Is this a “Sacred Tradition”?

[Cachonga]

When Jesus celebrated the last supper with His disciples, He identified the bread as His body and the wine as His blood. Paul reaffirms this in his epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor 11:23-29). It seems clear to me that communion always included bread and wine to all who participated in it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (First Image Books published April 1995) says, “1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.” [footnote 222 – GIRM 240] This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.” Some problems I see with this – 1) it says “communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace.”, but then says, “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds”. 2) it appears from Scripture that the early Church used both bread and wine, no exceptions. With this in mind, I would like an answer to the following questions –

1. If a person can “receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace” by bread only, how can the “sign of communion be more complete” when one receives both bread and wine? (Or, to put it another way, What is “more complete” than receiving “all the fruit of Eucharistic grace”?)
2. When (and where) was bread only first practiced? (Or, When did the Church “infallibly” declare this to be acceptable?)
3. If this is an Apostolic Tradition (Sacred Tradition), which Apostle taught it? If it wasn’t practiced or taught by an Apostle, how can it be considered a “Sacred Tradition”?

Thanks in advance for your replies!

 

[tcm22]

When Jesus celebrated the last supper with His disciples, He identified the bread as His body and the wine as His blood. Paul reaffirms this in his epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor 11:23-29). It seems clear to me that communion always included bread and wine to all who participated in it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (First Image Books published April 1995) says, “1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.” [footnote 222 – GIRM 240] This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.” Some problems I see with this – 1) it says “communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace.”, but then says, “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds”. 2) it appears from Scripture that the early Church used both bread and wine, no exceptions. With this in mind, I would like an answer to the following questions –

1. If a person can “receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace” by bread only, how can the “sign of communion be more complete” when one receives both bread and wine? (Or, to put it another way, What is “more complete” than receiving “all the fruit of Eucharistic grace”?)
2. When (and where) was bread only first practiced? (Or, When did the Church “infallibly” declare this to be acceptable?)
3. If this is an Apostolic Tradition (Sacred Tradition), which Apostle taught it? If it wasn’t practiced or taught by an Apostle, how can it be considered a “Sacred Tradition”?

Thanks in advance for your replies!

Perhaps someone with more theological smarts will come along and expand, but here’s my thoughts.

1) If a person can “receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace” by bread only, how can the “sign of communion be more complete” when one receives both bread and wine? (Or, to put it another way, What is “more complete” than receiving “all the fruit of Eucharistic grace”?)* I think there needs to be a distinction between “the fruit of Eucharistic grace” and a the “sign of communion.” What the Church is saying (I think) is that there is no such thing as partial Grace. You get it from Christ’s body or His body and blood. It is a more complete act or form when both species are taken, that is more closely resembling what Christ taught at the Last Supper, but does not result in more grace. I’ve also heard the Sermon on the Mount as an example of the Mass, where Christ preached the word and then offered a miracle of bread. No wine was used there*
**
2) When (and where) was bread only first practiced? (Or, When did the Church “infallibly” declare this to be acceptable?)**I’m not sure the Church has declared this infallible. Either way, the idea that the full fruit of Eucharistic grace can come from the Body of Christ alone seems self evident. Christ is fully present in either/both forms.

3) 3) If this is an Apostolic Tradition (Sacred Tradition), which Apostle taught it? If it wasn’t practiced or taught by an Apostle, how can it be considered a “Sacred Tradition”? I guess I’ll have to leave that for someone smarter than me. Seems to me the real question is where did the concept of receiving communion under one specie originate and under what authority.

 

[Corki]

1. If a person can “receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace” by bread only, how can the “sign of communion be more complete” when one receives both bread and wine? (Or, to put it another way, What is “more complete” than receiving “all the fruit of Eucharistic grace”?)
   

The Sacramental sign is an invisible sign, instituted by Christ to give grace. The sign of communion you reference above is the visible, symbollic sign. It visibly more closely resembles the Last Supper when Communion is received under both species. But the Sacramental grace is no different.

1. When (and where) was bread only first practiced? (Or, When did the Church “infallibly” declare this to be acceptable?)

Infallibility only applies to doctrine. Whether we receive Communion under one speicies or both is a discipline. The Council of Constance, I believe, was the first to make a declaration against the Hussite position (heresy), called Ultraquism, that Salvation was dependent on receiving Communion under both species. That was in the 1400s. Most council declarations are in response to some controversy or heresy. The Utraquist position was only first proposed in 1414 so there was no need to make a declaration before then. So, as far as I can find, the Council of Constance made the first doctrinal declaration.

The discipline about who receives Communion under both species has changed many times over the years. My guess would be that receiving under just the species of the host arose out of the developing practice of bringing Communion to the sick and dying. But that is just my own opinon.

1. If this is an Apostolic Tradition (Sacred Tradition), which Apostle taught it? If it wasn’t practiced or taught by an Apostle, how can it be considered a “Sacred Tradition”?

Communion as the actual Body and Blood of Christ is the Sacred Tradition and it is also in Sacred Scripture. Sacred Traditions instituted by Christ Himself that were practiced by the Apostles are described in Acts but I don’t know if the Apostles are named. Why would it matter which Apostle?

Communion under just one species is a small “t” tradtion as are many of the Church’s disciplines.

 

[Cachonga]

Corki:

Communion as the actual Body and Blood of Christ is the Sacred Tradition and it is also in Sacred Scripture. Sacred Traditions instituted by Christ Himself that were practiced by the Apostles are described in Acts but I don’t know if the Apostles are named. Why would it matter which Apostle?

Communion under just one species is a small “t” tradtion as are many of the Church’s disciplines.

Maybe another question would be, if Jesus instituted this as a sacrament with both bread AND wine, and this was practiced in that way in the early Church, by what authority was it changed? You can’t very well claim Apostolic Tradition, since the Apostles taught both bread and wine (or is there evidence to show otherwise?).

 

[tcm22]

Maybe another question would be, if Jesus instituted this as a sacrament with both bread AND wine, and this was practiced in that way in the early Church, by what authority was it changed? You can’t very well claim Apostolic Tradition, since the Apostles taught both bread and wine (or is there evidence to show otherwise?).

Based on the previous post, I would submit that the Council of Constance was the formal confirmation of the single specie communion in response to a heresy.

Again, We believe Christ is fully present in both species. There being no such thing as partial grace, communion under on specie is sufficient to receive grace.

Whatever the Apostles taught, there’s a difference between being ABLE to receive both the Body and Blood of Christ as communion vs it being MANDATORY for a valid communion.

 

[Corki]

Based on the previous post, I would submit that the Council of Constance was the formal confirmation of the single specie communion in response to a heresy.

Again, We believe Christ is fully present in both species. There being no such thing as partial grace, communion under on specie is sufficient to receive grace.

Whatever the Apostles taught, there’s a difference between being ABLE to receive both the Body and Blood of Christ as communion vs it being MANDATORY for a valid communion.

Well according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the practice of one species was practiced in the very early Church as a valid way to receive Communion even if the most usual way, at that time was both species. The CE article cites third Century writings documenting the practice. It was agreed by all to be a valid way to receive Communion, it seems, until the Hussites came along. Until then, there was no reason to make a declaration as was done at Constance.

newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm

 

[Cachonga]

I’m still confused on this. Jesus instituted this sacrament with both bread and wine. Paul affirms this is the way this sacrament is to be practiced in the Church. Isn’t the authority of Jesus enough to establish how this is to be done? I find no place in Scripture that indicates this was ever practiced with bread (or wine) only. If it wasn’t practiced or taught by the Apostles, who, and by what authority was this change made? I can understand the difficulty of taking bread and wine to a sick person (though I don’t even see this practice in Scripture), but I don’t understand how a sacrament instituted directly by Jesus can be changed under any circumstances. How does Sacred Tradition justify changing a sacrament that Jesus established directly?

 

[NHInsider]

This is a tautological discussion. You’ve already established that you don’t accept the authority of the Church, only the authority of Scripture - despite the reality that the authority of Scripture rests entirely on the authority of the Church that defined and preserved it. Now you’re trying to challenge the validity of the Sacrament (or one practice related to it) based on a lack of explicit Scriptural evidence.

Either Eucharistic species conveys the entirety of Jesus’ gift because His body and soul, humanity and divinity cannot be divided. (It is less common but equally valid to receive only the Cup-generally this is only done for medical reasons.)

And yes, the practice of taking the Eucharist home so those who could not join the assembly could receive is very ancient. Justin Martyr describes this in the Apologia (c 150?) as established practice.

 

[hatsoff]

I’m still confused on this. Jesus instituted this sacrament with both bread and wine. Paul affirms this is the way this sacrament is to be practiced in the Church. Isn’t the authority of Jesus enough to establish how this is to be done? I find no place in Scripture that indicates this was ever practiced with bread (or wine) only. If it wasn’t practiced or taught by the Apostles, who, and by what authority was this change made? I can understand the difficulty of taking bread and wine to a sick person (though I don’t even see this practice in Scripture), but I don’t understand how a sacrament instituted directly by Jesus can be changed under any circumstances. How does Sacred Tradition justify changing a sacrament that Jesus established directly?

Nothing here is being “changed.” Catholics still hold that the Eucharist is to involve both species, as instituted by Christ. The issue here is whether or not Catholics who for whatever reason only have access to one species may receive the fullness of grace. The doctrine in place affirms that the fullness of grace is indeed a part of the Eucharist even in the absence of one of the species. This has been the case, according to what I understand of Catholic dogma, for as long as the Eucharist ritual has been observed, even if people didn’t realize it until much later.

 

[Cachonga]

NHInsider:

This is a tautological discussion. You’ve already established that you don’t accept the authority of the Church, only the authority of Scripture - despite the reality that the authority of Scripture rests entirely on the authority of the Church that defined and preserved it. Now you’re trying to challenge the validity of the Sacrament (or one practice related to it) based on a lack of explicit Scriptural evidence.

Either Eucharistic species conveys the entirety of Jesus’ gift because His body and soul, humanity and divinity cannot be divided. (It is less common but equally valid to receive only the Cup-generally this is only done for medical reasons.)

And yes, the practice of taking the Eucharist home so those who could not join the assembly could receive is very ancient. Justin Martyr describes this in the Apologia (c 150?) as established practice.

I would suggest that the authority of Scripture comes from God (the very author of Scripture), but that is not the focus of this thread. I would think this is a legitimate question for anyone to ask. Did Jesus say “when you eat this bread AND drink this cup…”, or “when you eat this bread AND/OR drink this cup…”? Paul repeats the very words of Jesus in his letter to the Corinthians. It’s clear from Scripture that we should expect to receive both bread and wine, and yet that’s not what we see. I can think of only 2 explanations for this - 1) there is something in “Sacred Tradition” that makes this distinction, or 2) it is a tradition of men and overturns the clear teaching of Scripture and the Apostles.

As I mentioned already, I can understand the bringing of bread only (or wine) to a sick person. This still does not explain why the Church body as a whole is not allowed, as a standard practice, both species. I would be very interested to see what Justin Martyr had to say, so I would appreciate if you could tell me what book and chapter your reference is from.

hatsoff:

Nothing here is being “changed.” Catholics still hold that the Eucharist is to involve both species, as instituted by Christ. The issue here is whether or not Catholics who for whatever reason only have access to one species may receive the fullness of grace. The doctrine in place affirms that the fullness of grace is indeed a part of the Eucharist even in the absence of one of the species. This has been the case, according to what I understand of Catholic dogma, for as long as the Eucharist ritual has been observed, even if people didn’t realize it until much later.

You misunderstand my question. Jesus instituted this sacrament with both bread and wine. Paul affirms this is to be the practice of the Church. Why is it no longer a common practice to receive both species? It’s not a question of receiving fullness of grace (though that seems a bit confusing as stated in the Catechism, and I am still curious how you can receive the “fullness of grace” by just receiving one species, but it’s “more complete” when you receive both. How can you be “more complete” if you’ve already received the “fullness of grace”?).

 

[diggerdomer]

1. If a person can “receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace” by bread only, how can the “sign of communion be more complete” when one receives both bread and wine? (Or, to put it another way, What is “more complete” than receiving “all the fruit of Eucharistic grace”?)

*Because that’s what Jesus and the Apostles did. And when the Church says “bread and wine” she means, ideally, “bread and wine.”
*
2) When (and where) was bread only first practiced? (Or, When did the Church “infallibly” declare this to be acceptable?)

Middle Ages (after 1000 A.D.), in the West only (not all Catholics). It was taught by the Council of Trent, which, depending on one’s opinion may or may not equate with infallible teaching.

1. If this is an Apostolic Tradition (Sacred Tradition), which Apostle taught it? If it wasn’t practiced or taught by an Apostle, how can it be considered a “Sacred Tradition”?

It’s Tradition because the Church teaches it.

 

[Cachonga]

diggerdomer:

Because that’s what Jesus and the Apostles did. And when the Church says “bread and wine” she means, ideally, “bread and wine.”

What does this mean?

diggerdomer:

Middle Ages (after 1000 A.D.), in the West only (not all Catholics). It was taught by the Council of Trent, which, depending on one’s opinion may or may not equate with infallible teaching.

Doesn’t sound like an “Apostolic” tradition, does it? Actually, I find that Corki may be more accurate in regard to when the Church decided it (though I haven’t been able to track down all the details of the Council yet). NHInsider has also given some info that I wish to exam from about the middle of the 2nd century (much closer to Apostolic times).

diggerdomer:

It’s Tradition because the Church teaches it.

So basically you’re saying that I should believe it because the Church says so? Sorry, but that doesn’t answer the question. The “tradition” of giving one species instead of both seems very much like a tradition of men.

 

[diggerdomer]

What does this mean?

Just what it says.

Doesn’t sound like an “Apostolic” tradition, does it?

Depends on what you mean by “Apostolic” tradition. If you mean is it the same discipline the Apostles followed, then no. If you mean it’s consistent with the Apostolic tradition, then yes (imho).

So basically you’re saying that I should believe it because the Church says so? Sorry, but that doesn’t answer the question. The “tradition” of giving one species instead of both seems very much like a tradition of men.

You are free to believe whatever you choose, makes no difference to me. Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharistic species whether one receives under both bread and wine or only one.

 

[Cachonga]

diggerdomer:

Depends on what you mean by “Apostolic” tradition. If you mean is it the same discipline the Apostles followed, then no. If you mean it’s consistent with the Apostolic tradition, then yes (imho).

Maybe I should call it a “Sacred Tradition” rather than an “Apostolic Tradition”. If the Apostles didn’t teach it, how could it be a “Sacred Tradition”? If they didn’t teach it, wouldn’t that make it a tradition of men?

diggerdomer:

You are free to believe whatever you choose, makes no difference to me. Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharistic species whether one receives under both bread and wine or only one.

You miss the point entirely. I am not questioning whether or not Jesus is really present, My question is, since Jesus established this with both bread AND wine, and Paul affirmed that this should be the practice within the Church, why is it no longer necessary to receive both species? Jesus established both species! Paul confirmed it to the Church! The practice in the Roman Catholic Church contradicts this established practice! Why?

 

[tcm22]

The question has been answered by several people in this thread, but you appear to be forwarding an argument versus seeking an answer. The fact of the matter is that Christ is wholly present in either form, therefore we receive him fully regardless of what form is offered.

The point of the Eucharist isn’t to partake of both species, but to receive Christ.

I found this in another thread. I think it sums it up the issue pretty well, in addition to what has also been offered in the thread. Note the reference to Corinthians.

catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0701lw.asp

 

[Cachonga]

tcm22:

The question has been answered by several people in this thread, but you appear to be forwarding an argument versus seeking an answer. The fact of the matter is that Christ is wholly present in either form, therefore we receive him fully regardless of what form is offered.

The point of the Eucharist isn’t to partake of both species, but to receive Christ.

I found this in another thread. I think it sums it up the issue pretty well, in addition to what has also been offered in the thread. Note the reference to Corinthians.

catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0701lw.asp

It would be instructive to read all of 1 Cor 11. Paul is upbraiding them on the way they have been conducting their services (some go hungry and others get drunk). Paul instructs them in the proper manner and meaning of the sacrament, then comes verse 27 (“Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.” DR), which is a warning to the Church. Notice verse 28 says, “But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.” (DR).

Paul also points out (as did Jesus) that the point of the Eucharist was to “…shew the death of the Lord, until he come.” (1 Cor 11:26 DR). However, the purpose of the Eucharist is not the topic, but why, when Jesus and Paul gave us clear instructions in Scripture, has the practice changed? If it wasn’t taught by an Apostle, it’s a tradition of men which clearly violates the established practice (established by Jesus Himself)!

 

[tcm22]

It would be instructive to read all of 1 Cor 11. Paul is upbraiding them on the way they have been conducting their services (some go hungry and others get drunk). Paul instructs them in the proper manner and meaning of the sacrament, then comes verse 27 (“Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.” DR), which is a warning to the Church. Notice verse 28 says, “But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.” (DR).

Paul also points out (as did Jesus) that the point of the Eucharist was to “…shew the death of the Lord, until he come.” (1 Cor 11:26 DR). However, the purpose of the Eucharist is not the topic, but why, when Jesus and Paul gave us clear instructions in Scripture, has the practice changed? If it wasn’t taught by an Apostle, it’s a tradition of men which clearly violates the established practice (established by Jesus Himself)!

Again, you are focusing on the specific form vs the actual miracle and mystery of the Eucharist. Call it a “tradition of man” if you must in order for it to fit into your Protestant framework, but you won’t get any agreement on you perspective.

I’ll say it again, and refer you back to all the posts in the thread. Since Jesus is wholly present in both species, one does not need to take of both in order to receive full communion. Does that make sense or not?

I’ll grant you that this fairly clear logic is not outlined specifically in the Bible, but it is clearly supported in both scripture and the teaching of the Church. You have offered your own personal interpretation of scripture to justify your position, in true Protestant fashion. All I can do is ask you why you think your own personal interpretation is better than that of the Doctors of the Church?

There are many aspects of the Mass that are not specifically directed in scripture. The liturgy of the word typically consists of a passage from the Old Testament, a Psalm, an Epistle reading, followed by the Priest reading the Gospel and offering a homily. Is that a “tradition of man” since it differs in form from the exact way Christ and the Apostles taught? How did the Church survive for the first 3 centuries without a valid scriptural reference for every aspect of the Sacraments?

Methinks you are making too much out of it. You are right in that no where in the Bible does it say communion is valid only when taken in both forms, however you have been offered several explanations of why the Church considers it valid. No where does it say it must be that way either. We can debate the meaning of Corinthians vs John, but the bottom line is there are scriptural arguments to support both. That’s one reason the teaching authority of the Church is so important. If you reject those explanations, that’s your choice, but it doesn’t negate their validity.

 

[Cachonga]

tcm22:

Again, you are focusing on the specific form vs the actual miracle and mystery of the Eucharist. Call it a “tradition of man” if you must in order for it to fit into your Protestant framework, but you won’t get any agreement on you perspective.

If it wasn’t taught by the Apostles, how can it be anything else?

tcm22:

I’ll say it again, and refer you back to all the posts in the thread. Since Jesus is wholly present in both species, one does not need to take of both in order to receive full communion. Does that make sense or not?

And I’ll say it again, I am not questioning the presence of Jesus in the species. Since Jesus gave both bread AND wine, and Paul affirmed that this is to be the practice within the Church, why is it not the practice today? Don’t you believe Jesus has authority in the Church? If so, then why doesn’t the Church DO what Jesus SAID?

tcm22:

I’ll grant you that this fairly clear logic is not outlined specifically in the Bible, but it is clearly supported in both scripture and the teaching of the Church. You have offered your own personal interpretation of scripture to justify your position, in true Protestant fashion. All I can do is ask you why you think your own personal interpretation is better than that of the Doctors of the Church?

What is unclear about this teaching in Scripture? Were Jesus and Paul ambiguous in what they clearly said and did? You make it very clear that you also rely on the “teaching of the Church” (as I would expect from most Catholics), and you point to the “Doctors of the Church” (even though no one has yet pointed to a single ECF that practiced the Eucharist as it is practiced today, although NHInsider made a reference, and I am waiting for the specific book and chapter to review it myself). In answer to your question - I believe I am just as infallible as the “Doctors of the Church” (that is to say, they are just as fallible as you or I am).

tcm22:

There are many aspects of the Mass that are not specifically directed in scripture. The liturgy of the word typically consists of a passage from the Old Testament, a Psalm, an Epistle reading, followed by the Priest reading the Gospel and offering a homily. Is that a “tradition of man” since it differs in form from the exact way Christ and the Apostles taught? How did the Church survive for the first 3 centuries without a valid scriptural reference for every aspect of the Sacraments?

This is not exactly on topic, but Paul did instruct the Churches he wrote to to read his letters. Certainly the Old Testament was available to the entire Church (this is what Jesus taught out of). Peter and Paul both recognized that they were writing Scriptures, and these were copied and spread throughout the Churches (granted, many spurious documents were being spread as well, and Paul addressed that issue). But tell me, how much of Scripture was written after the death of the last Apostle? The Eucharist was clearly taught by the Apostles, as confirmed in Paul’s letter, by Apotolic Tradition. And according to Paul, this meant the people received both bread and wine. Who changed this Apostolic tradition that was instituted by Jesus Himself?

tcm22:

Methinks you are making too much out of it. You are right in that no where in the Bible does it say communion is valid only when taken in both forms, however you have been offered several explanations of why the Church considers it valid. No where does it say it must be that way either. We can debate the meaning of Corinthians vs John, but the bottom line is there are scriptural arguments to support both. That’s one reason the teaching authority of the Church is so important. If you reject those explanations, that’s your choice, but it doesn’t negate their validity.

I have been offered what boils down to “Because the Church says so”, and I can’t accept that argument! If the “Church” is willing to alter the very teaching of Jesus, as well as the clear Apostolic tradition as shown from Sacred Scripture, then how can it be trusted to teach correctly on anything?

 

[diggerdomer]

Maybe I should call it a “Sacred Tradition” rather than an “Apostolic Tradition”. If the Apostles didn’t teach it, how could it be a “Sacred Tradition”? If they didn’t teach it, wouldn’t that make it a tradition of men?

You miss the point entirely. I am not questioning whether or not Jesus is really present, My question is, since Jesus established this with both bread AND wine, and Paul affirmed that this should be the practice within the Church, why is it no longer necessary to receive both species? Jesus established both species! Paul confirmed it to the Church! The practice in the Roman Catholic Church contradicts this established practice! Why?

Sorry if I misunderstood you. It’s an historical process that led to the common practice of only having bread and not wine. In summary, there was a concern of spilling the Precious Blood, so out of fear of causing scandal or sacrilege the cup was withdrawn from the laity in the Middle Ages (12 or 13 century, I think).

 

[davidv]

{snip}
I have been offered what boils down to “Because the Church says so”, and I can’t accept that argument!

That is not what has been offered to you. That is what you interpreted it to mean.

If the “Church” is willing to alter the very teaching of Jesus, as well as the clear Apostolic tradition as shown from Sacred Scripture, then how can it be trusted to teach correctly on anything?

The Church has not altered Jesus’ teaching. In fact, the Priest must consecrate both bread and wine for the Sacrament to be valid.