Scotus Academicus, Tomus nonus: De Sacramentis in genere

NOTE 1. The Minister of the Sacraments can be distinguished into two kinds: one indeed ordinary, the other extraordinary. The ordinary minister is called one who, by the faculty granted to him, can minister the Sacrament whenever occasion and opportunity are given; but the extraordinary minister is one who ministers the Sacraments only by delegated authority and commission, when necessity urges, on account of the absence and lack of an ordinary Minister. It is certain, however, that human beings are ministers of the sacraments insofar as they receive delegated power from Christ the Lord. Hence the Apostle says, 1 Cor. 4: Let a man so regard us, as Ministers of Christ, and dispensers of the mysteries of God. I said, insofar as they have power delegated by Christ: for he alone and only is the Minister of the Sacraments whom Christ designated in his institution. But who this is would be resolved when treating of the Sacraments in particular. Here, however, we investigate only who in general ought to be the ordinary Minister of the Sacraments, whether a human being or an Angel.

NOTANDUM 2. Luther progressed so far—I will not say in error, but even in madness—that in the book On the Private Mass and on the anointing of Priests he attributes the ministerial power of all the Sacraments not only to all human beings, but even to demons. I do not say, he says, what the Bishops say, that none of the Angels, not even Mary herself, can consecrate; but on the contrary I say that if the devil himself should go, and I should afterward rise again, and the devil had so burst into the office of Pastor of the Church, adorned in the appearance of a human being, as to preach and publicly teach in the Church, baptize, celebrate Mass, and absolve from sins, and had performed such a ministry according to Christ's institution, then we would be compelled to confess that the Sacraments were not thereby infallible, but that we had received true Baptism, the true Gospel, true absolution, and the true Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood. But, since heresy wars against itself, Calvin utterly contradicts Luther, for he does not even concede women the faculty of baptizing in case of necessity. For in the Antidote to Can. 10, Sess. 7, he says: In the true sense, Christians were all equal in the administration of the word and of the Sacraments: not only because he wishes all things to be done decently and in order in the Church, but also because Ministers are ordained for that purpose by the singular command of Christ. But he adds: Moreover, when they have entrusted the office of baptizing to little women, how do they permit that? But the Catholic Church, avoiding both extremes of error, establishes that only wayfaring human beings are the ordinary Ministers of the Sacraments; indeed, that all can administer Baptism when necessity presses, although it concedes that Angels too can administer the Sacraments by an extraordinary delegation of God.

NOTANDUM 3. According to the Doctor, in 4 dist. 6, q. 1, no. 2, three things must concur on the part of the Minister for the administration of the Sacraments: first, an external action, which occurs through local motion and the motive power by which the matter is applied; second, the sensible utterance of the form through articulated words; third, the intention of doing what the Church does. Whoever lacks any one of these cannot administer a Sacrament; hence those who lack hands, speech, or reason are excluded from this administration. From this the Doctor concludes that no supposit of an intellectual nature is simply excluded from the power of baptizing, except because of some such defect. Two things, therefore, are chiefly to be established here: first, that only wayfaring human beings are the ordinary ministers of the Sacraments; second, that Angels—not only good, but also evil—can be extraordinarily appointed by God to this ministry.

First Conclusion. — ONLY WAYFARING HUMAN BEINGS HAVE THE ORDINARY POWER OF ADMINISTERING THE SACRAMENTS.

Proof of the first part: The administration of the Sacraments, like their efficacy, depends upon Christ's institution and command, which is made known chiefly through Sacred Scripture; but from it it is clear that the ordinary faculty of administering the Sacraments was not granted to Angels, but to human beings. Proof by induction: concerning the Eucharist, Luke 22:19 says not to Angels but to the Apostles, who were wayfaring human beings: Do this in remembrance of me. And concerning Baptism, Matt. ult. 19: Baptize all nations. Concerning Extreme Unction, James 5:14: Let him call the Presbyters of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him, etc. Concerning Penance, John 20:23: Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. As regards the Sacrament of Orders and Confirmation, it is clear both from Scripture and from Tradition that their Minister must necessarily be a Bishop and Pontiff; he who, as we read in Heb. 5, is taken from among men, is appointed for men in the things that pertain to God. As regards Matrimony, the matter is evident, for it is entered into only between human contracting parties, who appear to be the ministers, according to Gen. 2:

This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh, etc.

The reason for this truth is clear. For there are four things in the Sacraments by which the Minister is chiefly to be assessed: namely, the institutor of the Sacraments, that is, Christ the Lord, whose place he himself takes, according to St. Paul's words, 1 Cor. 4: Let a man so account of us as Ministers of Christ, and dispensers of the mysteries of God. The second is the Church, for whose benefit the Sacraments were instituted, and whose Minister he therefore is. The third is the recipient, who holds the middle place between Christ the Lord, who ministers, and the Minister. The fourth, finally, is the Sacrament that is administered. But from this fourfold consideration the ordinary Minister of the Sacraments must necessarily be a human being, and not an Angel, because Christ the institutor, to whom he ought to be assimilated, is a true human being, and not an Angel. Likewise, the Church is a visible assembly of human beings, and not of Angels. Again, those who receive the Sacraments are human beings, not Angels. Finally, the Sacrament itself is not merely spiritual, as Angels are, but is partly constituted from the spiritual and the corporeal: spiritual, namely, through the intention of the Minister; corporeal, namely, through matter and form. This especially suits human beings, who are partly spiritual and partly corporeal. The Doctor excellently weighs these reasons in the same place, no. 3. It is fitting, he says, that Baptism be conferred upon a wayfaring human being, and not in any way by an Angel: both because Christ, who instituted it, was a human being; and because in the Sacrament there is something sensible and something spiritual, and consequently it is more fitting for a minister using sense and intellect than for one who is purely intelligible; and third, because through the reception of Baptism someone is enrolled as a member of the Church militant: therefore it is fitting that this be done by someone in that Church.

You will say 1. Whatever an inferior Minister can do, a superior can do; for whatever a Deacon can do, a Priest can do, though not conversely. But Angels are superior to all human beings in the Hierarchical order, according to St. Dionysius; therefore they can exercise the same ministry as human beings.

I distinguish the major: a superior can do the same thing in a different manner, I concede; in the same manner, I deny. For since human beings operate in an interior manner through sensible Sacraments proportioned to human nature, Angels, as superior ministers, act in a superior manner by invisibly purifying, illuminating, and perfecting, not sensibly in the human manner through the Sacraments. Hence blessed human beings, who have in heaven an indelible character by which they could administer the Sacraments, are like Angels in Matthew 22, but in participation in glory, not in the condition of nature or in the dispensation of the Sacraments.

You will say 2. The Sacraments can be administered by evil human beings, who are members of the devil; much more, therefore, by the devil, who is their head. — I deny the consequence: for evil human beings do not have the power of administering the Sacraments because they are members of the devil through wickedness, but because they are rational instruments of Christ, which does not belong to Satan, or the devil.

Proof also of the second part, namely, that the ordinary Minister of the Sacraments must be a wayfarer. I say, Proof first from that passage of Heb. 5: Every Pontiff taken from among men is appointed for men in the things that pertain to God, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins, who can have compassion on those who are ignorant and erring, because he himself too is surrounded by weakness, etc. But only a wayfaring human being is such; therefore, etc. Further, he alone is the ordinary and legitimate Minister of the Sacraments whom Christ designated by his institution; but for this he designated only wayfaring human beings. For it is established neither from Scripture, nor from Councils, nor from Tradition, that a non-wayfaring human being was taken up and instituted by Christ as Minister of the Sacraments of the Church militant; therefore, etc. Finally, as Bellarmine says, book 1, On the Sacraments in General, c. 21, no. 3, the Sacraments were given to the Church so that they might be administered to those who are within the Church by the visible Church itself, through its Ministers; such are not those who are already outside the world and who are in no way subject, directly or indirectly, to the Church itself. Otherwise a Bishop condemned in body and soul could, out of hatred for God and Christ, ordain another man condemned in body and soul as a Priest; and that man, once ordained a Priest, if he had bread and wine present, could confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist. But these things are absurd; therefore it must not be asserted that the Sacraments can, by the ordinary way, be conferred by anyone other than wayfarers.

You will say 1. Thomas Stapleton, in the Collections concerning St. Thomas the Apostle, reports that in the year 1120 a certain Patriarch of the Indians, named John, came to Rome and there testified before the Supreme Pontiff Callistus II(?) and the Cardinals in consistory that St. Thomas the Apostle made himself visible every year to the faithful subject to him, and that those whom he judged worthy of the sacred assembly he communicated with his own hand; but that he kept the unworthy from the sacred table and denied them the Eucharist. — Bellarmine replies in the same place that, whatever the truth of that story may be, it cannot be inferred from it that the Apostle confected and consecrated the Eucharist, but only that he distributed what had been consecrated. But this reply does not seem to solve the objection; for from it one could at least gather that they can be called ordinary Ministers of those Sacraments that consist in the application of sensible matter and the utterance of the words of the form, such as Baptism, Extreme Unction, Confirmation, etc. Hence I answer secondly that, if it is true that St. Thomas did these things, he did not do so by the common law, but by a singular concession of God, especially since it cannot be established that the Apostle assumed his own body, rose again by a miracle repeated so many times, and then died again. Hence it is more credible that he merely appeared and did these things in an aerial body.

You will say 2. In her prayers the Church asks the blessed Apostles for the remission of sins, as in the hymn of the Apostles: You who by your word close heaven and loose its bolted gates, command, we beseech you, that we be loosed from all sins. And in the hymn of St. Peter: Release the bonds of sin, by the power entrusted to you, you who by your word close heaven to all and open it; therefore the blessed Apostles are Ministers of the Sacraments. — I distinguish the antecedent: to ask for remission by way of intercession, presenting to the blessed Apostles the power entrusted to them while they were in the Church militant, in order to move them more strongly, as we say to the Blessed Virgin in her hymn, Release the bonds of the guilty, I concede; by way of jurisdiction, as though they still retained the right and ministry of absolution, I deny.

You will say 3. If some Priests or Bishops were to rise from the dead, they could still confect certain Sacraments; therefore the Minister of the Sacraments is not necessarily a wayfarer. — I deny the consequence: for, having been raised from the dead, they would act by the power they had received as wayfarers. Hence they could validly confect those Sacraments which they confected before death without jurisdiction, such as Baptism and the Eucharist; for they act by the character and the proper state alone, not by jurisdiction. But they could not validly administer those that require jurisdiction, such as the absolution of penitents, because jurisdiction ceases through death, whereas sacramental absolution of penitents is an act of jurisdiction, since it is a true judgment.

Second Conclusion. — ANGELS CAN BE EXTRAORDINARY MINISTERS OF THE SACRAMENTS. This is common to both schools, the Angelic and the Subtle. Indeed, the Angelic Doctor, 3 p., q. 64, art. 7, says: It must nevertheless be known that, just as God has not so bound his power to the Sacraments that he cannot confer the effect of the Sacraments without the Sacraments, so too he has not so bound his power to the Ministers of the Church that he cannot also give Angels the power to minister in the Sacraments. And because good Angels are messengers of truth, if some sacramental ministry were requested of good Angels, it should be held valid, since it ought to be established that this was done by the divine will; just as certain churches are said to have been consecrated through the ministry of Angels. The Subtle Doctor has similar things in no. 2, where, after saying that every supposit of an intellectual nature can be appointed as Minister of the Sacraments, he puts forward this reason: because, he says, if a good Angel were to baptize in an assumed body, with all the conditions stated above, then his Baptism would have to be presumed true, because it would not occur except by God's command; nor would one baptized by an Angel have to be baptized again; just as Michael forbade a Bishop to dedicate his church on Mount Gargano, asserting that it had been dedicated by him. By these words the Doctor does not contend, by wrongly asserting it, that Angels have the power; but only that they can be extraordinarily delegated by God for that office.

Proof of the Conclusion: If, as we read in Acts 7 and Gal. 3, the ancient Law was ordained by Angels in the hand of the Mediator, why could not the Sacraments of the new law be administered by those same Angels? For there is no greater difficulty in applying sacramental matter and uttering the words of the form than in inscribing the law upon a stone tablet and proclaiming it aloud and publicly.

St. Augustine also clearly teaches this truth in book 2 of Against Parmenian, c. 15. There, when Parmenian objected that an unjust man could not validly administer the Sacraments, as St. Augustine reports in the same place, he said: But why then does Parmenian exult in empty boasting and say: The judgment of the divine law will never permit a dead man to give life to anyone, a wounded man to heal, a blind man to illuminate, a naked man to clothe, or a polluted man to cleanse, etc. By these words he asserted that an unjust man could not confer Baptism unto justice; and to confirm this he objected in c. 15 that passage of John 3: A man cannot receive anything unless it has been given him from heaven. Refuting its false interpretation by various arguments, St. Augustine finally concludes his and the other's perverse understanding of Scripture: No one, therefore, he says, without one who gives; but as regards the holiness of Baptism, God is present to give, and a human being to receive, whether God gives through himself, or through an Angel, or through a holy human being, or through Peter, or through John, or through an iniquitous human being, etc. In these words he clearly signifies that Baptism can be administered through an Angel. Nor does it matter that he says God sometimes confers Baptismal grace, that is, not through some Sacrament—for example, when he sanctifies either a child in the womb or an adult through martyrdom, which is neither a Sacrament nor subordinated to a Sacrament, although, as we have said, it has the power of a Sacrament. This, I say, does not matter, because these things do not prevent him from asserting that an Angel, or a just human being, or an unjust one, can confer grace through a Sacrament.

Proof furthermore from Nicephorus, book 11 of the History, c. 20, where he reports how, to Amphilochius philosophizing in desert places, because of his excellent life and teaching, God sent Angels who, by a mystical ordination and a secret episcopal blessing, consecrated him to the intellectual dignity and appointed him Hierarch of Iconium. When, shortly afterward, the Bishops of that Province who were to be ordained had come to him, and learned from him that he had received consecration from the Angels of God, they gave glory to God for so sacred and divine a grace, and reverently admitted him as God's Pontiff, herald of the Gospel, and defender of the faith; then, after the customary greeting and after placing a kiss upon him, they permitted him publicly to perform the episcopal functions and all pontifical offices without any other new inauguration.

Proof also by reason: First, because, as was just said, just as God has not bound his power to the Sacraments, but can, according to his pleasure and independently of the conferral of the Sacraments, infuse sanctifying grace into someone, so he has not delegated the administration of the Sacraments to human beings in such a way that he cannot, according to his will and command, entrust that ministry to Angels; especially since all of them are ministering spirits sent for ministry, for the sake of those who are to receive the inheritance of salvation. Further, the administration of the Sacraments is not more difficult to execute than the consecration of temples, since both offices were delegated to human beings; but the consecration of temples can be performed by Angels, and was in fact sometimes performed by them, as is clear from the consecration of the temple of Mount Gargano, which was done by St. Michael the Archangel. Finally, as we noted with the Doctor, only three things are required for the administration of a Sacrament: first, motive power, by which the Minister washes, for example, the person to be baptized with water; second, a voice, by which he utters the words of the form; third, the use of reason, by which he has the intention of Christ the Lord and the Church. But an Angel, by an extraordinary commission of God, can have these three things in an assumed body or wholly outside a body. For he can move water and apply it to the person to be baptized; it is not necessary that an Angel baptizing apply the water through a conjoined instrument, as a Priest does through his hand: a separate instrument, or none at all, is sufficient. He can also produce words, not vitally as a human being does, but distinctly signifying the same thing as vital words. Since he is also endowed with intellectual faculty, he can undoubtedly have the required intention. Thus it must be admitted that, if it were established that some Sacrament had been administered by Angels, it ought to be held valid and ratified.

You will say 1. Heb. 5 says: Every Pontiff must be taken from among men, in order to offer gifts and sacrifices; and consequently Angels cannot fulfill this ministry. Therefore they can much less administer the Sacraments, since grace is conferred through the Sacraments, but not ordinarily through sacrifices ex opere operato. — I distinguish the antecedent: this is so according to the ordinary law, I concede; it is so necessarily, so that it could not be otherwise if God were to ordain it thus, I deny. For the consecration of a Church is also a ministry of the Church, and it is established by a certain history that this was entrusted to Angels. To minister the Eucharist is a ministry of the Church through Priests and Deacons, but Angels too have sometimes performed this by special commission, as is often established from approved lives of the Saints. The promulgation of the divine Law is a ministry of human beings, but on Mount Sinai Angels performed it as God's legates, Acts 7. Why, then, could they not also, by a special commission of God, give Baptism in an assumed body, while preserving the substance of the Sacrament?

You will say 2. The administration of a Sacrament is a vital act; but Angels cannot exercise vital acts in an assumed body; therefore neither can they administer the Sacraments. — I distinguish the major: administration performed by an ordinary Minister is a vital act, I concede; administration performed by an extraordinary Minister would necessarily have to be a vital act, I deny. For, absolutely speaking, for the validity of a Sacrament it suffices that the proper matter be applied and the form be uttered sensibly and articulately through a human body, whether real or apparent. For, simply speaking, nothing else is required on the part of the form, insofar as it is sacramental, than that it be a practical sign of the effect, both in the baptized person and with respect to the Church, which must be assured of the form applied. For the Church does not attend to the manner of forming the words, but to the signification they have from divine institution and the common use of human beings. In the same way, revelation made to holy men through Angels speaking sensibly is received by them in no other way than if it were truly vital, because what is considered is not the manner of speaking, but the sense of the speech.

You will ask: Could demons also validly confer the Sacraments? — The Doctor affirms this in the same place, saying: If an evil Angel too were to baptize in an assumed body, and it were established that this occurred by God's command, he would have to be regarded as having baptized, because an evil Angel too must obey God even unwillingly. But it could not be believed, without a certain revelation on the matter, that an evil Angel would baptize in this way: both because God does not administer the Sacraments through those finally excluded from salvation, and because, if there were no certainty of the divine command, or of the contrary, it must always be presumed that he acts fraudulently, lest he complete the things necessary for the baptized person's salvation, because of the enmity proceeding from envy that he bears.

By these words the Doctor does not assert that the devil validly administers the Sacraments, as though this belonged to him by the ordinary law, as some falsely suppose when they assert that this was his position, and afterward Luther's as well. For the contrary is plainly evident from the words just expressed.

You will say. If a demon administered the Sacraments by God's ordinance, since he is in a state of mortal sin he would commit sacrilege, of which God would be the author, since he would compel the demon to this ministry. But God cannot be the author of any sin; therefore he cannot command a demon to administer some Sacrament. — I distinguish the minor: God cannot be the author of a sinful act when the malice is intrinsically joined to the malicious act, I concede; when it is joined only extrinsically, and proceeds from the malice of the one acting, I deny. This is what happens in the present case, because the ministry of a Sacrament is absolutely good; but since the demon's will is perverse, he is compelled by God unwillingly whenever he is driven by a pressing divine command to perform something good. Nevertheless, God can use this perverse will of the demon to display his goodness and power, by which he extorts obedience even from the devil, however reluctant, for the advantage and benefit of another. Hence St. Augustine says excellently, in book On Corruption and Grace, c. 10: Most beneficially we confess what we most truly believe: that God, the Lord of all things, who created all things very good and foresaw that evils would erupt from good things, pertains more to his omnipotent goodness to do good even from evils than not to permit evils to exist, etc. Hence the Doctor wisely warns that, if the devil were to administer the Sacraments in an assumed body, it would be necessary that divine revelation establish that he had been moved and impelled to this by God, so that it would be certain that that Sacrament had been validly administered.