suggestion. I will think on it.

So, a person may be Confirmed both licitly and validly, but of the confirmand either does not understand the Sacrament, or does not want to receive it (for example), but is being pressured to do so, then the graces that the Sacrament intends to convey are hindered. Ignorance is not a hindrance to grace in itself.

I would say that it isn’t a complete hindrance, but if you would assert that it isn’t a hindrance at all, then I disagree. Yes, of course God can work His grace in our lives, irrespective of our understanding. However, grace is most effective in our lives when we cooperate with it, and we most effectively cooperate with it when we understand it. A lack of understanding, conversely, hinders our ability to cooperate with grace, and therefore hinders the effectiveness of God’s grace in our lives.

But, as I said, it is not a complete hindrance, but rather only a hindrance by degree, both as a matter of degree of our ignorance, and also as a matter of the kind of grace that is being effected. Sacramental Grace, however, is of the kind that requires our cooperation with it.

The Sacrament, ministered by the Priest, may be completed licitly and validly, but the graces of the Sacrament can be hindered by the one receiving it. **No, if the penitent doesn’t have attrition at least, then his sins are not forgiven. The absolution is invalid.
**

Yes. Agreed. Thank you for the clarification.

Marriage is ministered by the couple, not the priest, which is why the intention of either the Bride or Groom may render the Sacrament invalid, because they may not be intending to accomplish by the marriage what the Church intends by it. **In the Latin Rite.
**
I hope this helps.

Could you clarify this. I was not aware that different rites (in union with the Papacy) believed differently about the Sacraments.