THEOLOGY

HERBERT
VORGRIMLER
 The Library
of
Claremont
School
of
Theology

1325 North College Avenue

Claremont, CA 91711-3199
(909) 447-2589
A IW UY
2PCO |
NEWS
LAD

Sacramental
Theology
Herbert Vorgrimler

Translated by
Linda M. Maloney

A Liturgical Press Book

+ THE LITURGICAL PRESS

= Collegeville, Minnesota
 Theology Library
CLAREMONT
SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY
Claremont, CA

Cover design by Greg Becker.

Sacramental Theology was originally published by Patmos Verlag GmbH under

the title: Herbert Vorgrimler Sakramententheologie. © 1987 Patmos Verlag. Third
edition © 1992.

Copyright © 1992 by The Order of St. Benedict, Inc., Collegeville, Minnesota.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or
by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,
taping, or any retrieval system, without the written permission of The Litur-
gical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota 56321. Printed in the United States of
America.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Vorgrimler, Herbert.
[Sacramenten Theologie. English]
Sacramental theology / Herbert Vorgrimler ; translated by Linda M.
Maloney.
> cm.
Translation of: Sacramenten Theologie.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8146-1994-0
1. Sacraments—Catholic Church. 2. Catholic Church—Doctrines.
3. Catholic Church—Liturgy. I. Title.
BX2200.V67 1992
234'16—dc20 92-12399
CIP
For Erich Zenger
 Contents

Mbbreviations ewe.) SEAN EDF. 2 SAE OS...

PREV OAUCT OM scacy. ciate Degas: Hoare o Boole Nike AME Ee es

1 Theological Preconditions for Sacramental Theology ....

Lt Experience of God and God’s Revelation..............
2 Images'and: Symbols, of God) 11050... ye Sachi esks
3 The ‘’Sacramental Principle’ in Jewish-Christian
Traditiongin. ti: ae: See IES. Sees :
1.4 Christian Theology, ‘‘Old Testament Sacraments,’’
and icNaturabbSacraments?/ molenoes at ROR tee. «5
5 Christological, Pneumatological, and Trinitarian
Presuppositions cxgh dies <eeseletnt Sie ate eile 2. os

2 Determining the Place of the Sacraments ..............

2.1 The Sacraments as the Church’s Liturgy ..............
PLDs The Subject of the Church’s Liturgy ................-.
23 The Presence of Jesus Christ in the Liturgy............

3 The Sacramental Economy of Salvation................

3.1 Creation and Election as Sacrament ............---+055
3:2 Jesus Christ as the Primordial Sacrament ..............
Sid Church as Fundamental Sacrament ................... OZ
3.4 Individual Sacraments as Actualizations of the
Fundamental ‘Sacrament sc... se-)cera tee ee 40

The Sacraments in General .........60 cece eeecc ences 43

4.1 The General Concept of a Sacrament.................. 43
History of General Sacramental Theology ............. 46
4.2.1 New Testament sS.00:0. 0 co sues leumtals ree cue eer 46
4.2.2 The: Church) Fathers <<... 25-0. vsuees re er oe 49
4.2.3 MiddlecA ges 2 stata ir cinn wearedes nik thet oars Serra 50
4.2.4 The Sacramental Theology of the Reformers ......... 6)
4.2.5 The Church’s Official Sacramental Teaching ......... 57
4.2.6 The Development of Sacramental Theology
afters Trent ye o5 odes aan ont caeltog cites Rane aieSrceeaee 62
4.3 Limits and Structure of General Sacramental Theology
and Doctrine of the Individual Sacraments ............ 66

Fundamentals of General Sacramental Theology ........ 68

Symbclic Liturgical Actions as Mediation of the
Présence.08 God Prmiranys conteseaislefois stay apheresis 68
5.1.1 Effective:Symbolic: Event’. 74.0.0 «scat eon cae tee 68
5.1.2 Jesus Christ as Author of the Sacraments............ 72
5.1:3 The Number Seven and the Inequality of the
SACTAMENTS i156 sand cae A eR MERE. es 75
D2 Sacrament—Event of the Word of God................ 76
Sacrament, Prayer, and Discipleship .................. 79
5.4 Sacraments of; Faith=:ia6\. S00) swept Pee. 5. 82
are] Sacraments as Mediation of Divine Grace ............. 86
Sacramenwand: History facies canes. 25s 89
Di? Sacramenits of the ‘Church.......::.0«,a</seeneenene
eo 90

Bibliography le isnak WA kek PS ee. 94

Bibliography 2403.05.30 a Gl SO SOI,
BR cs 100

Baptist (328. eRe a eR, eT OT eas 102

6.1 Biblical‘ Foundations (0.4 0.4038 + een ne eee aes 102
6.2 The Rite of Initiation... qaxhea ieee eee... 107
6.3 Historical’ Decisions sweet 45.20 ee Oe, ee 2 109
6.4 Baptism ‘of Children® icc. -7atG BAA Geek eee; 113
vi
6.5 ECUIMenICAN Perspectives (ines. wake og «Caceres one e'sva 116
6.6 SUMIMAry acne Oh. se leva.» « OPatadienyes stIedsAY. aes 117

BDU OSF APH YRS ties ois ons anne ogo o MRAMBURAL AEE ODM > 05 119
BiVLOCTAPNYMOM Saas gi ciehe asco ane kuee «CURIEos 120

Comicmatonet lc ow. br tis Pee iee inns pus caw 122

feat BibbcaliPoundations wens...
-.o 9 Me Meee ilaee es se 122
Tia PUISIORICAM SOCIGIONION aus 65 te95 Mules Ne oho alee hele Kole 125
7.3 SUMUMAL Yee ease a kh Ra b cts’ wae, Ok ea ten Mrs 6 ae 129

Bibliography Sct tee een ene, Sees t ee 131

Eucharist S0t co isc ooes nos ade enre soees se Cee 62 132
8.1 INGOAUCHON Maree. . ca sGnR as poss Gees carte aes & 132
8.2 Biblical. Foundations: .c50 00.40.0050)
0ae eee «3 ss137
8.2.1 The: Last'Supper Accounts. ....-..0202++2stace
eens 137.
S22 Other New Testament Texts ........0eesseceeeeee. 143
8:2.3 Summary and Problems.............+0eseeeeeeeeee 144
Concept and Basic Form of the Eucharist.............. 148
8.3.1 The Fundamental Liturgical Form ................+.. 148
8.3.2 The Concept of Eucharist.............0++-eeeeeeeees 152
Historical Stages and Decisions .............+-+.s+eee- 153
8.4.1 The Development of a Eucharistic Theology.......... 153
8.4.2 Concentration on the Real Presence ..............--- 156
8.4.3 Scholastic Theology of the Eucharist ................ 160
8.4.4 Reformation Teaching on the Lord’s Supper ......... 164
8.4.5 The: Real Presence cu ot nasa see SOR LS ae 166
8.4.6 The Sacrifice of the Mass..........0eecessteceseeens 172
8.4.7 The Eucharist and the Office of Priesthood .......... 180
8.4.8 Vatican COUNCIL Ny cuyea py sab epee tees sae 184
8.4.9 COomMuUuniOnegs+: Mette «obo 187
255 se ereeenarccreeb<
8.5 The Renewal of Eucharistic Theology .............+++- 191

vce ecence ene nene eens 195

Bibliography 6 ........ccce

The Sacrament of Reconciliation .............++e00ee0s 200

9st Preliminary Theological Questions ..........-..+.++++. 200
o2. Forms of Forgiveness ........-+-sesee erence eeeeeeeees 203
9:3 Biblical Foundations=...- 254-500-0575
es Eee. oa 205
9.4 _ The History of the Sacrament of Reconciliation ........ 207
95 Ecclesial Decisions «<5 5s ++i s<u2 «0m» ty NOR ee teria pag
9.6 SUMUMATY F085 Stes Sea eins vee ea Om ee eneee 219
a7 Indulgentes’ sx... .scan sen eaee e a ata enna alaan 220

BibltOgraHye7 oooh een NG RETO CaO oe 223

10 Anointing of the Sick . osc. vs5 15353 3ate Sane ee Mead 226
10.1 Biblical’ Foundations. aa. 6 «sto sane seen noes ae 226
10.2 The History of Anointing of the Sick.................. 228
10.3 Ecclesialf Devisionis's scrote anit eee its alice ae tetas 230
10.4 SUIMERATY 4%. be PL Awk wan eee ee hrs ee vee Roe ah ee 234

Bibliography 8 0 os c4. 5 oe SOOO INaaN t OOO ods 236

11 Ihe Sacrament of ‘Orders. SR).

.Woe etens cck Zor
11.1 Introdtichion:/. ws.n sr a hes Maree. PO SINNER, cd che237
112 The Origins of Office in the Church .................. 242
121 Biblical: Findings.) anges. ero Sees. 3: 242
11222 Postbiblical Developments®. (70.0.0...G6 Tia 248
13 The Development of Teaching about the Sacrament
of Ordetese a7 | eset & Jo Rens.
Fok 253
13.1 From Antiquity to the Scholastics ................... 253
UES.2 Historical ‘Decisions: tes ee vrei a. oe ene. 21) 255
3.3 Vatican Council II and the New Code
of Canons Vaw 40<0. 08iar ac os Re eR oe te 260
11.4 The Sacrament of Orders: Systematic Aspects ......... 266
11.4.1 Bishop: Ai0ah). 26 GE ee SO te es has 266
11.4.2 Priest «i + sea vines wee hwen ene ee SORMMRN e kae 268
11.4.3 DeAcOm, nine atawidtak entices oo ae meee C25. 270
11.4.4 The: Ordination’of/ Women ioe. 7, Ue: 270
11.5 Ecumenical Dialogues. 5 sc ase omen ee ene 274
11.5.1 The Perspective of the Eastern Churches ............ 274
15.2 Ac Minimal Consensus.7.2 5 29.5, teak Ona ee 276
11.5.3 Questions Still Outstanding #yF: 19 See.
AE Ts: 277

Bibliography 9 0.10. s..sis5s Oe 278

Viii
12 The Sacrament of Marriage .......... 0c ccc ceeee ee eens 283
eT We LETOCILICEION Bates eas) gate dave Be biewy leak wis eo eli 46% 91 283
eee DIDUCAL POUNGAHONS. 1. tah pes cme Skea sue tye See ee 286
eed eee ICL SNESIAINCTIE Tae Goch iieGaus ov a pai oo 2 eee aieas 6 286
12.2.2 + Jesus and the Jesus Traditions ...............--eeeee 288
12.2.3 Paul and the Letter to the Ephesians ................ 289
12224 ~ “Additional Statements... sure hese cae ves noes 290
23 Historical Decisions i... es doce bas ov enter Fa ee te 291
12.3.1 The Development of a Theology, Liturgy, and Law of
IMIAPTIALC Chis Gigs Horna Va ee me ninth ten Mee ee nee 291
12.3.2 Statements of Earlier Church Teaching .............- 296
12.3.3. Vatican Council II and the New Code of
ATION NAWee. ho ate oro te ew stasis oo a a Bielss SteBen eeeons301
12.4 Theology of Marriage: Summary.............--+-++++- 308

Bibliography 10%. 22.26. ce woes 2 tnes eon a sees een 311

13 The Sacramentals i000 bs is Sos se snes fe eases pee eee ee 314

cece eee ecece eee een eennes 319

Bibliography 11 ...........

cence ene eeeens 320

Additional Bibliography.............0cceccee

fy,FS se wre
| es Oe aa rw ee ee ho eee eee 324
 =

a py nO 5 ohio ce r
a JT wle, A « mon he eae Bran ny a
a Pe cow yess s SROEDaROT ram te 7
7 ‘ap. . ee ts soendiegT BAC La :
sae ee a aS hint asdent wt dansever ae)
oath _ atte eet? oto tetrad ot bea Het. 4.8 toa
= " ... ewe’ lneihhA . ARR Tr
Aline y e mini Lhe 6S
ad
‘ve

Sige sieesee : roi 5So

tasertea ot fe ae
Wihaede eubqays oie).
= ha demarcate te
or Vee Lite ar A Sep WT Spel wpa eee
a= is eRe bob a we] Miva? <> =
: — =7 rial |
Ce sw ove
2 i 70 oa ete tt ee 8 a ¥.
oe a 7
 Abbreviations

AAS Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Official teachings of the Pope and

the Vatican congregations)
COD Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, ed. G. Alberigo and
others (Barcelona: 1962 and later editions)
DS H. Denzinger and A. Schénmetzer, Enchiridion sym-
bolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidet et
morum 35th ed. (Barcelona: 1973). Citations are accord-
ing to the numbers in the text.
EKL Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon, ed. E. Fahlbusch and
others, 3d rev. ed. (Gottingen: 1986ff.)
J. Finkenzeller I and II
J. Finkenzeller, Die Lehre von den Sakramenten im allge-
meinen. Von der Schrift bis zur Scholastik (Freiburg: 1980):
(= J. Finkenzeller I); idem, Die Lehre von den Sakramen-
ten im allgemeinen. Von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart
(Freiburg: 1982): (= J. Finkenzeller II)
Handbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts, eds. J. Listl, H.
Miiller, and H. Schmitz (Regensburg: 1983)
Lexikon fiir Theologie und Kirche, 2d ed., eds. J. Hofer
and K. Rahner (Freiburg: 1957-1965)
xi
xii Sacramental Theology

MySal Mysterium Salutis, GrundriB heilsgeschichtlicher Dogmatik,

eds. J. Feiner and M. Lohrer (Einsiedeln, Zitirich, and
Cologne: 1965-1981)
NHthG Neues Handbuch theologischer Grundbegriffe, ed. P. Eicher
(Munich: 1984-1985)
J. Neuner and H. Roos, Der Glaube der Kirche in den
Urkunden der Lehrverkiindigung, newly edited by K.
Rahner and K.-H Weger 11th ed. (Regensburg: 1983).
Cited according to the numbers in the text.
Schriften K. Rahner, Schriften zur Theologie (Einsiedeln, Ziirich,
and Cologne: 1954-1984)
ThWNT Theologisches Wérterbuch zum Neuen Testament, eds. G.
Kittel and G. Friedrich (Stuttgart: 1933-1973)
TRE Theologische Realenzyklopddie, eds. G. Krause and G.
Miiller (Berlin and New York: 1976ff.)

The documents:of the Second Vatican Council are denoted by the ini-
tial letters of the title, e.g., SC = Sacrosanctum Concilium; cf. Kleines
Konzilskompendium (Freiburg: 1966 and later editions) 7-10.
For the abbreviation of the writings of classical theologians (Augustine,
Thomas, etc.), see the lists in the corresponding articles of the theo-
logical dictionaries.
 Introduction

From current theological discussions and from published materials

devoted to the sacraments, we might often suppose that at the pres-
ent time neither the mood nor the direction of thinking is favorable
to the sacraments. The focus of many people on that which is scientif-
ically demonstrable and technically possible, and the “strangeness of
all that belongs to religion’”’ in this world are given as reasons why
sacramental actions are and will remain alienating. This kind of resis-
tance occurs not only in the narrower forum of the sacraments them-
selves, but extends even beyond the ecclesial realm to affect Christian
faith as a whole. But it should not be overlooked that many Christians
also have only minimal interest in the sacraments. Sacraments are—
quite rightly—considered to be symbols, and some Christians regard
symbolic actions as an alibi, a convenient substitute for more difficult
Christian praxis. It is quite often said that inhabiting this special, inner-
churchly world focussed on the sacraments is a way of withdrawing
from a Christianity expressed in deeds and in credible witness to the
world at large. The restriction of the sacraments within prescribed
courses of action makes impossible any of the spontaneous, creative
expression for which so many people today are longing; the impres-
sion of constant, mechanical repetition contrasts sharply with hoped-
for but always unexpected adventures in faith. In this way, a good part
aL
 2 Sacramental Theology

of the critique directed at the Church today becomes a critique of the

sacraments. In many places, under the influence of theological educa-
tion, a historical-critical consciousness has arisen which in turn is used
to exercise a rigorous critique of the origins and practice of the sacra-
ments. In speaking, as we must, of the historical Jesus, we are con-
scious that an ‘‘institution’’ or establishment of sacraments by him is
quite improbable. The practical shape of some sacraments reveals
strong ecclesial interests that are not always religious in nature. It is
often but a short step from the insight that something is “‘historically
conditioned’’ to the judgment that it is ‘‘unimportant.”’
But other evidence contrasts with the reports of these and similar
difficulties in bringing together present-day human experience and the
Church’s sacramental faith. A quest for that which is strange, which
is at odds with the world of hi-tech, which is even religious is expressed
in the flood of esoteric literature. There are any number of initiatives
toward the realization of human encounter and community, and these
include a new kind of ritual gestures.1 Communication within the field
of religion has become more lively; it is in search of new means of ex-
pression and is reviewing the possibilities contained in the older ones.
Symbols are capturing the attention of more and more scholarly dis-
ciplines, and there is an increasing body of research on symbols.?
Theology is increasingly concerned with the ‘‘perimeter’’ where
there are indications of new possibilities for understanding the sacra-
ments. For example, there is an effort being made to construct anthro-
pological approaches to the meaning of symbolic actions. Theology
is paying attention to the structures of external and internal apprehen-
sion and communication of knowledge, and concentrating on the in-
dispensable function of human bodiliness in every form of communi-
cation. It is locating the sacraments within a context that is accessible
to other scholarly disciplines as well, in terms of such phenomena as
language-event and symbolic reality (in particular the notion of real

1. Cf. F.-J. Nocke, Wort und Geste (Munich: 1985) 11-58; U. Kihn, Sakramente
(Giitersloh: 1985) 197ff.
2. E.g., depth psychology, psychoanalysis, religious studies, cultural anthro-
pology, behavioral research, communications theory, computer science, etc. See
also 5.1 below.
3. Successful examples are the approaches to sacramental theology of T.
Schneider, ‘Die dogmatische Begriindung”’ (see Bibliography 1) and F.-J. Nocke,
Wort und Geste.
 Introduction 3

symbols). The ecumenical dialogue of the (still) separated Churches

is at the present time concerned primarily with questions connected
with the sacraments and has already discovered a number of common
ideas (for example, on the relationship of word and sacrament).
These two contrasting realities, resistance to and renewed inclina-
tion toward the field of the sacraments, cannot be described in a single
overview. I do not wish to tarry in the ‘‘foreground,’’ making the sacra-
ments acceptable on the basis of structures and experiences that occur
elsewhere in the human context as well. But at the same time, the sacra-
ments should not be viewed, in a kind of ‘‘legal positivism,’’ as iso-
lated institutions from God through Jesus Christ that stand out like
foreign bodies within the remaining content of faith and theology. In-
stead, I want to proceed on the assumption that God’s relationship
to human beings cannot be other than “‘sacramental.’’ Sacramental
structures and events characterize the history of God with human be-
ings from the beginning, i.e., as long as humans have existed, and
therefore they are formative for all areas of theology, since theology
is constructed in the form of ‘‘salvation history.’’ But such a sacramen-
tal view of things is not a matter of course; it only becomes apparent
when we take as our key the reality we call ‘‘revelation.’’ In other
words: faith is one of the indispensable preconditions for a sacramen-
tal theology. And faith, in turn, in its ecclesial shape and in its liturgi-
cal expression, is dialogically structured.
Therefore I would like first to demonstrate the preconditions of faith
on which sacramental theology rests, and what is its place within the
whole of theology. This will be followed by brief presentations of the
concept of sacraments and the history of that idea, the teachings of
Church tradition on sacraments in general, and the basic features of
a sacramental theology. Next will come the theological explanations
of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church, including related topics
such as indulgences and sacramentals.
I would like to conclude this introduction with some personal re-
marks. I had no assistance in the development of this sacramental the-
ology, since an unusual burden of work, including the exercise of two
professorates at one time and, in the third year, the duties of dean of
the faculty, fully occupied the time of my assistants with other tasks.
Therefore the bibliographies contain literature I have seen, but they
make no claim to completeness. I am sure, however, that those who
are interested in pursuing a single question in more depth can make
4 Sacramental Theology

a beginning on the basis of these overviews of the literature. Iwas very

anxious to keep as much contact as possible with theology outside Ger-
many, and I consider it anything but an advantage of the most recent
German-language works in sacramental theology that they take no no-
tice of foreign literature.
A graduate seminar held in cooperation with the Lutheran New
Testament scholar Martin Rese on the subject of the Lima document,
despite its friendly and collegial atmosphere, confronted the Catholic
members continually and inexorably with the question: how can you
protect your notion of sacraments from succumbing to the idea that
you have control over divine grace? That question remains continually
present in this book. If I myself were to describe this sacramental the-
ology, I would say that it is ecumenical and also open to and ready
for dialogue with Judaism, that it is liturgical-theological in nature, and
that it seeks its foundation in Jesus-mysticism.
I dedicate the book to my friend and colleague Erich Zenger. I owe
him gratitude for many reasons: because he is a master of the art of
expounding the Old Testament as a book of life; because he is a tire-
less engine of Jewish-Christian dialogue, and because I have received
from him some very concrete and inestimable assistance.
Minster, January 1987 Herbert Vorgrimler
 1

Theological Preconditions
for Sacramental Theology

1.1 Experience of God and God’s Revelation

The sacraments are a particular part of the relationship between God

and human beings. This rather banal statement is intended to point
out that reflection on the sacraments presumes a prior reflection on
God’s relationship with humans. God, as perceived in Jewish-Christian
tradition, remains the great, impenetrable, and incomprehensible mys-
tery. God is, in his inmost being, so different from human beings that
groping thought cannot comprehend God, nor can human language
fully and accurately describe him.1 Of course, this is true in the other
direction as well: immediate communication between God and the
human person seems to be impossible, because of the total disparity
between the two ‘‘partners.”’
But Jewish-Christian tradition, in contrast, for example, to Greek
ideas of the divine, says that God was and is involved with the ut-

1. See the brief remarks and bibliography in H. Vorgrimler, Theologische Gottes-

lehre (Diisseldorf: 1985) 21-37.
6 Sacramental Theology

most concern in his creation, that God wanted and still wants to com-
municate with and be in touch with human beings. It understands the
creation of the universe and of humanity as the work of the overflow-
ing goodness of God, and human beings as the partners whom God
seeks for intimate association. Because of the impossibility of entering
into immediate communication, God’s self-revelation to human beings
requires a mediation that lies within their receptive capacity. Jewish
faith-understanding conceived the idea that God, while remaining al-
ways within and present to himself, could reveal himself in a twofold
way: through the divine word, and through spiritual indwelling.” To
the extent that we can say anything by way of analysis about the
processes by which God allows himself to be known (‘‘reveals’’ him-
self), it is that people receive an internal insight, or are carried along
by an impulse that they cannot trace to their own normal experiences,
but in which, instead, they feel themselves carried outside themselves
(they go beyond or transcend themselves). Since such experiences con-
tain something that terrifies human beings, that runs contrary to their
ordinary desires, they cannot be wishful dreams or projections. It is
true that they can be called ‘‘experiences of the self,’’ but with the dis-
tinction that the self here grows beyond its own dimensions, by aid
of a dynamic that is not produced from within, but is given by another.
Experiences like these, which transcend the human, always require
interpretation. Interpretation is already taking place when someone
organizes his or her own experiences conceptually, and it is certainly
occurring when the individual attempts to explain them (the interpreted
experiences) to others. No one is forced to believe that God’s own dy-
namic has been communicated to the human person, that God has per-
sonally spoken a word within the human heart. To put it another way:
God’s self-testimonies toward human beings are not so compelling that
a person cannot freely deny them. Human acceptance and acquies-
cence should take place on the basis of faith, and not on the basis of
evidence (i.e., certainty founded on proof). If a person is convinced
that God has revealed himself to her or him, and if that person ac-
cepts this utterance of God, the dialogical character of the process, ex-
pressly recognized or not, becomes evident. A ‘‘yes,’’ no matter what
form it takes, to God’s leading, is prayer.

2. This is evident from Jewish concepts of the divine logos and of God's shekinah,
ideas that were, in any event, possible within the boundaries of orthodox Judaism.
 Theological Preconditions for Sacramental Theology 7

Jewish and Christian theology calls the process just described ‘‘reve-
lation.’’ According to the testimonies of faith, it takes place primarily
within the human person, at the place where the person is not yet
divided between intellectual insight and the impulse of the will, but
is still the original unity: in the person’s ‘‘conscience,’’ as tradition
says, in his or her “‘heart.’’ “‘God is more interior to me than I am
to myself,’’ in Augustine’s words.’ But revelation happens not only
within individuals (who, in fact, are not isolated units by the very fact
of being oriented to and dependent on language). It can also find en-
try through human exchange of experiences and information. God can
be apprehended from outside one’s own self, in the way God has com-
municated himself and continues to communicate in other people or
in events, in human deeds or in happenings (actions) that also involve
the non-human sphere of the created universe. When people exchange
these experiences of God, and allow their acknowledgment of a com-
mon conviction, common memory, and shared prayer to grow out of
that exchange, communities of faith arise, communities we call Church.
To this point we have spoken of the way in which God’s revela-
tion takes place, but not of its content. We have not addressed the ques-
tion of the kind of God whom God has communicated and is
communicating. The God who, according to Jewish and Christian faith,
has desired to begin a common history with human beings and to carry
that history to a successful end, is inclined in love to human beings
and intends all-encompassing goodness (shalom) for them. This God,
as the love that overflows itself, seeks to be close to people. When God
allows himself to be known in the intimate depths of a human per-
son, God’s very self is there. When God’s word and God’s glory
(shekinah) are present to human beings, they do not “‘represent’’ an
absent God; instead, they present the manner in which God is most
intimately present within the human person. ‘‘Human beings’ here
refers to everyone, since the saving will of God excludes no one from
divine love. But that does not yet fulfill the purpose of this God who
has come so close to us. God’s love is concrete, and has a concrete
goal. It is embedded in a humanity that is always resistant to it. In
the face of this resistance, it seeks to change humanity in such a radi-
cal way that, as a community of just, reconciled, peaceful people, it
is prepared to accept God’s unrestricted rule forever. According to the

3. “Interior intimis meis,’’ In Ps. 118, 22, 6 (German translation from E. Przywara).
8 Sacramental Theology

faith of Jews and Christians, God is continually at work in making him-

self available, creating a hearing and a response to himself, in order
to achieve God’s final purpose in creation. One of the true mysteries
of a religious view of history is the question of how far human beings
can succeed in preventing God (whom the believer regards as all-
powerful) from achieving his ends. It is, at any rate, a matter of ex-
perience that a great many people have refused to acknowledge God's
closeness and have refused to practice God’s revealed will. This indi-
cates a dependence of God on human beings, which.of course does
not mean that God lets himself be manipulated by humans. But the
ways in which God is present are always vulnerable: people can be
blind to them or misinterpret them. That changes nothing in the reality
of God’s presence, but it can hinder its effectiveness. We do not mean
to say that experiences of the absence of God are only subjective self-
deceptions. The faith demanded of Jews and Christians is not merely
a blindly optimistic trust in a ‘‘loving God.”’ It is subject to darknesses
that cannot be traced simply to human guilt, but it is called upon to
hold fast to God’s desire for a continuing, effective presence, and to
the demonstration of God’s power within history, if only at that his-
tory’s end.
Having stated these basic preconditions of faith* for an understand-
ing of the sacraments, we turn to a discussion of their more immedi-
ate theological presuppositions.

1.2 Image and Symbols of God

A more precise beginning point for a theology of sacraments is the

faith-conviction just mentioned, that God’s revelation, the knowledge
of God, God’s communication of the divine will and God’s presence
are given to us humans only through mediation, and are not immedi-
ate to us. But how shall we understand this mediation more precisely?
God's presence and will are communicated through persons and/or
events. This communication is not ‘‘news about,’’ ‘‘information,”’
“‘tidings’’—it is God’s very self. God is internal to human persons or
4. These are more fully discussed in various special areas of theology. There-
fore, for a deepening of understanding, one should turn to treatments of the
philosophy of religion and fundamental theology (especially the ways of knowing
God and of divine revelation), and dogmatic works on the theology of creation
and of grace.
 Theological Preconditions for Sacramental Theology 9

events in order to approach people in love, to change them, to impel

them to further action, to move them to advance together with crea-
tion on the way home to God. At the same time, human beings do
not cease to be human, and the events remain human accomplish-
ments: in both, God is present and active, without destroying their
uniqueness. That is the ‘sacramental structure”’ or ‘‘sacramental prin-
ciple’ that penetrates the whole history of God and humanity, and
that also shapes every individual human life, whether that person
knows it or not.
Since the word sacrament, from which the adjective sacramental is
derived, is a term appropriated by technical ecclesial language, and
since an explanation of it would indeed constitute an entire sacramen-
tal theology, we should ask at this point whether there are other con-
cepts with which we can more precisely explain ‘sacramental
structure’ or ‘’sacramental principle.’’
An honorable tradition of culture holds that an image or picture can
make the subject (especially a holy person, an angel, even God)
present. This has been a powerful conviction in Christianity, not only
because of the influence of Platonic philosophy (in which the subject,
the archetype, is present in the image), but because it is validated es-
pecially by the New Testament theology of the image. It finds even
today a concrete expression in the theology and veneration of icons
in the Eastern Churches. Incense and candles before the icon are
presented to the one or ones who are believed to be spiritually and
mystically present in the image. In Western terms we could certainly
call an icon of the Trinity or of Christ ‘‘sacramental’’: mysterious di-
vine presence in a visible form. If the possibility of understanding
‘‘sacrament’’ on the basis of the theology of images is not pursued
here, it is because the image can only be a limited and static part of
the sacrament, since it lacks the living element that is present either
in persons (including their interpretive and responsive speech) or in
events. Still, the pictorial or imaging element must always be men-
tioned in any discussion of the sacraments.
In the language of theology and of the Church, another concept
has been applied to the sacraments since ancient times: they are called
‘“symbols.’’5 ‘‘Symbol,’’ which originated in antiquity to describe a

5. This usage goes back to Augustine’s (d. 430) theory of signs. By way of Gratian’s
Decretum (ca. 1142) it reached the Council of Trent which, in 1551, described a sacra-
10 Sacramental Theology

sign of recognition, can, like the word ‘‘sign,”’ refer simply to an indi-
cator, in the sense of a signpost or signal for something distant or ab-
sent. In that sense it cannot describe the ‘‘sacramental structure.’’ Karl
Rahner (d. 1984) pointed out in a fundamental essay’ that in the strict
and proper sense a symbol is never a mere pointer, but is always a
‘‘real symbol.’’ This is based on the philosophical consideration that
all being” necessarily creates its own ‘‘expression,’’ in order to come
to itself, to discover its own being. That means that all being is neces-
sarily ‘‘symbolic.’’ A being realizes itself by expressing itself. To put
it another way: a symbol is effective because it brings a being to reality.
That is what is meant by ‘‘real symbol’’: a genuine symbol does what
it symbolizes. Rahner’s favorite example is the human body: the hu-
man being is only ‘‘real’’ in the fundamental symbol of his/her body;
the human spirit ‘‘expresses’’ and realizes itself in its bodiliness. Ex-
ternal bodiliness ‘‘means’’ the human spirit acting within it. A fur-
ther exploration of this line of thought about symbols belongs to
theological anthropology.* Anyone who has understood the essential
character of symbolism cannot play off the ‘‘merely symbolic’’ against
thes reali
If all human reality is symbolic reality, this is certainly true of the
relationship God has willed to establish with human beings, and that
decisively shapes human reality from beginning to end. If God desires
to be present to human beings, God’s presence must create a symbolic
expression for itself in order that it can be ‘‘real’’ for human beings,
since the complete disparity between God and the human makes an
unmediated presence and communication of God impossible. Thus in
this case ‘symbolic expression’’ means that God, in order to reach hu-
man beings, to be given or uttered to them, is present in a created
medium that retains its created uniqueness, but is transparent to an
interpretive recognition of God. A turning toward this medium does
not imply ordinary growth in knowledge or information; instead, it

ment as ‘‘symbolum rei sacrae’’ (DS 1639), translated by Neuner/Roos as “‘sensible

sign of a sacred reality [sinnfalliges Zeichen einer heiligen Sache]’’ (NR 571). See
also M. Schmidt, ed., Typus, Symbol, Allegorie bei den éstlichen Vatern und ihre Parallelen
im Mittelalter (Regensburg, 1982).
6. “On the Theology of Symbols’’ (1959), in Schriften zur Theologie IV, 275-311.
7. German: ‘‘alles Seiende.’’
8. Still valid is the essay by F. P. Fiorenza and J. B. Metz, ‘Der Mensch als Ein-
heit von Leib und Seele,’’ in MySal II (1967) 584-632.
 Theological Preconditions for Sacramental Theology 11

is a self-opening of the human person for God’s self-communication,

an opening that is not the autonomous work of the human person,
but is caused by the prevenient grace of God. Thus it is in the turn
to this medium that the person becomes conscious of the most inti-
mate nearness of God; it is here that revelation occurs.
A theology that pursues these ideas systematically will conclude
that the whole reality we humans encounter is imbued with symbolic
or sacramental possibilities. The life that is given to us, the people we
encounter, the beloved one, the companions who live in solidarity with
us, our work and its products, those events in life that really touch
and shake us (and above all, death itself), experiences of liberation,
justice, and reconciliation, true works of art, God’s creation that makes
up the world with us and around us: all these can be so transparent
to God that they reveal God’s true presence. In this way, our whole
life can be understood as the fundamental sacrament,? to the extent
that our understanding of life and our interpretations take account of
this transparency and do not remain on the banal surface of things.
In terms of the history of theology, this idea was always present
from the time Israel began to reflect on God’s self-revelation. In the
course of the Reformation there arose a great degree of doubt about
whether creation and human life could be understood sacramentally
in this way. If human beings are fundamentally deformed, of them-
selves they can only obscure God even more. It would seem that only
God’s own word (but how can we recognize it as God’s?) and the signs
given uniquely by God can provide security. Jews and Catholics, in
contrast, have insisted on the transparency of creation—until Ausch-
witz. This word representative of the radical threat to humanity and
creation shows how much sacramental thinking is dependent on faith,
a faith that is endangered by the deepest darkness. It lives out of
memory and out of hope for the fulfillment of the promises of God.

9. On this, see A. Schmied, Perspektiven (see Bibliography 1), section VI:

‘‘Sakramente und ‘Gottesdienst des Lebens.’ ’’ The approaches in L. Boff’s Kleinen
Sakramentenlehre go more deeply into these reflections. This recognition is key to
insights into the types of faith and the possibilities for salvation of non-Christian
people, as discussed by K. Rahner under the term ‘‘anonymous Christianity.” We
cannot discuss this subject further at this point. Cf. E. Klinger, ed., Christentum
innerhalb und auperhalb der Kirche (Freiburg: 1976); N. Schwerdtfeger, Gnade und
Welt. Zum Grundgefiige von Karl Rahners Theorie der ‘anonymen Christen’ (Freiburg:
1982).
12 Sacramental Theology

1.3. The ‘Sacramental Principle’ in Jewish-Christian Tradition

The common life of faith communities is based on agreement on

experiences of God that are acknowledged by the community as
authentic and binding. Since human experiences of God always have
a sacramental structure, it follows that there are two basic kinds of
sacraments or symbols: those that tend to have only individual validity
and are determined by the particular situation, and can happen to any-
one at all times; and those that are recognized within a faith tradition
as the special places or events in which the presence of God is to be
found. We will speak first of this second kind.
In the Jewish and Christian tradition, a privileged place in which
God is present is called: the human being. ‘And God said: let us make
humankind in our image, according to our likeness. . . So God created
humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them, male
and female he created them’’ (Gen 1:26-27, New RSV). The way in
which Genesis (here the Priestly writer) speaks of human beings as
the image of God has a threefold meaning. The second and third parts
have to do witli the protection and careful upbuilding of creation. But
the first element is explained by Erich Zenger in this way:
From the meaning of the Hebrew word saelaem, human beings are
to be a kind of living picture or statue of God in the world. In the mind
of the ancient Orient and early Egypt, an image of a god represents the
god who is depicted and is the vehicle of the god’s power. It is, so to
speak, the place from which the divinity extends its effectiveness. The
image of the god signalizes the where and how of the divine life and
activity. Images of the gods were therefore treated as though they were
living things. They are like a body into which the living god enters, in
order to be present and active within the world through that body.
Against this background of interpretation, the human beings, as living
images and statues of the creator God, are to be the media of the power
of divine life on earth.’

10. E. Zenger, ‘‘Das Geheimnis der Sch6pfung als ethische Vor-Gabe an Juden
und Christen,’’ Damit die Erde menschlich bleibt, eds. W. Breuning and H. Heinz
(Freiburg: 1985) 36-60, at p. 44. The more precise exegetical foundation is in
E. Zenger, Gottes Bogen in den Wolken. Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie
der priesterschriftlichen Urgeschichte (Stuttgart: 1983) 84-96 (with discussion of other
translations and interpretations). On page 87 of that book, Zenger refers to E. Otto:
“It thus makes no sense to seek a special characteristic in the human beings that
makes them the image of God. The human being as such is that image. Moreover,
if the meaning of the Egyptian attribution of power to images is that the king as
 Theological Preconditions for Sacramental Theology 13

This notion of the human being makes clear why, according to the
will of the creator God, it is possible to encounter God in encounter-
ing other human beings, to love God in loving other humans, and to
honor God in honoring other human persons. Here the sacramental
principle emerges: the representation of God does not mean the sub-
stitution for one who is absent (or, still more, a replacement), but in-
dicates the real, and not only the imaginary or the intellectual, making
present of the one who in and of himself cannot be visible in our hu-
man dimension. It is also clear how much sacrament/symbol can be
threatened by misunderstanding and misuse. It can happen that people
are not honored and respected as the images of God who make God
present, but are disgraced and reviled; they can also dishonor them-
selves and thus make their symbolic nature a lie.
Hans Urs von Balthasar (b. 1905) developed an essential aspect of
this Jewish and Christian idea of the human being as sacrament/sym-
bol in his reflections on the human being as word of God:" since the
human person has received from God an essence that finds an expres-
sion of itself through speech, human beings themselves are capable
of becoming the word of God. This quality of the human essence is
fully realized in the incarnation of the Word of God, in whom at the
same time a human response to God’s word is accomplished.
The faith statement concerning human beings as image/sacrament
of God certainly does not rest on the Genesis passage alone, though
this has been highly influential in the tradition. It is found throughout
the entire Jewish and Christian idea of the human,” an idea that has
remained effective until the present day. From the Christian point of
view it is found, for example, in Karl Rahner’s thesis of the unity of
human love and the love of God.* Among Jews, it is the basis both

‘image’ is the representative of God on earth, then the divinity appears where
the king appears. Israel’s tradition regarding the human being corresponds to this:
where the human being is, there is God.’’
11. H. U. von Balthasar, ‘“Gott redet als Mensch,”’ in his Verbum Caro (Einsiedeln:
1960) 73-99.
12. Translator’s note: in light of current discussion on the existence or non-
existence of a cultural synthesis that can accurately be described as ‘’Jewish/Chris-
tian’’ or ‘‘Judaeo-Christian,’’ I have consistently rendered this expression in the
text as ‘Jewish and Christian.’’
13. This is extensively described, with its sources and implications, in A. Tafferner,
Die Einheit von Gottes- und Nachstenliebe in der Theologie Karl Rahners (Diss. Liz.,
Munich: 1986), with bibliography.
14 Sacramental Theology

of the dialogical philosophy of Martin Buber and of Emmanuel Lévinas’

reflections on the Other as the inviting access to transcendence. Against
the background of the Old Testament’s sensibility toward strangers,
widows, and orphans, Lévinas understands the experience of God as
4
a ‘‘search for [divine] traces in the countenance of the other.’’
The presence of God is also realized, according to the ‘’sacramen-
tal principle,’”’ in historical events and dimensions. The best event that
can be cited from the Jewish tradition is the Exodus of the people from
their slavery in Egypt.’> Here we can clearly recognize the difference
between a banal and superficial understanding and an interpretation
in faith that looks beneath the surface. What appears to a hasty glance
as the fortunate escape of a tiny group of slaves through the border
defenses is in reality a breaking out and growing beyond the human
dimension that cannot be explained on the basis of human strength
alone, combined with the recognition that God’s will aims at justice
and freedom. God wishes to participate in the festive memorial of lib-
eration, ‘‘so that the whole nation may see the glory of the Exodus God
who is present in its midst, and welcome this God in praise and
gratitude.’’16
Israel, as people of God, is, from more than one point of view, a
historical, sacramental/symbolic entity. When the people are gathered
to a festal celebration, when they hold services of atonement and
thanksgiving at the sanctuary, the God who calls together the liberated
community appears in glory.”
This sacramentality is valid in the first instance for Israel itself. But
Israel is called and assembled for the sake of the other nations as well.
In the common festival ‘‘of free human beings’ (and to speak in more
modern terms, we should say ‘‘free and equal’’) God’s command is
fulfilled, ‘‘by the example of their lives to show what, in the last analy-
sis, are the goal and meaning of the created universe given by the
creator God to all peoples.’’®

14. Cf. J. Becker, Im Angesicht des Anderen—Gott erfahren (Frankfurt: 1981).

15. E. Zenger, Das Buch Exodus 2d ed. (Diisseldorf, 1982): Concilium 23 (1987) no. 1.
16. E. Zenger, Das Geheimnis der Schdpfung, 54.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
 Theological Preconditions for Sacramental Theology 15

1.4 Christian Theology, ‘‘Old Testament Sacraments,’’ and

“‘Natural Sacraments”’

The preceding discussion of the ‘‘sacramental structure’’ has em-

ployed the words sacramental and sacrament in a broad, not specifically
theological sense. Classical theology of the sacraments also recognized,
in the history of God with humanity before Jesus Christ, the existence
of sacraments in the narrower sense and called them ‘‘natural sacra-
ments’’ or ‘‘Old Testament sacraments.’’ In identifying sacraments in
Israel before Jesus Christ, Christian theology concentrated narrowly
on institutionalized rites and objects. Special attention was given to
circumcision as a mark of the covenant and sign of salvation. Thomas
Aquinas (d. 1274) mentions a great number of ‘Old Testament sacra-
ments,’’!? including especially the Paschal lamb. Circumcision and the
Paschal lamb, the signs of salvation that played a role in the life of Jesus
the Jew, must obviously be acknowledged. In a process of thought that
began as early as Paul and his disciples, the sacraments of the old
covenant were regarded as true signs of divine favor which, however,
had lost their effectiveness when the new covenant came into force
(Col 2:11). In the eyes of Christians, they were only ‘’shadows”’ of good
things to come (Heb 10:1). This corresponds to a concept of salvation
history that is still widely held, namely that the old covenant was dis-
solved by the new, and that the Church as the new Israel had replaced
the old. This took no account of the fact that God’s gracious promises
and call could not be revoked (Rom 11:29), and that God had never
abrogated either the covenant with the Jews or that with the people
before Israel (the Noachic covenant). It is to be hoped that Christian
theology will arrive at a more nuanced concept. A theology of incar-
nation based on the will of God to enter into God’s own creation and,
in the human Jesus of Nazareth, both to pledge God’s own self to hu-
manity and to effect the acceptance of that pledge, can certainly make
clear that everything is to be understood in relationship to Jesus Christ
(Col 1:15ff.). A ‘‘typological’’ interpretation of the Bible as we see it
developing within the New Testament, which, for example, sees Moses
or the Paschal lamb as a ‘‘type’’ (anticipatory image) of Jesus Christ,
must not devalue the type: it can accept it in its unique validity. Paul's

19. Cf. K. Rahner, ‘‘Sakramente, alttestamentliche,’”’ in LThK IX, 239-240.

16 Sacramental Theology

statement ‘that our ancestors . . . all drank the same supernatural

drink, for they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them,
and the Rock was Christ’’ (1 Cor 10:1-4) has no necessary connection
with the subsequent statement that ‘with most of them God was not
pleased.”’
Under the concept of ‘natural sacraments,’’ sacramental theology
discusses the question whether there were and are (a) in human his-
tory before the Jewish-Christian revelation or (b) in non-Christian, non-
Jewish humanity up to the present day symbols—primarily cultic ones—
of divine presence and activity (“embodiments of the general saving
will of God,’’ as Otto Semmelroth wrote).”° If, as here, we are speak-
ing in a broader and not institutionally fixed sense of sacraments/sym-
bols, an affirmative answer must of course be given to both questions.
Undoubtedly there are events in individual and community life that
disturb and fascinate us (such things as being born, common meals,
sexuality, death) and therefore incline people to surround them with
rites, and in this way to pay attention to the deeper dimensions of their
being and to give heed to the presence of God. In the face of the funda-
mental (even though often endangered or obscured) symbolism of hu-
man life and human history it is probably superfluous to seek for legally
definable divine institution or particular, individual symbols in con-
nection with this subject. Beginning with the supposition that God’s
will to save is directed to all human beings, and that God alone knows
all God’s effective means of salvation, Christian faith must take ac-
count of God’s saving presence in all places and at all times, without
needing to pass a nervous judgment on non-Christian symbols.

1.5 Christological, Pneumatological, and Trinitarian Presuppositions

Among the necessary preconditions for understanding sacramen-

tal theology, the faith conviction that in Jesus of Nazareth, God’s self-
communication to human beings has occurred in an ultimate and
unique fashion is essential. The biblical witnesses to the ‘‘historical
Jesus’’ are not sufficient. Their ‘‘implicit Christology’’ is, of course,
indispensable for sacramental theology. That Jesus knew himself to

20. Cf. O. Semmelroth, ‘“Natursakramente,”’ in LThK VII, 829-830. On the clas-

sical theology of the pre-Christian sacraments, see J. Finkenzeller I, 66-68
(preScholastic), 90-93, 99-100 (early Scholasticism), 148-157 (high Scholasticism).
 Theological Preconditions for Sacramental Theology 17

be sent by God; that he constantly and fully turned to God in prayer

and action; that his praxis of helping, liberating, and reconciling hu-
man beings was inextricably bound up with this relationship to God;
that Jesus knew himself to be the authentic revealer of God’s will; that
he addressed himself to human senses and opened them to a deeper
dimension; that, despite his prophetic criticisms of the cult, he had
a positive relationship to the symbolic actions of his people: these
characteristic features of the person and work of Jesus are basic to
sacramental theology. But they could only arise from meditation in faith
on the Easter events. From that meditation grew”! the thematic Christo-
logical and soteriological interpretation of the person and work of Jesus,
leading ultimately to the dogma of Chalcedon, the statement of the
unity of divinity and humanity, without separation or mixture, in Jesus
of Nazareth. The resurrection of Jesus shed new light on his life and
death. It became clear—in faith—that this life was and is the transpar-
ent shape and form of the presence and activity of God. The possibility
of being ‘’sacrament,’’ which in principle applies to every human be-
ing, a possibility so often obscured and blocked, was realized to its
ultimate here, in this person who made no resistance to God, who was
sinless because he was completely possessed by God.
In Jesus, as seen in the light of Christological dogma, it is evident
how the God who comes to us in the greatest intimacy, who desires
to communicate God’s very self—God in that which can be expressed
about God, i.e., God as ‘‘Logos’’—needed a created form, a human
expression, in order to be recognizable to human beings. In Jesus we
can recognize how the most intimate nearness of God does not reduce
or destroy the uniqueness and autonomy of our createdness, but in-
stead liberates it to be itself. According to Christological dogma, the
unseparated and unmixed unity of divinity and humanity penetrates
the whole life of Jesus from its earliest beginnings to its fulfillment in
God. That means that not only the “‘official’’ high points of this life
(birth and death) are realization and expression of the presence of God,
God’s love and God’s salvation, but that God is also ‘expressed’ in
the tiniest and most humdrum parts of life. From this follow two im-
portant preconditions for sacramental theology. First, a separation of
reality into sacred and profane realms is impossible within Christian
faith. A sacred realm (i.e., related to the ‘‘sacrum,”’ the ‘‘holy’’) would

21. Cf. H. Vorgrimler, Theologische Gotteslehre (see n. 1) 62-68.

18 Sacramental Theology

absorb people and things that are removed from the ‘‘profane’’ and
are ordered exclusively to God, reserved to God, and close to God
alone. In contrast, the incarnation of God in Jesus of N azareth affirms
that the realm in which God comes to human beings, communicating
God’s own self and remaining with them, is not removed from the
world, no matter how depraved that world may seem to us to be. Chris-
tian separation from the evil in this world thus does not express itself
in the creation of a sacred space, and the religious realization of Chris-
tianity cannot consist in sacred actions. The second point is that even
the unique presence of God in Jesus, in order to be recognized as such,
required the ‘‘eyes of faith’’ and interpretation, it was not evident in
and of itself and it was only accepted where people did not close them-
selves against the insight offered by God. Thus God's revelation, even
in Jesus, does not exclude a genuine hiddenness of God, but includes
it. God’s nearness is not only concealed in the modest humility of a
human life (creaturely disguise), but is obscured also in the terrible
death of the cross (culpable disguise). The ‘‘message about the cross’’
(1 Cor 1:18-30) is an abiding guide for sacramental theology.
Among the preconditions in faith for an understanding of the sacra-
ments is the conviction that God did not abandon to death this Jesus
whom God had sent, but accepted him into the divine dimension. Ac-
cording to the witnesses of faith, God accomplished the rescue of all
that is human and mortal in Jesus through the divine Spirit, who is
able to give to all that is earthly and passing away a new, imperishable
being. The humanity, the bodiliness of Jesus is, from this point on,
filled and enlivened by the Spirit; it is spiritual (pneumatic) and thus
freed from the limitations of time and space.
The same divine Spirit is, after Jesus’ passage to God, the way in
which God remains present to human beings, communicating God,
making Jesus present to them and animating them to enter into the
mission of Jesus.?? The Spirit gives them—us—the ability to understand
the life and work of Jesus within the divine mystery and thus to under-
stand its deeper dimensions, which must remain concealed from those
who are mere historians. What the Church is in its inmost being, what
makes the sacraments to be what they are, simply cannot be under-
stood apart from the divine Spirit. The Spirit not only effects a per-

22. On this point, see the pneumatologies in Y. Congar, Der Heilige Geist (Freiburg:
1982), and C. Schiitz, Einfiihrung in die Pneumatologie (Darmstadt: 1985).
 Theological Preconditions for Sacramental Theology 19

sonal, individual understanding of Jesus and his mission, but also

prepares believers to receive Jesus from the Church, whose insights
into Jesus’ reality are always more comprehensive than any private
image of him. That has very concrete consequences for our approach
to the New Testament in the matter of Church and sacraments; it in-
cludes the willingness to accept the ongoing, Spirit-driven unity of the
exalted Jesus with the Church that we call the ‘“body of Christ’; it
means accepting as authentic the theological developments that go be-
yond the Synoptics and are connected with the names of Paul and John;
it also leads us to acknowledge as legitimate work of the Spirit the
sacramental testimonies in the New Testament that, as research has
revealed, are certainly community creations from the early days of the
Church. It is the Spirit of God who, as animator of the Church, drives
it forward in history; it is this Spirit who seeks to teach the Church
the right way of witnessing to its faith, wishing to preserve it from
stagnation and from looking only backward; and it is this Spirit who
seeks to illuminate the obscuring of its presence caused by human guilt.
Acknowledging the Spirit therefore requires that we accept the neces-
sity of changes and reforms, in the sacramental realm as well.
The Spirit keeps humanity in motion—the humanity that from the
very beginning is and has been Church,” and the institutionally con-
stituted Church that has grown from Israel, its vanguard**—keeps it
on the way that began in the eternal, incomprehensible mystery of God
and will find its end there as well. Trinitarian theology calls this di-
vine ground of all that is and will be by the name with which Jesus
addressed God: ‘‘Father.’’ This is the self-overflowing love from whom
proceeded, in different ways, Word, Spirit, and humanity, in order
that creation and humanity may be prepared as the realm of God's
glory. Sacramental theology, concentrating on the field of symbols,
considers the twofold direction of this movement, from God to hu-
manity in the sending of the Son and the Spirit, and from humanity,
together with the Son and the Spirit, to the glory of God the Father.

23. Still important on this subject: Y. Congar, ‘Ecclesia ab Abel,’’ Abhandlungen

iiber Theologie und Kirche, ed. R. Reding (Diisseldorf: 1952) 79-108.
24. Cf. J. Daniélou and H. Vorgrimler, eds., Sentire Ecclesiam. Festschrift for Hugo
Rahner (Freiburg: 1961).
 2

Determining the Place of the Sacraments

2.1 The Sacraments as the Church’s Liturgy

Now it is possible to determine the more precise theological place

of the sacraments: the sacraments are an essential part of the Church’s
liturgy. This needs some further explanation.
In the course of the renewal of reflection on the Church that has
occurred during this century, there have been repeated attempts to
summarize the Church’s tasks in a few significant concepts. Certainly,
a formula like this has achieved a certain ecumenical consensus: the
Church seeks to follow Jesus through divine worship, proclamation,
service to others and to society! or, in other words, leitourgia, martyria,
diakonia. Such a description of the fundamental tasks of the Church
is certainly less problematic than Vatican Council II’s reference to the
derivative concepts of the offices of priest, teacher, and shepherd (much
in need of clarification), which belong to Jesus Christ and to the Church
(the hierarchy and all other members) as a whole.? But there is always

1. See H. Haring, ‘’Kirche/Ekklesiologie,’’ NHthG II (1984) 310. The article offers

a good systematic overview (309-323) of the problems of ecclesiology.
2. Cf. L. Schick, Das dreifache Amt Christi und der Kirche (Frankfurt and Bern: 1982).
See also n. 11 below.

20
 Determining the Place of the Sacraments 21

a temptation to give a one-sided emphasis to one of these tasks, namely

the liturgy, and to devalue the other two by comparison. If the Church
is not a purely human, sociologically definable grouping, but the body
of Christ that lives only with and from its head, so that all successful
actions of the Church are, and necessarily must be, the result of the
initiative and aid of the divine Spirit, it must remain for God to decide
which of the concrete tasks of the Church is preeminent. The liturgy,
of which the sacraments are an essential component, cannot be
regarded from the outset as the highest form of the Church’s realiza-
tion. That was always clear to the great theologians: God has not
“‘chained’’ divine grace to the sacraments.?
These considerations should be kept in mind when we ask what
liturgy really is, or how to define it. Emil Joseph Lengeling (1916-1986),
summarizing official Catholic tradition, formulated it as follows: ‘‘Lit-
urgy is the actualization of the new covenant, carried out by the church
community through Christ, the mediator between God and humanity,
in the Holy Spirit, under effective signs and according to proper
order.’’4 But a problem emerges here: ‘‘covenant”’ is a designation for
the relationship to God that can be used only with qualifications;> in
employing the notion of a ‘‘new covenant’’ we should be careful that
it is not misused so as to devalue the ‘’old covenant;,’’ the proper rela-
tionship, willed by God, is also realized in the Church through ‘’mar-
tyria’’ and ‘‘diakonia.’’ These, too, are ““sacramental’’ in a wider sense
to the extent that they are tangible and visible evidence of God’s real
presence. With these exceptions, the definition is well adapted to
sacramental theology. In what follows, the expressions of Vatican
Council II will always form part of the basis of our discussion. This
council was not only heir to the liturgical movement of this century,
but itself developed a notable liturgical theology.®
3. Aquinas, S. th. III, q. 64, ad 7c.
4. NHthG III (1985) 29. Lengeling’s whole article, ‘’Liturgie/Liturgiewissenschaft”’
(26-53) is very informative.
5. Old Testament research has shown that in the final redaction of Deuteronomy
the notion that God is related to his people Israel by means of a kind of contract
between lord and vassal was abandoned: YHWH is a faithful God whose indescrib-
able fidelity is not connected with human fulfillment of a contract. The concept
of covenant has a juristic coloring and does not, of itself, include the ideas of love
and graciousness.
6. Cf. F. Eisenbach, Die Gegenwart Jesu Christi im Gottesdienst. Systematische Stu-
dien zur Liturgiekonstitution des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils (Mainz: 1982).
22 Sacramental Theology

Of essential importance is the insight, consequent on the theology

of grace that has been presupposed, that liturgy is made possible and
empowered by God; it is God who incorporates those who entrust
themselves to God in the liturgy into the great homeward movement
to God. It is true that liturgists like to speak of two aspects or compo-
nents of liturgy,” and they are right to do so. The ‘’descending” or
‘“katabatic’’ aspect refers to God’s sanctifying ‘‘descent”’ in the Holy
Spirit; the ‘‘ascending”’ or ‘‘anabatic’’ aspect describes the glorifying
of God the Father, which is worship or cult in the narrower sense. But
the two components should not be thought of as if only the first were
the work of God, and the second purely human activity. And God’s
“‘coming’’ may of course not be interpreted to mean that God had not
been present ‘‘before.’’” Human beings are only able to give praise to
God through the divine Spirit who dwells within them (Rom 8:26; 5:5).
In this connection we should keep in mind that Jesus Christ and the
Church may never be identified with one another (contrary to the com-
mon 19th-century notion that the Church is “the continuation of
Christ’s life’’ on.earth), but that there is one and the same divine Spirit
in the head and members of the body of Christ.®
The ‘‘actualization of the new covenant”’ in the definition of liturgy
refers to the covenant terminology in the Last Supper accounts (espe-
cially 1 Cor 11:25; Luke 22:20). The ‘‘new covenant’’ means the whole
of the saving actions of Jesus Christ, his work of redemption (to em-
ploy the common theological shorthand for that which Jesus was and
did for us). In the liturgical constitution of Vatican II the ‘‘work of
redemption’”’ (SC 2; 5) is also called ‘’work of salvation’’ (SC 6) or ‘“mys-
tery of Christ’’ (SC 35; 102). It encompasses his whole life until his
coming at the parousia (SC 102), with its highpoint the ‘“paschal mys-
tery’’ (SC 5). By “‘actualization of the new covenant,’’ the definition
of liturgy, which, as we have said, incorporates a whole ecclesial tra-
dition, means the salvific making-present of this whole reality of the
saving works of Jesus. But since those works are not separable from
the person of Jesus, and since faith presumes that Jesus and his sav-
ing works are living in God’s presence, and that neither, through any

7. E. J. Lengeling, (see n. 4 above) 30ff. Vatican Council II calls these two com-
ponents “‘sanctification’’ and ‘‘glorification’’ (SC 7).
8. H. Mihlen, Una mystica persona 3d ed. (Munich and Paderborn: 1966) 359-598
(on the pneumatic ecclesiology of Vatican II).
 Determining the Place of the Sacraments 23

human power, can be truly made present or brought into an existen-

tial moment of time, it is Jesus Christ himself who creates this pres-
ence in the Holy Spirit (as the definition says: ‘carried out. . . through
Christ. . . in the Holy Spirit’’). This brings up an ancient topic: espe-
cially with reference to the Eucharist, there has existed for many cen-
turies a question about how a past event can be really present, and
how the presence of Jesus Christ can be more precisely understood.’
For our subject, sacramental theology, it is important to understand
at this point who, in the conviction of the Catholic Church and its the-
ology, is the subject (the active agent) of the liturgy and how the pres-
ence of Jesus Christ in the liturgy should be regarded.

2.2 The Subject of the Church’s Liturgy

The theological position of Vatican II on the subject of liturgy can

be summarized as follows: Jesus Christ is not simply an object of
memory, or a constant basis or origin of the liturgy; Jesus Christ is,
rather, the present, really active subject of all liturgical actions that are
relevant to the salvation of human beings. He thus joins to himself
the Church, which is only a secondary subject of the liturgy, since it
is always dependent upon and turned toward him.
That Jesus Christ is the primary subject of the liturgy, its active agent
and principal actor, is an idea that may be traced to the theology of
the Fathers of the Church and their meditation on the sacramental texts
of Paul, John, and particularly the Letter to the Hebrews; Augustine
deserves particular mention. The basis of these reflections is, of course,
the faith conviction that Jesus was raised from the dead, exalted, and
lives forever with God, and that he wills to act in order to fulfill his
task of gathering all humanity and bringing it to the Father.
Dependent on Jesus Christ, and not acting on its own, the Church
is the secondary subject of the liturgy. Vatican Council II made a num-

9.The topic is of great ecumenical importance. The most promising perspectives

rest on reflections initiated by Odo Casel, which have been repeatedly taken up
and clarified, and that have also attracted considerable respect among Lutherans
and others. Cf. F. Eisenbach (n. 6 above); A. Schilson, Theologie als Sakramenten-
theologie. Die Mysterientheologie Odo Casels (Mainz: 1982). See also 8.5 below.
10. Iam dependent here, though with my own emphases, on F. Eisenbach (see
n. 6 above), 217-218. The principal texts are SC 7 and 47.
24 Sacramental Theology

ber of efforts to strengthen awareness of the fact that all believers are
the Church. Among these are the emphases on the people of God (LG
9-16) as the primary body that includes clerics and laity, and the state-
ments about the common priesthood of all believers (SC 14; 48; LG 9;
10; 26; 34). The fact that the council regarded it as necessary, at the
same time, to give repeated emphasis to hierarchical distinctions and
competencies does not alter the fundamental concept that all mem-
bers of the Church are active agents of the liturgy.”
This kind of talk about ‘‘the Church’’ can seem:too abstract. Who,
concretely, is the Church that, in its service to Jesus Christ, is the secon-
dary agent of the liturgy? According to a constant teaching witnessed
by many of the Fathers of the Church and reappropriated by Vatican
II, the Church in its concreteness is the assembled community, no mat-
ter how small. The concrete secondary subject of the liturgy is the com-
munity assembled for worship. What Church is and what its core is
(its essence, its mystery) relative to human salvation is both realized
in the liturgical assembly, even the tiniest one, and thereby proclaimed
as such to the outside world. And it is precisely in this that Jesus Christ
is made present.’

2.3 The Presence of Jesus Christ in the Liturgy

The praxis of the liturgy, and thus of the sacraments, is based on

the faith conviction that Jesus, in whom divinity and humanity were
and are united, desires to be and is able to be really present, as the
living and exalted one, to those who believe in him and have oriented
their lives to him. This faith conviction, in turn, is founded on ex-
periences of the presence of Jesus risen from the dead: ‘Where two

11. Cf. H. Vorgrimler, ‘’Liturgie als Thema der Dogmatik,’’ in K. Richter, ed.,
Liturgie—ein vergessenes Thema der Theologie? (Freiburg: 1986) 113-127, especially
125ff., with cautions against a liturgy exclusively ‘from above.’’
12. K. Rahner, ‘Uber die Gigenwart Christi in der Diasporagemeinde nach der
Lehre des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils,’’ Schriften VIII 409-425. A genuine ac-
tion of the Church takes place when members of the Church, empowered and sup-
ported only by the grace of God, address their prayer to God. As K. Rahner has
shown (despite the objections of J. Pascher), no authorization from ecclesial authori-
ties is necessary for a prayer ‘‘in the name of the Church.”’ On this, see F. Eisen-
bach (n. 6 above), 273-274. The new Code of Canon Law of 1983 has, accordingly,
abandoned the distinction between private and church blessings; see 13 below.
 Determining the Place of the Sacraments 25

or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them’’ (Matt

18:20).
The idea of the presence of God in the assembled community is
part of the fund of convictions common to Judaism and Christianity.
The assembly of Israel (gahal, which appears in the Greek translation
of the Old Testament as ecclesia, those who are called out Church)
lives consciously in the presence of God. As the mysterious, glory-
filled shekinah, God dwells with or in human beings. ‘‘When two sit
together and words of Torah are between them, the shekinah abides
with them,”’ says the Mishnah (Sayings of the Fathers III 2). That the
assembled community causes the presence of God is not the Christian
conception of divine worship, nor is it the Catholic notion of liturgy.
The community as (dependent) subject of the liturgy is oriented, in
faith, hope, and love, to the coming of God and can only pray for that
coming. This prayer trusts in the promises of the Risen One.
But what does ‘‘presence’’ mean in this connection? Karl Rahner
developed the idea’? that presence, for human beings, is always medi-
ated presence. It always requires a ‘‘medium’’ that is humanly percep-
tible. This is true also of the presence of God as soon as this presence,
passing beyond its silent, abiding being-there within creation, makes
a breakthrough within the human heart, and reaches the level of human
consciousness. From a theological point of view there is only one pres-
ence of God, namely, God’s self-communication to what is not God.
But this presence is experienced and consciously perceived in differ-
ent types of presence, in which God’s presence as grace affects human
beings dynamically. This effect may always have different levels of in-
tensity. The goal, however, is always the same: genuine, grace-filled,
personal communication between human beings and God.
The foregoing thoughts on the mediated presence of God require
further precision with regard to the liturgy. In terms of Trinitarian the-
ology we may say that the presence of God promised in the liturgical
assembly is not simply that eternal, ineffable divine mystery that Jesus
addressed as his Father and ours. It would be wrong to think that the
liturgy makes God the Father present. Instead, it is we (also) who in
and by means of the liturgy are made present to God the Father, are
brought before his face: through his Son Jesus in the Holy Spirit. The

13. K. Rahner, ‘Die Gegenwart des Herrn in der christlichen Kultgemeinde,’’

Schriften VIII, 395-408.
26 Sacramental Theology

divine Spirit who is the common possession of Jesus and of the com-
munity is, in the liturgy, the medium of the presence of Jesus,"* his
person and the whole of his life and fate. The precise ways in which
this medium—the Spirit of God—is active in the liturgy, bringing about
the presence of Jesus in his person and actions, are the symbolic ac-
tions of the church (or ‘effective signs’’—preeminently the sacra-
ments—as the definition of liturgy cited above expresses it), in which
Jesus is the real actor, the Word whose voice is heard when it is
proclaimed, read or meditated as the word of God, as also in the prayer
and song of the assembled community (SC 7).
It should be clear from what has been said that God’s becoming
present through Jesus in the Holy Spirit is effected through the initia-
tive of the divine Spirit, and that initiative is also the author of the
faith of the Church, which is celebrating the liturgy. But this making-
present of God reaches its goal only when the means of mediation,
especially the liturgy, are consciously and emotionally brought into
awareness. Self-surrender to the liturgy, whose basis and bearer is al-
ways Jesus Christ, means in every case (and thus in every sacrament)
remembering Jesus. Participation in the liturgy is a celebration of the
memory of Jesus, and its intensity depends on the Jesus-mysticism of
the human being who is taking part. That participation is always a self-
surrender to the will of God revealed in Jesus, and thus its intensity
is also measured by one’s willingness to engage in a praxis of life that
accords with that of Jesus.

14. Ibid., 398.

 3
The Sacramental Economy of Salvation

‘Sacramental thinking’ is a way of understanding. The word

“sacramental’’ in this sentence is broadly conceived. It refers to the
faith experience that tells us that a reality perceptible to the senses,
an external object or event, is ‘‘more than,”’ ‘deeper than’’ the sur-
face reveals at first glance. The word ‘’sacramental’’ was consciously
chosen, in reference to a point of view proper to Christian faith, be-
cause the deeper, interior reality that makes use of the external as its
mediator is the reality of the transcendent God. The word ‘‘sacramen-
tal’’ is more precise in this context than the word “‘symbolic,”” since
everything sacramental is symbolic (in the sense of real symbols), but
not everything symbolic is sacramental, since not every (real) symbol
mediates the presence of God.
In a specifically Catholic conception, the history of God with hu-
manity has a sacramental structure, in the sense that the movement
proceeding from God and, through the whole course of human history,
returning home to God, is continually taking on more precise sacramen-
tal characteristics. For our understanding of faith, ‘‘more precise’’ here
means that these sacramental characteristics do not rest merely on hu-
or
28 Sacramental Theology

man understanding and human interpretation, but are connected with

the express promise and effective guarantee of God.
It is true that this point of view goes back to the concept of God’s
Christocentric historical saving activity, founded on New Testament
theology and most pregnantly expressed in the Symbolum, the creed.
This historical saving activity of God, the oikonomia, certainly takes place
in a theo-logical framework: it originates in the overflowing love of
the Father and, in glorifying him, leads back to him, in order that he
may be “‘all in all’’ (1 Cor 15:28). ‘‘In between,’’ however, everything
is concentrated on the historical expression of that in God which can
be expressed, the radical self-communication of God to what is not
God, the coming of God in human flesh. ‘‘The whole oikonomia is
Christ-event. It is not that Christ communicates himself to the Spirit,
but that the whole belongs to him (as objective-historical work, de-
scribed in the Symbolum), and thus it all belongs to the Spirit, which
is of Christ—as that which he is to make his own.’’!
The event that begins with creation is Christ-event and thus
sacramental in a non-institutional sense. On the other hand, the tak-
ing possession of creation that proceeds from the Spirit of Jesus Christ
is sacramental in an institutional sense. This corresponds to a simple
division of the sacramental economy of salvation: creation and elec-
tion as sacrament—Jesus Christ as primordial sacrament—Church as
fundamental sacrament—the individual sacraments as actualizing ful-
fillments of the fundamental sacrament.

3.1 Creation and Election as Sacrament

Our faith in creation tells us that the eternal and uncreated God,
in sovereign freedom, brings into existence that which is utterly differ-
ent and, by affirming it, keeps it in being. God's relationship to hu-
man beings, which is a fixed component of Jewish and Christian faith,
is something different from what is affirmed in this brief description

1. A. Grillmeier, ‘’Christologie,’’ in LThK II, 1156-1166, at 1161. The whole ar-

ticle is very enlightening for the relationship between theologia and oikonomia in
Christian tradition. See also the good overview of the rediscovery of and research
on the sacramental economy of salvation in the twentieth century by C. E. O’Neill
in Bilanz der Theologie im 20. Jahrhundert III, eds. H. Vorgrimler and R. Vander Gucht
(Freiburg: 1970), 252-261.
 The Sacramental Economy of Salvation 29

of creation faith. First of all: God wishes to be present to the conscious-

ness of human beings, to come to an understanding with them, to open
up to them the meaning and goal of their lives. This happens in that
God reveals Godself, by means of created reality, as one who is Father,
one who is interested in human beings. Humans cannot be aware of
this utterly different God, this spiritual reality living in a different
dimension, except by some sensible mediation. When these created
realities are transparent to God, and when human beings give a reli-
gious interpretation to their experiences of those realities, a fundamen-
tal faith results. It does not consist in a human idea that they can take
control of that supernatural power—which would be magic—but in-
stead, it is the recognition of one’s complete, creaturely dependence
on God, and a humble assent to the goal proposed by God. Human
beings can give a physical expression to this faith in visible signs or
symbolic actions, and in so doing can reproduce situations in which
God is recognized. Who would deny that God, whom no one seeks
without already having found him, can use such occasions to create
a gracious encounter with Godself? These are what classical theology
called ‘‘natural sacraments.’’
The Jewish faith tradition proclaims additional experiences: that
God, in choosing one people, desired to communicate God's concrete
will to all humanity, to abide permanently among men and women
who desired to unite love of God and love of humanity in such a way
as to create the right conditions for the whole human world to become
the reign of God. Although the fundamental difference between God
and human beings means that God’s encounter with God’s chosen
ones must still be mediated, two outstanding ‘‘sacramental structures’
exist for that mediation: the communication of God’s word in human
words, and the assembly of those who remember, give thanks, praise
God, and make reparation. Of course, both these structures are dia-
logical in character, and are combined with responsive and petition-
ary prayer. It is especially in the liturgical assembly of the children of
Israel that, to look at it from a Christian theological point of view, we
find the ‘‘Old Testament sacraments.”’
Later Christian fixation on isolated rites as representing the ‘Old
Testament sacraments’ was conditioned by schematic ideas about the
‘matter’ of a sacrament. It ought to be evident that a ritual act like
circumcision, which was rooted both in national and in hygienic in-
terests, cannot claim the same status as a worshipping assembly of the
30 Sacramental Theology

chosen people. The example shows how problematic it is for Chris-

tians to make judgments ‘from outside’’ about those non-Christian
signs and symbolic actions in which an encounter with God may take
place. We should simply remark at this point, regarding other non-
Christian religions, that there is no evident reason why there should
not be ‘‘extra-Christian sacraments”’ in those religions as well.
But the sacraments of Israel are something different: not only be-
cause the Jews remain the chosen people of God, whose gifts are never
taken away, but also because the word of God given to human beings
in and through Israel retains its validity for the Church, and because
the liturgical assembly of Israel that calls on God’s presence in its prayer
remains, from more than one point of view, connected with the
Church’s liturgy.

3.2 Jesus Christ as the Primordial Sacrament

The faith conviction that Jesus is the sacrament of God is deeply

rooted in the-New Testament. The witnesses to the events of his life,
his dealings with human beings, show how much he was, in his very
person, a ‘‘sign,’’ a making-visible of the presence of God. (This life
also reveals the dangers to which a sacrament is subject: e.g., tempta-
tion, fear.) His whole life, but especially its high points or the great
moments, and his death, are real symbols of the concrete presence of
God. In addition, we have the interpretation given them by Jesus him-
self: the word-event that took place in him also had sacramental charac-
ter, the ability to make God present.”
The later understanding of Christ reflected in the New Testament
gave the first emphasis to this sacramentality of Jesus. Without losing
his personal character, says Augustin Schmied, Jesus as the Christ at-
tracted to himself the power of primal human symbols (light, well-
spring, shepherd, door, bread).? He could be called the icon, the image
of God pure and simple (2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15), the visible epiphany

2. On this, see the indications listed by A. Schmied, “Perspektiven’’ (see Bibli-

ography 1).
3. Ibid., 19.
4. C. von Schénborn, L’Icéne du Christ 2d ed. (Fribourg, Switzerland: 1978) shows
that there is a genuine salvation-historical-typological and Trinitarian-Christological
theology of original and image that is not Platonic in origin.
 The Sacramental Economy of Salvation 31

of the invisible essence of God (Heb 1:1-2; 1 John 1:1; also John 14:9).
The Christological dogma of Chalcedon, from 451 (NR 178/DS 301)
gave additional depth to this sacramental understanding of Jesus. It
is precisely when God's intention regarding humanity is evident, in
the fact that God desired to communicate his own self, utter himself
in humanity, that it is clear that God only arrived at this goal, free from
interruption or danger, when his communication and affirmation
received full acceptance from the human side. The most intimate close-
ness of God (God’s essence, uncreated grace) and receptive human
nature as its real symbol (effective sign) are present in Jesus, unsepa-
rated and without confusion. Of course, this formula also makes evi-
dent the limits of Christological dogma: the event-character of this
unsurpassed union of God and humanity, its dynamic nature, is at
most implicit in the rather static statement about two united natures.
The description of Jesus Christ as sacrament rests on New Testament
theology of the mysterion.’ In the Letters to the Ephesians and the Colos-
sians, mysterion does not refer to something secret, but to God’s sav-
ing intent as revealed and realized in the course of the divine oikonomia.
Its complete revelation and first realization happened in Jesus Christ
(Eph 1:9-10; 2:11-3:13; Col 1:20, 26-27; 2:2; cf. also Rom 16:25-26).
Therefore many Church Fathers, including the influential Augustine,
call him the mysterium Dei. Since, in the old Latin translations of the
Bible, the word mysterium was given as sacramentum (see 4.1), it was
natural to call Jesus Christ the sacramentum Dei. Thomas Aquinas under-
stood Jesus Christ to be ‘‘the fundamental sacrament, insofar as his
human nature, as the instrument of divinity, effects salvation’ (Wolf-
gang Beinert).6 Martin Luther was probably referring to Augustine’
when he said: ‘‘Sacred Scripture knows but a single sacrament, and
that is Christ the Lord himself.’’® When the great nineteenth-century
renewal of ecclesiology (see 3.3) occasioned a more penetrating reflec-
tion on the sacramentality of the Church and its relationship to the
sacramentality of Jesus Christ, he was first referred to as ‘‘the great

5. Still basic is the article by G. Bornkamm, “‘mysterion,’’ TDNT IV (1942; engl.

1967) 802-828.
6. Summa Contra Gentiles IV a. 41. W. Beinert, ‘‘Die Sakramentalitat der Kirche
im theologischen Gesprach,’’ Theologische Berichte 9 (Zitrich: 1980), 13-66, at 17-18.
7. ‘‘Non est enim aliud dei mysterium nisi Christus’’ (Ep. 187, 9, 34; CSEL 57/4,
113).
8. Disp. de Fide infusa et acquisita (WA 6, 86, 5ff.).
32 Sacramental Theology

sacrament.’’? It appears that Carl Feckes (d. 1958) was the first person
in the twentieth century who, in reviving these ideas, called Jesus
Christ the ‘primordial sacrament [Ursakrament]’’ on whom rest the
“sacramental world’ of the Church and the individual sacraments
(1934).1° In the spirit of renewed Thomism and under the influence
of an existential philosophy of encounter (experience of the Other),
Edward Schillebeeckx (b. 1914) described Jesus Christ as sacrament of
the encounter with God." More precisely, he saw the humanity of Jesus
Christ as the primordial sacrament, since it was in his humanity that
there occurs the twofold movement consisting of the inbreaking of
grace ‘‘from above,”’ and the cultus of love of God “from below.” In
Karl Rahner’s Christology—also developed before the council—Jesus
Christ is understood as ‘‘the real presence in history of the victorious
eschatological mercy of God in the world,’’ or as ‘‘the sacramental
primordial Word of God in the history of the one humanity.’’ The
Second Vatican Council expressed the sacramentality of Jesus Christ,
following the Christology of Chalcedon and that of Thomas Aquinas,
without using the words ‘‘sacrament”’ or ‘‘primordial sacrament.”’ In
more recent Catholic theology, as far as I know, the interpretation of
Jesus Christ as the primordial sacrament is universally accepted.

3.3. Church as Fundamental Sacrament

If Jesus Christ is the Living One, and if, in the Holy Spirit, he con-
tinues his mission of reshaping humanity until creation is perfected,
to the glory of God the Father, all this presumes an effective work of
the Risen One within humanity. The ecclesiology of the New Testa-
ment conceives the Church, from the beginning, as the community

9. W. Beinert, ‘‘Sakramentalitat der Kirche,’’ 22.

10. Ibid., 23. In ibid., 17, we find the note that the Lutheran canon lawyer Rudolf
Sohm (d. 1917), in a research report first published in 1918, wrote: ‘The primal
sacrament, for the old Catholic Church, is Christ himself.’’
11. E. Schillebeeckx, Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God (New York:
Sheed and Ward, 1960). This is an abbreviated version of the second volume of
his sacramental theology in the spirit of Thomas and in the light of current sacramen-
tal questions. The first volume was published originally at Antwerp under the title
De sacramentele heilseconomie, and exists only in Dutch; it contains valuable mate-
rial on the Church traditions relating to the whole of this third chapter.
12. K. Rahner, Kirche und Sakramente (Freiburg: 1960) 99.
 The Sacramental Economy of Salvation 33

of disciples who, filled and guided by the divine Spirit, continue the
mission of Jesus Christ. This continuation of the saving work of Jesus
Christ is never conceived in the New Testament in such a way that
the Church takes over the task given to Jesus, becoming the represen-
tative of someone who is absent and attempting to replace him. In-
stead, the very earliest self-concept of the Church affirms that it
recognizes its complete dependence on Jesus Christ, as it is being
formed by the Holy Spirit into a useful instrument of the continuing
presence of Jesus Christ. The description of the local church as the body
of Christ made up of many members united by the divine Spirit, as
described in Romans and 1 Corinthians, with Jesus Christ as its head
(Ephesians, Philippians), is more than merely an image; we may add
to it the figures of the Church throughout the New Testament, all of
which acknowledge the complete dependence of the Church on its true,
not merely human, shepherd, bridegroom, vinedresser, builder, etc.
It was precisely because of this subordination and dependence that
the earliest Church was conscious of being able and required to ren-
der true service, as the instrument of God, for the salvation of human
beings, a service through word and sacrament (as the later expression
has it), in which, as the Church fulfills itself or is actualized (to use
a later expression), Jesus Christ is present as the one who really speaks
and acts.
The New Testament also tells us that even the earliest Church car-
ried out its service in very imperfect fashion. Christians failed in many
ways, and their sins damaged the Church itself (which, in its peniten-
tial practice, sought to restore the form God willed for it). The Church
was threatened, from the beginning, by the temptation to make of it-
self an independent organization, to become the object of its own
proclamation, not to act according to the pattern of God’s will revealed
in Jesus, but instead to react in the manner of ‘‘this world,’’ not to
entrust itself to the movement initiated by the divine Spirit, but to be
fixated on its own traditions.
The Church’s place in the history of God with humanity, in the
oikonomia, was characterized from the beginning by its relative and

13. These images are collected in Lumen Gentium 6-7. In this connection, atten-
tion should be given to the ecclesiology of Miguel M. Graijo Guembe, whose pub-
lication was, at this writing, planned for 1988. For a Lutheran viewpoint, see U.
Kiihn, Kirche (Gtitersloh: 1980).
34 Sacramental Theology

provisional position (and it is precisely these features that marked and

mark its radical difference from Jesus Christ): its service is directed ul-
timately to the honor of God, but in the first instance it is for the sake
of human beings and their union with God; the Church’s task was
and is only to mediate what has been given to it; it was not and is not
intended by God to be the final form of humanity, since it will be sur-
passed in the reign of God.
This brief description of the theological components of the Church
makes clear that here we find a continuation of that sacramental struc-
ture that was discussed earlier. As a community of believing human
beings who desire to follow Jesus, the Church has an external, visible
dimension that points to something deeper. Its inner dimension is con-
stituted by the fact that Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit, makes it his
sign and instrument, which he uses in order to carry out his work of
renewing and reshaping humanity, to the glory of his Father. The ex-
ternal dimension is thus like an historically and communally structured
sign that does not point to a foreign, absent entity, but to one who
is present, one who is the real agent of the whole. The human com-
munity that constitutes the external reality cannot even hope and pray,
on its own initiative, to be fit for this service, unless hope and prayer
are given to it by the divine Spirit. The external dimension is always
threatened by misuse and thus in danger of obscuring and damaging
the internal, gracious reality.
In view of this sacramental structure of the Church it was inescap-
able that the Church itself be called a sacrament. This meant applying
the broader concept of sacrament to the Church, at a time when the
narrower, ‘‘technical’’ concept of sacraments did not even exist.
We must be content at this point with some sketchy remarks on
the history of this designation.1* The sacramentality of the Church was
expressed by the Fathers in an even greater variety of images than is
found in the New Testament. Hugo Rahner (d. 1968) summarized some

14. More detail can be found in W. Beinert, ‘‘Sakramentalitat der Kirche’’;

J.-M. R. Tillard, in Initiation a la pratique de la théologie II (Paris: 1983) 387-391 (on
the sacramentality of the Church); W. Kasper, ‘’Die Kirche als universales Sakra-
ment des Heils,’’ Glaube im Prozef, eds. E. Klinger and K. Wittstadt (Freiburg: 1984)
221-239 (with bibliography); T. Schneider, ‘‘Die dogmatische Begriindung der
Ekklesiologie nach dem Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil. Dargestellt am Beispiel der
Rede von der Kirche als dem Sakrament des Heils fiir die Welt,’’ Renovatio et refor-
matio, eds. M. Gerwing and G. Ruppert (Miinster: 1985) 80-116 (with bibliography).
 The Sacramental Economy of Salvation 35

of them: ‘’The Church is on pilgrimage and yet already at home. Her

heavenly earthiness, so to speak, is part of her indispensable twofold-
ness. She is, as the most recent theology again emphasizes and as the
Fathers of ancient times already knew, the great sacrament directed
toward the reign of God, the mother who dies in giving life, the moon
who decreases as it approaches Christ the sun, the ark from which
the rescued family of God goes forth when it reaches shore in the king-
dom of peace.’’5 The sacramental concept is applied to the Church
by way of the mysterion (Ephesians), while in the East the first witness
of this application is the Didache (Syrio-Palestine, first half of the sec-
ond century), which calls the Church a ‘‘cosmic mystery.’’ Cyprian
(d. 258), the first Western witness, refers to the Church as “‘sacramen-
tum unitatis.’’1* Important Church Fathers, including Augustine, re-
ferred to the sacrament (or mysterium) of the Church in the context of
a description of the entire sacramental economy of salvation.’” A fifth-
century prayer (oration) that is still part of the liturgy, and was cited
by Vatican II (SC 5), implores God to look graciously on ‘‘the won-
drous sacrament of your whole Church.”’
In the wake of the development of a more narrow and technical
concept of sacrament in the middle of the twelfth century, this
sacramental view of the Church withdrew into the background (in con-
trast to Christology; cf. 3.2). The external, institutional dimension of
the Church was overemphasized in reaction to all types of reform move-
ments ‘’from below.’’1® With the rise of a renewed ecclesiology in the
nineteenth century, the concept of ‘’sacrament’’ as a designation for
the Church in its deeper dimension was rediscovered, and not only
in the romanticism of the first half-century, but also among the neo-
Scholastics of the second half. Special mention is due to the theologians
Johann E. Kuhn (d. 1887),1° Johann H. Oswald (d. 1903),2° and Matthias

15. H. Rahner, Symbole der Kirche. Die Ekklesiologie der Vater (Salzburg: 1964) 653.
16. Patristic references in W. Beinert, ‘“Sakramentalitaét der Kirche,’’ 15-17.
17. Ibid., 16-17.
18. Ibid., 18. Beinert points to Louis de Thomassin (d. 1695), the first modern
theologian who again took up the theme of the sacramentality of the Church, in
the context of the economy of salvation in which he views first humanity itself,
then Adam and Jesus Christ as sacramental.
19. On his sacramental ecclesiology, see J. Finkenzeller II, 139-143.
20. Ibid., 145-148.
36 Sacramental Theology

J. Scheeben (d. 1888).21 After an interruption lasting until the 1930s,

we see the development of the ecclesiology that became normative
through Vatican II and continuing to the present.
In neo-Scholasticism there were occasional attempts to make clear
conceptual distinctions between Jesus Christ, the Church, and the
Church’s individual sacraments. If Jesus Christ is called the ““primor-
dial sacrament,’’ the Church is now the “‘higher sacrament.’’2? Erich
Przywara called it the ‘‘whole sacrament.’’”’ In an attempt to renew
ecclesiology in the spirit of the Fathers of the Church, the French theo-
logians Yves Congar (1937) and Henri de Lubac (1938) reapplied the
perspective of the sacramental economy of salvation and the under-
standing of the Church as ‘‘sacrament.’’4 The designation “primor-
dial sacrament’’ was applied to the Church by Otto Semmelroth and
Karl Rahner after the war. To avoid the terminological confusion oc-
casioned by simultaneously calling Jesus Christ the ‘’primordial sacra-
ment,”’ and in order to highlight the enduring, qualitative difference
between Jesus Christ and the Church, Semmelroth later referred to
the Church as the ‘‘root sacrament,’’26 while Rahner called it the ‘’fun-
damental sacrament.’’?”
The Second Vatican Council took up the word ‘‘sacrament’’ as a
designation for the Church.?8 Walter Kasper summarizes well the con-
tent and intention of the statement: ‘“When this term is used by the

21. Ibid., 148-153.

22. This expression was used by C. Feckes, a scholar of great influence in ec-
clesiology, in 1934. W. Beinert, ‘‘Sakramentalitat der Kirche,’’ 23-24.
23. This was in a text from 1942: E. Przywara, Ignatianisch (Frankfurt: 1956) 98.
24. W. Beinert, ‘‘Sakramentalitat der Kirche,’’ 24-25. H. U. von Balthasar also
understood the Church as sacrament; cf. most recently his Theodramatik II/2 (Ein-
siedeln: 1978).
25. W. Beinert, ‘‘Sakramentalitat der Kirche,’’ 25-29; on K. Rahner, see also J.
Herberg, Kirchliche Heilsvermittlung. Ein Gesprich zwischen Karl Barth und Karl Rahner
(Frankfurt: 1978).
26. MySal IV/1 (1972) 318-348.
27. Grundkurs des Glaubens (Freiburg: 1976) 396; E. Jiingel and K. Rahner, Was
ist ein Sakrament? (Freiburg: 1971) 75.
28. The most important instances are: LG 1, 9, 48; GS 42, 45; AG 1, 5; see also
the citations from the Church Fathers in SC 5, 26. For a more precise interpreta-
tion, see W. Kasper, ‘Die Kirche.’’ Kasper points out that veluti (‘‘also a sacra-
ment’’) was inserted to satisfy those who were concerned about the sacraments
as seven in number; ‘’sacrament’’ is not used in the technical theological sense.
 The Sacramental Economy of Salvation 37

Second Vatican Council to refer to the Church, it is one conceptual

method among others used to overcome ecclesiological triumphalism,
clericalism and juridicism, and to represent the mystery of the Church
that is concealed in its visible form and only evident through faith;
to express and emphasize that the Church, on the one hand, proceeds
totally from Christ and is always turned toward him, and on the other
hand is completely a sign and instrument for service to human beings
and to the world. The concept is especially well suited for relating and
differentiating, in a nuanced way, the visible structure and spiritual
essence of the Church.’’?? The council’s sacramental ecclesiology thus
fully intends to view the Church relatively, i.e., in relationship to the
one, true author of salvation, Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit according
to the will of the Father. The council’s unwillingness to locate the foun-
dation of human salvation in the Church is the reason for its avoid-
ance of a conscious application of the term ‘’primordial sacrament’
to the Church. Instead, it pointed to the simple analogy, that is, similar-
ity in a still greater difference, between the mystery of Jesus Christ
and the mystery of the Church, between the humanity of Jesus and
the visible form of the Church (LG 8), in order to direct attention to
the limits of a sacramental ecclesiology. The sacrament, ‘’Church,”’ ac-
cording to Vatican II, exists in service to the salvation of all humanity.
The council, in its most expressly theological documents, described
this service more precisely: as martyria or service to the Word of God
(Constitution on Divine Revelation; Decree on Missions), as leitourgia
(Constitution on the Liturgy), as diakonia (Pastoral Constitution). The
council declared in emphatic phrases that the Church will not com-
plete this service; instead, the Church itself is preliminary and, together
with its sacraments, will disappear (LG 48). God alone remains both
the author of salvation and the one who will accomplish it to the full.
In addition, the council frequently acknowledged that the Church
remains subject to sin. It is part of the Church’s sacramentality that
the Church is not identical with the saving reality contained within
it, that it can fulfill its task of service as sign and instrument only in
an imperfect way, and that in doing so, it often obstructs its own ac-
tion. Therefore the council had to admit also that, while all human be-
ings belong within the sacramental economy of salvation, and thus are
in principle intended to follow the way that is willed by God and that

29. W. Kasper, ‘’Die Kirche,”’ 228-229.

38 Sacramental Theology

calls upon the service of the Church, still the possibility of salvation
is also open to those who are not members of the Church (LG 12-16).
The understanding of the Church as sacrament is of great ecumeni-
cal significance. The statement of the Church’s sacramentality is an
especially important approach to the position of the Eastern Churches.”
They have preserved a manner of thinking from the heritage of the
Fathers of the Church that is able to speak of the cosmos as the univer-
sal sacrament and interprets all ecclesiology in a Eucharistic-sacramental
manner. The theology of the Churches stemming from the Reforma-
tion responds in different ways to the teaching about the sacramental-
ity of the Church. The great concern of Lutheran and Protestant
theology is to maintain the difference between God’s speaking and
acting on the one side, and the speaking and acting of the Church on
the other.°2
In Karl Rahner's theology the great opportunities as well as the limi-
tations of the idea of a sacramental economy of salvation are evident.
If God’s creation is directed not only to bringing human beings into
existence (thus as creating a kind of partnership with God), but aims
from the very beginning at divine self-communication, so that that self-
communication is understood radically as God’s own coming into what
is not God, then all reality is and always has been directed toward Jesus
Christ, in whom the very self-communication of the triune God, in
truth and love, should occur and has occurred. This central saving
event, this ‘‘incarnation,’’ is then the meaning of the whole creation
and of human history as a whole. The central saving event was not

30. W. Beinert, ‘‘Sakramentalitat der Kirche,’’ 41-44, and especially R. Hotz,

Sakramente (see Bibliography 1).
31. W. Beinert, ‘‘Sakramentalitat der Kirche,’’ 44-49 notes sympathy in, for ex-
ample, P. Tillich, K. Barth, W. Pannenberg, H. Ott; rejection on the part of, for
example, R. Bultmann, E. Kasemann, Pl. Brunner. Cf. also H: Déring, GrundriB
der Ekklesiologie (Darmstadt: 1986), therein ‘‘Die sakramentale Struktur der Kirche,’’
100-106 (also from an ecumenical perspective), with bibliography on pp. 324-327.
32. U. Kiithn, Sakramente (see Bibliography 1) 213; also, pp. 208-211, the descrip-
tion of the ecclesiological interpretation of sacraments, with Lutheran critique of
that interpretation, pp. 211-212.
33. Cf. especially K. Rahner, ‘‘Uberlegungen zum personalen Vollzug des
sakramentalen Geschehens,” Schriften X, 405-429, a very important article writ-
ten after the council, in which Rahner also explains why the sacraments can ‘‘still’’
accomplish what they “‘already”’ signify. Cf. W. Kasper’s agreement, ‘‘Die Kirche,’’
236-237.
 The Sacramental Economy of Salvation 39

annulled by human sin and did not come about for the removal of sin
(as redemptive reparation). This opinion of Rahner’s is within a great
Christian tradition beginning with the Letters to the Ephesians and
Colossians and extending through the theology of pedagogy, ascent,
and divinization in the work of the Greek theologians and the thought
of Augustine to the great Franciscan theology of the Middle Ages
(Scotism). Although Rahner was not aware of it, it has its roots in the
optimistic view of creation characteristic of Jewish Wisdom literature.
In this perspective, the Church and the individual sacraments (for
more on the latter, see 3.4 below) are not to be viewed as medicinal
interventions of God from outside, but as manifestations of what the
world and human history already are, in their internal truth, because
of the divine self-communication. They are manifestations of the “‘lit-
urgy of the world,’’ real symbols of God’s successful intention, sav-
ing events for the world. Thus, as Rahner himself (who speaks of a
‘“‘Copernican shift’’ in our understanding of sacraments)** says, the
movement is not one of effects proceeding from the sacraments into
the world, but it is a ‘‘spiritual movement’ from the world to the
sacrament.
Nevertheless, two cautions should be kept in mind. We must take
quite seriously the Protestant and Lutheran concern that the fundamen-
tal difference between God and the Church not be obliterated, and that
God’s absolute sovereignty not be obscured by a new kind of ecclesial-
sacramental triumphalism. In Rahner’s work, God and Church are
sometimes brought dangerously close to one another, as is evident from
the following statements: ‘‘God, Jesus and the Church—all three con-
sidered, in a sense, as one acting subject—present a sign, a gesture,
that not only expresses the grace-filled relationship of the human be-
ing receiving this gesture to God, but also brings about that grace-filled
relationship,’’*> and ‘‘The Church is the great, unique gesture of God
and the gesture of receptive humanity, in which divine love, recon-
ciliation and divine self-communication are eternally announced and
bestowed.’’%

34. K. Rahner, Schriften X, 405.

35. K. Rahner, ‘‘Fragen der Sakramententheologie,’’ Schriften XVI, 398-405, at
398. Cf. also my objection to a too-triumphalist view of the Church in Rahner’s
work, in Schriften XIV, 60-61.
36. K. Rahner, Schriften XVI, 401.
40 Sacramental Theology

The second caution is most effectively formulated in the questions

that, for example, Johann Baptist Metz directed at Rahner’s optimis-
tic, salvation-historical point of view—the questions regarding the
‘apocalyptic thorn.’ Metz can also call upon a great biblical and Chris-
tian tradition, that of apocalyptic literature. It is true that Rahner is
correct to the extent that, by common Jewish and Christian conviction,
God will be vindicated in the end. But the threat to human history—
posed by evil even from within (the “negative existential,’’ in Rah-
ner’s words) is a threat not only in areas outside the Church, but is
also a threat to the Church and its sacramentality.

3.4 Individual Sacraments as Actualizations of the Fundamental

Sacrament

If, as Vatican II says, the Church is the universal saving sacrament

of Jesus Christ, the question remains how this being-a-sacrament
(being-a-symbol, a sign, or an instrument) is to be realized. It must
be realized, because the statement, ‘‘the Church is sacrament’ is too
abstract; in the concrete, it could receive a false content. Church must
exist as concretely as sacraments must concretely perform their func-
tion as signs and instruments. The realization occurs in martyria, leitour-
gia, and diakonia, since in all three forms of the Church’s service the
effective saving will of God must be made apparent. The outstanding
form in which the Church’s liturgy is actualized is the praxis of the
individual sacraments in concrete liturgical assemblies (no matter how
small).
This notion of the individual sacraments as perfection, actualiza-
tion, or unfolding of the fundamental sacrament that is Church, al-
ways to be understood, of course, in the Holy Spirit and based on the
primordial sacrament, Jesus Christ, was introduced into Catholic the-
ology shortly before Vatican II—prepared for by renewed reflection on
the sacramental economy of salvation. At first, those involved were
not aware that the Eastern Churches had always regarded the celebra-
tion of the Eucharist as the pre-eminent concrete realization of the
Church.
Two theologians deserve special mention because of the influence
of their ideas. Edward Schillebeeckx, in the sacramental theology he
developed from 1952 on, interpreted the individual sacraments as ‘‘ec-
 The Sacramental Economy of Salvation 41

clesial manifestation of Christ’s divine love for humanity (gift of grace)

and human love for God (cult),’’”3”7 thus grounding sacraments both
Christologically and ecclesiologically. Karl Rahner, in an essay that first
appeared in 1955,8 treated the different ‘‘degrees of actuality’’ and
‘‘self-realizations’’ of the Church; here the individual sacraments were
seen as self-realizations of the Church at the highest level of actuality,
that of ‘‘official-historically described publicness.’’ Thus he could also
call the individual sacraments ‘‘the essential, fundamental realizations
of the Church itself,’’39 situated at the critical moments in the salva-
tion history of each individual human being.
The decisive theological question introduced by this way of look-
ing at things was that of the mediation of God’s grace by the Church.
Catholic theology, with which Rahner essentially agreed, emphasizes
the complete dependence of the Church’s activity on the divine Spirit
who unites Jesus Christ, the head, with the human members of his
body.*° The importance of nuances of language in this sensitive area
is evident in the work of Ulrich Kithn: while he, as a Lutheran theo-
logian, has no difficulty in saying that ‘‘sacraments are actions, or bet-
ter, realizations of the life of the Church,’’*! he wishes to avoid the
concept of the Church’s self-realization, since that expression is liable
to obscure the meaning of the sacraments ‘‘as events of divine saving
graciousness, prior to anything human.’’”
Rahner’s preferred ordering of the individual sacraments to the all-
encompassing sacrament of the Church sheds light on problems that
will be discussed individually below. This point of view permitted dog-

37. E. Schillebeeckx, Christus, Sakrament der Gottesbegegnung [Christ the Sacrament

of the Encounter with God] (Mainz: 1959) 74. Also very influential was his
“‘Sakramente als Organe der Gottbegegnung,”’ in J. Feiner, J. Triitsch, and F. Bockle,
eds., Fragen der Theologie heute (Einsiedeln: 1957) 379-401. On this, see C. E. O'Neill,
in Bilanz der Theologie im 20. Jahrhundert III, 256-259 (good summary); J. Ambaum,
Glaubenszeichen. Schillebeeckx’ Auffassung von den Sakramenten (Regensburg: 1980),
and H. Haring’s remarks in Theol. Revue 78 (1982) 221-223.
38. As a book: K. Rahner, Kirche und Sakramente (Freiburg: 1960).
39. Ibid., 21.
40. Cf. R. Schulte, ‘Einzelsakramente als Ausgliederung des Wurzelsakraments,’’
MySal IV/2, 45-155; H. Denis, “Les sacrements font l’Eglise-sacrement,’’ La Mai-
son Dieu 152 (1982) 7-35 (the Christological and pneumatological principle of
sacramental theology).
41. U. Kiihn, Sakramente, 197.
42. Ibid., 212.
42 Sacramental Theology

matic theology to understand sacraments (again) as liturgy and not as

juridical acts. Such concepts as ‘‘accomplish,”’ ‘“‘actualize,’’ or even
““celebrate’’ stand in the way of a notion of sacraments as fixed ob-
jects that were all bestowed on the Church by God at the same time.
The words ‘‘accomplishment”’ or ‘‘fulfillment’’ encompass without
qualification the activity of all who take part in the liturgical assembly,
the community of the baptized; they permit the infelicitous division
of those celebrating into ‘’ministers’’ and ‘‘recipients’’ to recede into
the background. The question why God, according to Catholic think-
ing, willed exactly seven individual sacraments, neither one more nor
one less, is blunted when the institutional-sacramental aspect is embed-
ded in the matrix of the general-sacramental economy of salvation. The
number seven can be understood symbolically, and there is no com-
pulsion to give proofs for it. The attempt to trace the individual sacra-
ments to the historical Jesus is shown to be a mistaken route into which
theology was drawn by Martin Luther’s insistence on the institution
of visible signs by Jesus himself. New Testament pneumatology and
Johannine theology of the origins of the Church and its sacraments
from the wound in the side of the Crucified have pointed the way and
the opportunity for the Church to view the shape of the sacraments
and the fixing of their number in a positive light, without placing the
grace of Jesus, the One who is really at work in the liturgy and sacra-
ments, through his Spirit, at the disposal of the Church.
 4

The Sacraments in General

4.1 The General Concept of a Sacrament

There is no satisfactory general concept of ‘‘sacrament,’’ because

there is no general sacrament: there are only concrete individual sacra-
ments. But there have been attempts to summarize what is common
to all the individual sacraments in one concept, and these attempts,
with all their inadequacies, have nevertheless contributed something
to our understanding of the relationship between God and human be-
ings. We may begin by addressing some of the important stages in
the attempt to form such a concept.’
As regards the communities described in the New Testament, we
can proceed on a twofold basis. On the one hand, we find witnesses
of a manifold liturgical and ritual praxis, although with different layers
of meaning: baptism and Eucharist were primary, but we also find men-
tion of penitential practice, the imposition of hands, and anointing.
There is no single unified term for these different practices in the New

1. On this history, cf. J. Finkenzeller I and II, and his ‘‘Sakrament,’’ in LThK
IX, 220-225, with bibliography.
43
44 Sacramental Theology

Testament (and, of course, no common theology). On the other hand,

we find the concept of mysterion, which, as indicated above (3.2) de-
notes the realization and revelation of God’s plan of salvation. This
plan had been decided by God from all eternity, was at work in the
history of Jesus Christ and was revealed in him. For the authors of
Ephesians (ch. 3) and Colossians (ch. 1), the Church is the form in
which this divine plan of salvation is to be further realized and made
known. The goal of this mysterion is the complete unity of all human
beings with God and with one another, the fulfillment of what has
been begun in Jesus Christ, the creation of a just and reconciled hu-
manity in which divisive differences are abolished—that very thing that
in the preaching of Jesus is called the ‘reign of God.’’ Thus this con-
cept of the mysterion encompasses the sacramental economy of salva-
tion, to the extent that it contains Jesus Christ, the Church, and the
totality of their life.
In the Old Latin Scriptures, mysterion was translated either with the
imitative word mysterium (Itala, Vulgate) or with sacramentum (African
versions). The.word sacramentum is connected to sacrare and sacrum.
Sacrare in Roman pagan religion meant the legal transfer of a person
or thing to the realm of the sacrum, the holy, i.e., its removal from the
secular world and placement in a special realm in which special rights
and duties imposed by the gods were in force. Sacramentum, in this
context, designated the vow of a recruit (‘‘flag oath’’), accepted by a
public authority, by which the recruit was incorporated in the ‘‘sacred
army”’ (sacra militia) and through which he obligated himself to cor-
responding ethical conduct. Sacramentum could also designate a sum
of money that had to be deposited in the temple by parties to a law-
suit; the loser’s share went to the temple and was used for cultic pur-
poses. Again the element of religious-ethical self-commitment is
present.
The transfer of sacramentum to ecclesial-theological vocabulary was
accomplished by the African theologians Tertullian (d. after 220),
Cyprian (d. 258) and Augustine (d. 430). In their interpretations of mys-
terion in Ephesians and Colossians, the realization of the plan of sal-
vation, Jesus Christ, the incarnation (sacramentum incarnationis), the
Church (Cyprian: sacramentum unitatis), faith, and the creed are all called
sacramentum. Tertullian, so far as we know, was the first to refer to
baptism and Eucharist as sacramenta. In the case of baptism he pointed
to its similarity to the religious-ethical self-obligation in the recruit’s
 The Sacraments in General 45

oath. In general, we can say that the widest possible variety of rites
are referred to as sacramenta in the writings of the Fathers.
It was Augustine who first developed a theory of sacraments, in
the context of his interpretation of the New Testament in light of
Neoplatonic philosophical thought.? He placed the sacramentum in the
category of signa, visible signs that represent an invisible reality. A
sacramentum is a sacrum signum, that is, a sign designated by God to
point to a divine reality (res divina) and containing that reality within
itself (see further at 4.2.2).
Augustine’s influence on Western theology was and remained over-
mastering. His thought survived the collapse of the ancient world and
penetrated the new cultures (West Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, Frankish,
etc.). In his spirit, important pre-Scholastic theologians? understood
sacramentum to refer to the visible form of invisible grace (invisibilis gra-
tiae visibilis forma), a description that was accurate to a large degree,
but was not a real definition.
Attempts to define a general concept of ‘‘sacrament’’ that would
apply to all the sacraments of the Church were taken up in the Scholas-
tic period. We will describe the two most important of these.‘
Hugh of St. Victor (d. 1141) defined sacrament as a bodily or mate-
rial element that is used in an external, sensible manner and, through
a certain similarity, makes present an invisible and spiritual grace, in-
dicates that grace because of its institution (by Jesus Christ) and con-
tains what is salvific (for human beings). Several parts of this definition
indicate the difficulties involved: it ties the ‘‘sacrament’’ to the pres-
ence of a bodily or material element and to an institution (institutio)
by Jesus Christ; it can say nothing specific about grace, and it offers
no indication of how this grace can be “‘contained’’ in the sign. The
fact that a theology that was essentially fashioned by and for monks
omitted any reference to the world at large—a reference still contained
in the biblical ‘‘mysterion’’—contributed to the development of a spe-
cial sacramental world alongside ‘‘normal”’ life. It is less understand-
able that no attempt was made, in the liturgy- and prayer-soaked world
of the cloisters and cathedral schools, to fashion a definition of sacra-
ments that located them within liturgy and prayer.

2. J. Finkenzeller I, 38-61.
3. See the summary in J. Finkenzeller I, 62-64.
4. See ibid., 84-88, for a description of these attempts in early Scholasticism,
and 127-137 for the high Scholastic period.
46 Sacramental Theology

The bishop of Paris, Peter Lombard (d. 1160), defined ‘sacrament’

as the sign of God’s grace and the form of invisible grace, in such a
way that it is both the image and the cause (causa) of that grace. Here
the bodily element (as well as institution by Jesus Christ) were omitted
and instead, with a certain dependence on Augustine, the sacrament
is understood as signum (sign and image). Here, for the first time, it
is said that the sacrament is the cause or reason for divine grace. Since
Peter Lombard’s ‘‘Sentences’’ were the textbook for university theol-
ogy from the thirteenth century well into the sixteenth, the Lombard’s
contribution to the understanding of sacraments was highly influen-
tial.5 However, even in the period of Scholasticism there were voices
raised, questioning whether a definition of sacraments was possible
at all, since too many different things would have to be comprehended
within it.° In fact, the suggested definitions of sacrament remained so
broad that we cannot speak of an exact concept, for example, when
Thomas Aquinas defined sacrament as a ‘‘sign of a sacred reality, to
the extent that it sanctifies human beings.’’? Often enough people ab-
stained from an attempt at definition and offered, instead, some ex-
planations of a summary nature.

4.2 History of General Sacramental Theology

What is important in this brief overview is to indicate the essential

theological themes of a general doctrine of sacraments, without describ-
ing them in detail.

4.2.1 New Testament

The mysterion theology of the late New Testament writings is not

a reflection on Church life and thus is not about the seven sacraments,
although it is not difficult to discern that the divine plan of salvation
contains everything by means of which the gracious event of God

5. On the acceptance of his formula by important theologians of high Scholasti-

cism, including Bonaventure, Albert the Great, and Thomas Aquinas, see ibid.,
131-132.
6. Ibid., 127.
7. S. Th. Ill, q. 60, a. 2.
 The Sacraments in General 47

through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit is effective and perceptible to

the senses.
For the later seven sacraments of the Catholic Church, the New
Testament offers some basic theological elements, as will be shown
later in detail. In the case of baptism and Eucharist these are more than
the mere fundamentals; the imposition of hands may have some rela-
tionship to the communication of the Holy Spirit; at an anointing of
the sick, both the forgiveness of sins and healing are mentioned; the
religious sign-value of marriage is emphasized; and with regard to
penitential practice it is clear that the relationship of the sinner to the
Church community affects his or her religious situation before God.
Jewish points of view were and remained formative in the develop-
ment of the basic elements of sacramental theology in the New Testa-
ment. The following are the two most important insights.®
Corresponding to and rooted in Jewish thought is the notion that,
in memory (Hbr. zkr), a past event can be brought into the present and
be made effective, so that it even provides the impulse for action. This
memory is a real making-present, not a backward-looking memorial.
Jewish memorial feasts, when the community called on the name of
YHWH, were more than simply looking back at the past. Everyone
who took part in the Pesach feast shared, in the present moment, in
the liberating and redeeming event of the Exodus. Both the great Chris-
tian memorial feasts that are theologically depicted in the New Testa-
ment, the Eucharist (1 Cor 10:14-22, 11:26-29) and baptism (1 Cor 6:11;
Rom 6:2-11) combine ritual and word-event, and thus make present
the death of Jesus as saving event (Eucharist: 1 Cor 11:26; baptism:
Rom 6:3). The fact that these memorial feasts praise the mighty deeds
of God, who wakened Jesus from the dead and sent the Holy Spirit,
is clear from the whole literary context. In the same way, we cannot
overlook the fact that in baptism and the Eucharist, believers received
a gift, which had to have immediate and concrete religious-ethical con-
sequences in their lives.
Jewish thought is also the source of the idea of the ‘‘corporate’’ (or
‘‘collective’’) person: an individual person is really identified with the
community to whom she or he belongs; the action of one person has
concrete consequences for the community; what one person receives

8. On this, see B. van Iersel, ‘‘Einige biblische Voraussetzungen des Sakra-

ments,’’ Concilium 4 (1968) 2-9.
48 Sacramental Theology

from YHWH has a value for the community. We find this conviction
active also in the case of the principal New Testament sacraments, bap-
tism and Eucharist. The baptized person belongs to, that is, he or she
is really integrated into the corporate Christ-person (Rom 6:3-8) and
simultaneously into the corporate person to which Jesus Christ belongs,
the person of Abraham (Gal 3:26-29; cf. Col 2:11ff.). Pauline pneumato-
logical body of Christ theology is very closely connected to this notion
(1 Cor 12:12-31, cf. especially vv. 12, 13, and 27; cf. also 1 Cor 10, where
Paul speaks of baptism and Eucharist together in an indirect typology),
as is the important idea that the death of Jesus was for the benefit of
others (cf. the background in Jewish tales of martyrdom and the theme
of the suffering servant of God).
This Jewish thinking shaped the origins of the Church’s sacramen-
tal life; it interprets the sacraments as present saving event, through
the making-present of Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit within the praise
of the Father’s mighty deeds; it shows the constitutive connection be-
tween Church and sacramental praxis as well as the concrete ethical
and social consequences of the sacraments.
In its own partly suggestive, partly symbolic language, the Fourth
Gospel certainly speaks of baptism and Eucharist in the sense of sacra-
ments, i.e., in such a way that through them, after the sending of the
Holy Spirit, the unique saving action of Jesus is present and effective
within the Church.? The most important texts are about baptism (John
3) and Eucharist (John 6:52-58), the origin of both sacraments and their
saving effectiveness from Jesus’ death on the cross (John 19:34 with
1 John 5:6-8), and the forgiveness of sins through the power of the
Holy Spirit who has been given to the Church (John 20:22-23). This
sacramental theology, probably shaped under increasing Hellenistic
influence, is so strongly interested in the continuing union of the be-
lievers with Jesus Christ and the consequent ‘‘eternal life,’’ that it, more
than the theologies mentioned earlier, is subject to being misunder-
stood in terms of otherworldliness and personal salvation.

9. J. Finkenzeller I, 14-16, with bibliography and an overview of controversial

minimalist, cultic, and ‘‘middle’’ positions. Further information on New Testa-
ment sacramental theology (theses of the school of the history of religions, mys-
tery theology) can be found in summary in R. Schnackenburg’s article in LThK
be218-220; see also R. Tragan, ed., Fede e sacramenti negli scritti giovannei (Rome:
1985).
 The Sacraments in General 49

4.2.2 The Church Fathers

The attitude of the Fathers of the Church before Augustine was

quite similar to that of the New Testament authors. They spoke of the
individual actions of the Church, with great emphasis on baptism and
Eucharist, and stressing the making-present of the saving event in Jesus
Christ and the fruits of salvation that flow from it. They vigorously
opposed pagan worship, but they did not develop a ‘general theol-
ogy of sacraments.’’ The concepts of mysterion/mysteria conveyed to
them a wide variety of ideas: truths of faith, saving events or institu-
tions of the Old Testament in their typological meaning, promises and
their fulfillment through Jesus Christ, and also the liturgical-
sacramental aspect of the Church. From the time of Tertullian, Latin
theology used the concept of sacramentum in a similarly broad manner.’®
The highly influential sacramental theology of Augustine is woven
together on the basis of several strands of reasoning. It is not a gen-
eral theology of sacraments, but rather is based on the examples of
baptism and Eucharist, even though Augustine also knew of other rites
that had sacramental effects, e.g., penitential practice.
The starting point is the location of sacraments within the genre
of signs, or more precisely, of those visible signs that in and of them-
selves, that is, of their very nature, and not by convention (based on
general agreement) lead us to perceive something other than what their
external appearance at first reveals, and thus facilitate direct inferences,
as, for example, from smoke to fire. This ‘‘something other’ is an in-
visible reality (res, an important concept of later sacramental theology).
The most dignified of all signs is the word, for through it the invisible
reality itself can be perceived. Augustine then applied this philosophy
of the connectedness of different entities to the field of things. Mate-
rial goods are signs of higher, spiritual realities; the visible world is
a sign of the eternal universe. Human beings are called to apply them-
selves to the task of discerning the deeper realities and of practicing
a proper relationship with things, i.e., merely to use material things,
but to enjoy those that are spiritual. In his theological interpretation,
Augustine determined that Adam had perverted the relationship to
signs and things that God had planned, but God, in the divine plan
of salvation, had begun to restore the right order. Within this plan is

10. There is a good overview in J. Finkenzeller I, 16-37.

50 Sacramental Theology

the gift of the sacramenta, the sacred signs that indicate and contain
the divine. Thus their external side has a similarity to their sacred con-
tent, so that the sacraments are not conventional, but ‘‘natural” signs,
whose meaning is inherent in themselves. The sacramenta signs are com-
posed of an element, perceptible to the senses, and an interpretive
word. But since the word is the most dignified, it is first of all the word
that makes the element to be a sacrament; thus the sacrament can also
be called a “visible word” (visibile verbum). This word that effects the
sacrament is the Church’s word of faith. The invisible reality that is
indicated and is present in the sacrament is not simply grace, it is
Christus totus, the whole Christ composed of head and members in the
Holy Spirit, who as the real and active agent in the sacraments causes
grace, but in such a manner that the sacraments are always actions
of the Church. But since Jesus Christ is the one who is really acting
in the sacraments, their inner, sacred reality and effect cannot be
damaged by unworthy ministers."

4.2.3 Middle “Ages

The influence of Augustinian sacramental theology in the Western

Church can be traced throughout the whole medieval period, through
the modern era, and into the present. Its principal ideas were repeated
throughout the Middle Ages, until the twelfth century, without essen-
tial expansion. The early Middle Ages were a period without a theol-
ogy,!2 and yet sacramental theology passed several decisive forks in
its road during those centuries. There was a general effort to establish
the proper rite for administering the sacraments. Because of the su-
perior authority of the apostle Peter, the bearer of the keys of the king-
dom of heaven, the Roman liturgy was seen to be the locus of that
appropriate rite, and efforts were made to introduce and imitate the
Roman liturgy wherever possible in the new cultures that were replac-

11. See n. 2; W. Simonis, Ecclesia visibilis et invisibilis. Untersuchungen zur Ekk-

lesiologie und Sakramentenlehre in der afrikanischen Tradition von Cyprian bis Augusti-
nus (Frankfurt: 1970) 103-109: ‘’Christus als der eigentliche Taufspender bei
Augustinus.”’
12. A. Angenendt, ‘‘Bonifatius und das Sacramentum initiationis. Zugleich ein
Beitrag zur Geschichte der Firmung,’’ Rémische Quartalschrift 72 (1977) 133-183,
especially 159-169; idem, ‘’Religiositat und Theologie. Ein spannungsreiches
Verhaltnis im Mittelalter,’’ Archiv fiir Liturgiewissenschaft 20-21 (1978-79) 28-55.
 The Sacraments in General 51

ing those of the ancient world. But the broad, generous Roman spirit
was not appropriated along with the rites! While in Rome attention
was concentrated on the symbolism of the means of grace, in other
places (as witnessed, for example, in Milan by Ambrose in the fourth
century) the sacraments were regarded as consecrated matter. This was
the source of the conviction of early Scholasticism that grace was con-
tained in the sacrament like medicine in a bottle.
Whereas, in the Roman (and Eastern) liturgy, the minister and re-
cipient of the sacraments were joined in a dialogue, now the consecra-
tion of the elements (bread, wine, water, oil) was seen as the real,
constitutive action in the sacrament’s coming-to-be. While earlier the
elements were only ‘symbolizing’ factors in the transmission of grace,
now they themselves were the means of grace and worthy of venera-
tion.’* In the early Middle Ages the idea of the existence of sacred,
blessed objects achieved wide acceptance. The original liturgical celebra-
tion of the sacraments was ‘‘emptied, becoming only the distribution
of sacred matter prepared beforehand.’’5
Particularly important for early medieval theology, in addition, were
questions about the qualifications of the persons doing the consecrat-
ing, and about the correct utterance of the holy sacramental words
given by the Son of God himself.1° ‘“Only a literally correct expres-
sion guaranteed validity.’’!” Even though in many areas high Scholasti-
cism recovered a broader perspective, legalistic and ritualized notions
continued to dominate sacramental theology.
Among the other questions that were discussed, a notable varia-
tion in the numbering of the sacraments is of particular interest. At
first there was a tendency to expand the number of the sacraments,
and with it the Church’s competence. Thus Peter Damian (d. 1072)
counted twelve sacraments, including marriage and the consecration
of kings. As a consequence of the investiture struggle, Church and
world were more sharply separated, and the Church more strongly
clericalized (so that the consecration of hermits, nuns, and kings were
no longer counted among the sacraments), and the realm of the sacra-
ments became even more markedly a world unto itself.
13. A. Angenendt, ‘‘Bonifatius,’’ 159-160.
14. Ibid., 160-161.
15. Ibid., 161, with further reference to J. Ratzinger.
16. Ibid., 163.
17. Ibid., 164.
52 Sacramental Theology

In the mid-twelfth century, under the normative influence of Peter

Lombard, the tally of seven sacraments achieved acceptance, not least
because it was seen as desirable, finally, to make a precise distinction
between the sacraments of the new covenant and the broad ‘’sacramen-
tal realm’’ of natural sacraments, Old Testament sacraments, consecra-
tions resembling sacraments, and blessings. A superior dignity and
certainty of effect were now definitively attributed to the New Testa-
ment sacraments. In this connection, the teachings about the opus oper-
atum, about intention, and—in the case of baptism, confirmation, and
orders—about the ‘sacramental character’ were developed.
Opus operatum (the work worked, ex opere operato = by the power
of the completed rite) has designated, since the twelfth century, the
objective effectiveness of a sacrament, which is considered the work
of God with regard to the ‘‘minister’’ and ‘‘recipient.’’ Opus operantis
(earlier operans), the work of the one working, then means the human,
subjective action in carrying out a sacrament. The source of grace is
exclusively the opus operatum; the opus operantis is only the condition
that permits the grace to be present. The discussion of this point was
always affected by the thought of unworthy officiants. In order to guar-
antee the effectiveness of the sacraments, in addition to the teaching
about opus operatum, further minimal conditions were discussed: the
minister’s possession of power, and the existence of an intention to
do what, in this particular sacrament, the Church does. The teaching
about a ‘‘sacramental character’’ was based on the ideas of Augustine,
starting with the consideration that the effects of some sacraments (es-
pecially baptism) cannot be restricted to the brief moment of the
sacramental action, but instead must be an inextinguishable, long-term
effectiveness, implying a seal imprinted on the soul. (Augustine, in
order to illustrate the endurance of the effects of baptism even in sin-
ners and apostates, had made a comparison with the brand or ‘‘charac-
ter’’ imprinted on Roman legionaries.) This insight was accompanied
by the development of the teaching that, precisely because of this im-
printed and enduring effect, certain sacraments cannot be repeated.
(See further remarks in section 4.3.)
General sacramental theology was greatly broadened due to the in-
fluence of newly-rediscovered Aristotelian ideas in the thirteenth cen-
tury. The hylomorphic doctrine, that everything physical and percep-
tible by the senses is a union of the changeable (matter) and the prin-
ciple (form) that gave structure and definition, was applied to the sacra-
 The Sacraments in General 53

ments from the beginning of the thirteenth century onward. This effort
to achieve intellectual clarity on the problem of what the signum (sign)
really means in the case of sacraments resulted in the schematization
of all sacraments. In all of them, there must be some kind of matter,
i.e., a visible, changeable, and determinable element,18 and form, the
interpretive and determinative words of the ‘‘minister.’’
As a necessary result of all this, interest in the liturgical context
declined. Concentration on the ‘essentials’ of a sacrament led inev-
itably to a search for the minimum conditions under which it could
come about. These could be fulfilled even in an emergency rite. This
kind of security-minded thinking evoked a series of further questions:
what is it exactly that effects the sacrament? At what precise point does
the effect take place? Who is it, precisely, who can bring it about?
High Scholastic theology tried to answer these questions on the basis
of Christology, and therefore concentrated on the influence of Jesus
Christ on the sacraments. Their ‘‘institution’’ by Jesus Christ was im-
portant, as was his bestowal of power over the sacraments on the
apostles, to whom Jesus Christ could also have communicated the
knowledge that he had instituted a sacrament, even if no words of in-
stitution from his own lips have been retained.
The doctrine, first evident in the work of Peter Lombard, that the
sacrament is the cause (causa) of grace, was now considered in detail,
especially by Thomas Aquinas. The high Scholastic theologians were
quite aware that a direct connection between the production of the
cause (the sacrament) by the Church and the resulting effect (divine
grace) would mean that human beings had God’s grace at their dis-
posal. God, who in the ‘‘institution”’ of the sacraments by Jesus Christ
had promised that they would bestow grace, and thus had personally
guaranteed their effectiveness, is and remains the principal cause (causa
principalis) of divine grace; the sacraments entrusted to the Church by

18. In high Scholasticism there was still a more precise distinction made between
the purely material element and the gesture that was carried out by means of or
in connection with that element. Where the purely material element was lacking,
as in reconciliation, the ritual action in company with the word could suffice. (There
was also talk of quasi-matter.) In connection with the development of the various
units of doctrine in the Middle Ages, let me again refer to J. Finkenzeller’s treat-
ment. On the theme of ‘‘matter and form,’’ see his work at I, 138-142. For further
clarification, of course, one must have recourse to extensive studies of the history
of devotion and works of social history, such as those by Arnold Angenendt.
54 Sacramental Theology

Jesus Christ are instrumental causes (causa instrumentalis), in God's

hand, of that grace.’
A threefold distinction was important: the external sign, consist-
ing of matter and form, is only a sign and is not yet its content. It is
called sacramentum or external sacrament. The content, the ultimate ef-
fect of the sacrament, that is, the grace of God, is not, for its own part,
a sign. It is called the res sacramenti. Finally, there is a middle term be-
tween the two: it is brought into the visible realm by the first, external
sign, and it immediately produces the second, grace. This middle is
called res et sacramentum, or internal sacrament.”°
Finally, we should mention Thomas’ attempt to found the sacra-
ments as seven in number on the fact that in that very number they
reflect the individual and social nature of humanity, and indicate
through this double imagery that all of human life will be incorporated
into the life of God. The most important moments in human develop-
ment—birth, becoming adult, and receiving nourishment—are sancti-
fied and made whole through baptism, confirmation, and Eucharist;
the things that threaten people and make them ill are also transformed
into healing through reconciliation and the anointing of the sick; human
social existence is made fruitful before God through holy orders and
marriage.
The Scholastic contributions to sacramental theology have left a deci-
sive mark on it to this day. The fact that they themselves were shaped
by a particular philosophy has bound their fate to the fate of that phi-
losophy. Obviously, the precision of their questions and the attempts
at answers corresponded to a still greater legalization and clericaliza-
tion, trends that in any case were at work in the Church’s develop-
ment at that period. The extraction and isolation of the sacraments from
their liturgical context is also expressed in the fact that the sacramen-
tal prayers (by which the Holy Spirit is invoked) were replaced by in-
dicative formulas. The sacraments were transformed from symbolic
liturgical actions and life-events to extremely brief, punctual gestures.

19. For more detail, see J. Finkenzeller I, 203-207, including a discussion of the
development of the doctrine by Thomas himself. At pp. 199-203, there is a descrip-
tion of the differing views of the Franciscan theologians, who rejected the idea
of grace being “contained in’’ the sacraments and said that the sacraments only
prepared for the reception of grace directly given by God.
20. J. Finkenzeller I, 142-144.
 The Sacraments in General 55

In this shortened form it was no longer possible to accommodate any

expressions of self-obligation to service and witnessing in the world.
The objections of the Reformers to the Church’s sacraments can be
explained to a great extent by the practical consequences of these de-
velopments.

4.2.4 The Sacramental Theology of the Reformers

There is no attempt, either in the works of Martin Luther or in Lu-

theran confessional documents, to develop a general concept of sacra-
ments.”! Luther expressed himself on the subject of ‘‘the sacrament’
in connection with his discussions of concrete sacraments (baptism and
the Lord’s Supper). His theological reflections on this subject are
thoroughly imbued with Christology, proceeding from Jesus Christ as
the only sacrament to which the Bible testifies, and from the sacra-
ment of his cross. In Luther’s view of the Church’s sacramental sym-
bolic actions, the highest significance belongs to the promise of God,
who can neither lie nor deceive; in the word spoken in the sacrament
God’s saving action in Jesus reaches and touches human beings. If the
person is a believer, that is, if she or he accepts the word of Christ
as foundation and fastness and gives him- or herself freely without
trusting in human works, the faith proclaimed in the sacrament effects
salvation. Thus the connection between promise, word, and faith is
decisive. (Here we can recognize essential elements of Augustine’s the-
ology of the word.) Despite this pre-eminence, the Church’s sacramen-
tal sign is indispensable, because of God’s will and decree. If those
are followed, the sacrament even exists in the absence of faith, though
it does not produce a saving effect. Luther understood the opus opera-
tum as a merit-work of the human being, and therefore rejected the
concept. Concerning the number of the sacraments, Luther viewed the
decisive criterion as the connection of a word of promise from Jesus
Christ with a visible sign. These he saw as certainly evident only in
baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and he wavered on the subject of ab-
solution: it is only the biblical witnesses to Jesus, and these probably

21. On Luther and the Lutheran confessional documents (especially the Confes-
sio Augustana) there is a summary with bibliography in J. Finkenzeller II, 2-25; for
more detail, see U. Kiihn, Sakramente.
56 Sacramental Theology

without the human traditions of the Church, that guarantee the sure
connection and thus the sacrament.
The Lutheran confessional statements understand the sacraments
as signs (signa, as well as ritus or ceremonia) that, because they were
instituted by God and Jesus Christ and not by human beings, are real
signs of grace, visible witnesses to God’s saving will toward human
beings, and not mere marks of Christian profession. When, as a result
of the institution (institutio), God’s command and promise (mandatum
and promissio) are given and the promise is beliéved, a sacrament in-
fallibly conveys divine grace. Following Augustine, the sign is seen
as composed of word and element, both of which are essential, al-
though the word has priority. The recipient, but not the minister, must
have faith, trusting in the promise. Sacraments in the strict sense are
only those rites that were instituted by divine command and are con-
nected with a promise of grace; three such can certainly be discerned,
while the rest, to which the Catholic Church clings, are not certain signs
of grace.
Calvin, who also supported his view of sacraments on the authority
of Augustine, understood a sacrament to be an external, visible sign
or symbol indicating a sacred gift although it is not mingled with it;
in this sign God acts on us by strengthening our faith and sealing his
promises. A natural element or signum becomes a sacrament, when
God, by instituting it, has bound his promise to this sign. The sacra-
ment is the promise made visible and, because it comes from God,
has an objective value independent of faith.
According to Calvin, referring to Augustine’s statement in relation
to the wound in Christ’s side, there are two sacraments (even if the
Old Testament sacraments were genuine sacraments and were effec-
tive through faith in God’s promises). In faith, the sacraments, through
the action of the Holy Spirit, become means or instruments of grace
that effect what they signify. (In contrast, Zwingli said that the sacra-
ments were only memorials and marks of Christian profession.) Their
function can be seen in the fact that they incorporate us into Jesus Christ
and the mysteries of his life; the power of the Holy Spirit overcomes
the distance between him and us. In accord with his teaching on
predestination, Calvin said that the sacraments are only effective in
those who are positively predestined; they are necessary not for the
conferral of grace, but because of the physical character of human na-
ture and the weakness of human faith.
 The Sacraments in General 57

The view of sacraments in the Reformed confessional documents

is entirely governed by their theology of the word of God. Through
the proclamation of the word of God the real, living presence of Jesus
Christ is activated in the community and in individual believers; the
sacrament, as ‘‘visible word,’’ is part of the word proclaimed. It can
also be called an “‘external sign of God’s grace”’ or ‘sealing in the Holy
Spirit.’’ It effects what it signifies; the real agent and true minister of
the sacrament is its founder, Jesus Christ. The saving content of word
and sacrament is identical, and is distinguished only in regard to the
way in which it is apprehended and to the manner by which it produces
its effects: the word seeks to awaken faith in itself, while the sacra-
ment is intended to strengthen the already awakened faith in the word.
Thus the sacrament exists primarily for the sake of those who are weak
in faith; one may not despise it, but it is possible to dispense with it.

4.2.5 The Church’s Official Sacramental Teaching

The first official Church positions adopted toward the questions of

general sacramental theology defend the teaching, upheld since Au-
gustine, that the validity and effectiveness of a sacrament are not de-
pendent on the worthiness of the minister (Pope Innocent III [1208]:
NR 498/DS 793; Council of Constance [1415 and 1418]: NR 499-500;
DS 1154, 1262). The Council of Florence produced a more detailed ex-
position of the general doctrine of sacraments. At the time of the (brief)
reunion of the Armenian and Coptic Churches with the Roman Church,
representatives of those Eastern Churches had to subscribe to decrees
that included, among other things, the Roman Catholic view of the
sacraments. The Eastern Churches did not succeed in having their
priceless heritage, the incorporation of the sacraments within the lit-
urgy, together with the prayer for the coming and action of the Holy
Spirit, included in the conciliar texts. The more extensive text for the
Armenians ([{1439]: NR 501-504/DS 1310-1313) was largely drawn from
Thomas Aquinas’ brief essay De articulis fidei et Ecclesiae sacramentis. It
thus witnesses to the high regard accorded to him as a theologian and
reflects the language of Scholastic sacramental theology:

We here set out the true doctrine of the sacraments of the Church in
a brief formula which will facilitate the instruction of the Armenians,
both now and in the future. There are seven sacraments of the New Law,
58 Sacramental Theology

namely, baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, extreme unc-

tion, Order and matrimony; and they differ greatly from the sacraments
of the Old Law. For these did not cause grace but were only a figure of
the grace that was to be given through the passion of Christ; but our
sacraments both contain grace and confer it on those who receive them
worthily.
The first five of these are ordained to the interior spiritual perfection
of the person himself; the last two are ordained to the government and
increase of the whole Church. For by baptism we are spiritually reborn and
by confirmation we grow in grace and are strengthened in the faith; being
reborn and strengthened, we are nourished with the divine food of the
Eucharist. If by sin we become sick in soul, we are healed spiritually
by penance; we are also healed in spirit, and in body insofar as it is good
for the soul, by extreme unction. Through Order the Church is governed
and receives spiritual growth; through matrimony she receives bodily
growth.
All these sacraments are constituted by three elements: by things as
the matter, by words as the form, and by the person of the minister con-
ferring the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does.
And if any one of these three is lacking, the sacrament is not effected.
Among these sacraments there are three, baptism, confirmation and
Order, which imprint on the soul an indelible character, that is a certain
spiritual sign distinguishing (the recipient) from others. Hence, these are
not repeated for the same person. The other four, however, do not im-
print a character and may be repeated.”

The Council of Trent felt it necessary to react to the Reformers’ state-

ments on the praxis and theology of the sacraments and to strengthen
the Church’s teaching in opposition to them. The sacraments in gen-
eral were treated in the seventh session, in 1547. The decrees of Flor-
ence served as guidelines, but it was agreed that Scholastic technical
terms should be avoided, that the decrees should be limited to essen-
tials, and that the Reformers’ teaching on the number of the sacraments
and their effectiveness should be rejected only on the basis of faith,
without condemning the Reformers by name. The participants also
agreed not to take a position on contradictory opinions among Scholas-

22. J. Neuner, S.J., and J. Dupuis, S.J., eds., The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal
Documents of the Catholic Church, rev. ed. (New York: Alba House, 1982) 369-370.
See also the decree for the ‘‘Jacobites,’’ or Copts (1442): DS 1348. The decrees for
the Armenians and for the Jacobites have not been accepted as defined doctrine.
 The Sacraments in General 59

tic theologians that did not endanger the faith. The Decree on the Sacra-
ments of 1547, which was approved by all the members of the council
who were present, was restricted as far as the general doctrine of sacra-
ments was concerned to a foreword and thirteen doctrinal statements
(NR 505-518/DS 1600-1613):

Foreword
In order to bring to completion the salutary doctrine of justification
promulgated with the unanimous consent of the Fathers in the session
immediately preceding, it seemed fitting to deal with the holy sacraments
of the Church. For all true justification either begins through the sacra-
ments, or, once begun, increases through them, or when lost is regained
through them. Therefore, in order to do away with errors and to root
out heresies which in our age are directed against the holy sacraments
partly inspired by heresies already condemned in the past by our Fathers
and partly newly devised—and which are doing great harm to the purity
of the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls, the most holy, ecu-
menical and general Council of Trent, . . . adhering to the teaching of
the Holy Scriptures, to the apostolic traditions and to the consensus of
the Fathers and of the other Councils, has thought that the present canons
should be drawn up and decreed... .

Canons on the Sacraments in General

1. If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law were not all in-
stituted by Jesus Christ our Lord; or that there are more or fewer than
seven, that is: baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, extreme
unction, Order and matrimony; or that any one of these is not truly and
properly a sacrament, anathema sit.
2. If anyone says that these same sacraments of the New Law do not
differ from the sacraments of the Old Law, except that the ceremonies
and external rites are different, anathema sit.
3. If anyone says that these sacraments are so equal to one another
that one is not in any way of greater worth than another, anathema sit.
4. If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not neces-
sary for salvation, but that they are superfluous; and that without the
sacraments or the desire of them [human persons] obtain from God the
grace of justification through faith alone, although it is true that not all
the sacraments are necessary for each person, anathema sit.

5. If anyone says that these sacraments are instituted only for the sake
of nourishing faith, anathema sit.
60 Sacramental Theology

6. If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain
the grace which they signify or that they do not confer that grace on
those who do not place an obstacle in the way, as if they were only ex-
ternal signs of the grace or justice received through faith and a kind of
marks of the Christian profession by which among [human beings] the
faithful are distinguished from the unbelievers, anathema sit.
7. If anyone says that, as far as God’s part is concerned, grace is not
given through these sacraments always and to all, even if they receive
them rightly, but only sometimes and to some,, anathema sit.
8. If anyone says that through the sacraments of the New Law grace
is not conferred by the performance of the rite itself (ex opere operato) but
that faith alone in the divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace, anathema
sit.
9. If anyone says that in three sacraments, namely, baptism, confir-
mation and Order, a character is not imprinted on the soul, that is, a
kind of indelible spiritual sign by reason of which these sacraments can-
not be repeated, anathema sit.
10. If anyone says that all Christians have the power (to preach) the
word and-to administer all the sacraments, anathema sit.
11. If anyone says that the intention, at least of doing what the Church
does, is not required in the ministers when they are performing and con-
ferring the sacraments, anathema sit.
12. If anyone says that a minister in the state of mortal sin, though
he observes all the essentials that belong to the performing and confer-
ring of the sacrament, does not perform or confer the sacrament, anathema
sit.
13. If anyone says that the accepted and approved rites of the Catho-
lic Church which are customarily used in the solemn administration of
the sacraments may be despised or omitted without sin by the ministers
as they please, or that they may be changed to other new rites by any
pastor in the Church, anathema sit.3

Very little is said in a positive vein. A number of earlier doctrinal

decisions are repeated (the number seven, the teaching that grace is
contained in the sacrament, the intention of the minister and the non-
necessity of personal worthiness on the minister’s part, the sacramental
character). No definition of sacrament or description of the essence of
sacraments is offered; in its Eucharistic teaching of 1551, the council

23. English in Neuner and Dupuis, The Christian Faith, 371-373.

 The Sacraments in General 61

says of a sacrament in general that it is a ‘‘symbol of a sacred thing

and a visible form of invisible grace’’ (NR 571/DS 1639). The counter-
position to that of the Reformers is made unmistakably clear: regard-
ing the number of the sacraments” (can. 1), their relationship to faith
(can. 4, 5, 8), the opus operatum (can. 8), the necessary authority (can.
10), the intention of the minister (can. 11). A thesis of Scholastic the-
ology, rejected by the Reformers, was accepted by the council: that
on the part of the recipient it was sufficient precondition (dispositio)
for the reception of grace that the recipient place no obstacle (obex) to
it (can. 6). The council did not wish to demand more personal prepa-
ration, so as not to endanger the practice of infant baptism, which was
here made the norm for the schema of sacraments in general. A result
of this minimal condition was that the liturgical context of the sacra-
ments was, from this point on, left totally out of consideration. A re-
cipient of a sacrament who is not conscious of it—as in the case of
infants—is not capable of participation in liturgy.
The council made no attempt to give a positive value to the opin-
ions of the Reformers, and this was particularly true with regard to
the subject of grace. Problems that were already seen at the time re-
mained unresolved because the council could not settle them and did
not wish to: for example, what exactly was to be understood as ‘‘insti-
tution’ by Jesus Christ (though the council did take a position on this
with respect to several individual sacraments), what the “‘desire’’ (vo-
tum) for a sacrament might be (can. 4), or what was to be understood
by the term ‘sacramental character’ and what were the grounds for
that concept.
Much of what is lacking in the spirit of the exposition here was stated
by the Second Vatican Council, four hundred years after the Council
of Trent, in an impressive theological and spiritual synthesis. Vatican
II described the sacramental life of the Church as the work of the Holy
Spirit, who joins believers in the body of Christ in which ‘through
the sacraments, [they] are united in a hidden and real way’’ to Christ
(LG 7). It interpreted the sacraments as means by which the nature
and structure of the Church are brought into operation (LG 11), and
as ‘sacraments of faith’’ (LG 21). It saw the sacraments within the

24. On the number of the sacraments, see M. Seybold, ‘“Die Siebenzahl der
Sakramente (Conc. Trid. sessio VII, can. 1),’” Miinchener Theol. Zeitschrift 27 (1976)
113-138; on the number seven in the Eastern Churches, J. Finkenzeller II, 166-172.
62 Sacramental Theology

whole context of the liturgy (SC 6, 7, 27). It devoted an important docu-

ment to the word of God (Constitution on Divine Revelation), repeat-
edly emphasized the privileged importance of its proclamation and
stressed the action of the Holy Spirit ‘‘through the faithful preaching
of the gospel. . . [and] administration of the sacraments’’ (UR 2; on
the word of God UR 21). It recognized essential common convictions
among the separated Churches with regard to the sacraments (UR 15,
22). It avoided the philosophically one-sided language of Scholasticism
and showed itself to be extremely open to images and symbols. Not
least, it repeatedly indicated the close connection between sacramen-
tal life and secular praxis.

4.2.6 The Development of Sacramental Theology after Trent

This one-sided, scholastically colored sacramental theology endured

in the Catholic Church from the Council of Trent until well into the
twentieth century. It was very attached to theoretical speculation, and
the author who writes that ‘‘post-Tridentine theology made no sub-
stantial productive contributions to the doctrine of the sacraments’’
did it no injustice.*> Nor is it unjust to say that its theories about the
intention of the sacraments and the manner of their effectiveness are
of merely historical interest. As a result of the teaching on minimal
preconditions and requirements as practiced by Trent and increasingly
expanded after the council, sacramental theology fell under the sway
of canon law, and gradually ceased to be theology at all.
The twentieth-century renewal movements (liturgical, ecumenical,
scriptural, and new approaches to tradition, especially in patristics)
gave sacramental theology a new lease on life.26 Since we will be dis-
cussing current issues in section 5 (necessarily in brief form), a few
summary remarks on the larger topics should suffice at this point.
1. The most important movements in the field of sacramental the-
ology between the two world wars were mystery theology and the re-

25. J. Finkenzeller in LThK IX, 224.

26. C. E. O'Neill in Bilanz der Theologie im 20. Jahrhundert III (1970) 244-294, with
a bibliography that still offers a valuable overview of the literature; C. Schiitz in
MySal Erganzungsband (1981) 347-353; A. Schilson, Sakrament als Symbol (see Bib-
liography 1) 122-150; A. Schmied, ‘‘Perspektiven.’’
 The Sacraments in General 63

newal of the idea of the Church as the body of Christ.?” Regarding the
first of these, we may cite Colman E. O’Neill’s summary:

From the suggestion of a relationship between the pagan mystery cults

and the Christian sacraments (in which, as became clear in the con-
troversy with his opponents, the pagan mysteries offered him only a
formal, and not a causal analogy), Odo Casel (1886-1948) came to the
conclusion that the cult represented a mysterious way leading to entrance
into the saving mysteries of Christ. The essential idea to which he gave
a renewed life was this: in order to participate in redemption, the human
being must be conformed to Christ by participating in his saving mys-
teries. In order for this to be possible, the liturgy must make Christ’s
saving actions really present to us. The fundamental intention evidently
agrees with Paul and the authentic tradition. . . . According to Casel’s
insight, Christ’s saving actions themselves are present in the cultic sym-
bolic actions of the Church—the saving action itself, not in its original
historical conditions, but ‘’sacramentally.’’ For, since in a saving event
God acts in history to effect salvation, this event transcends time and
is able to be present in the sacraments according to a new way of being.
This presence in mystery is hidden under the signs, and yet it is through
the signs that an objective presence occurs. It is, in the first place, the
presence of the death of Christ, and therefore also of the whole Paschal
mystery and of the whole work of salvation from Incarnation to
Parousia.”8

Through the intuitive impulse of this theology—which, of course,

left many questions open and was of more significance for baptism
and Eucharist than for the sacraments in general—the sense of mys-
tery in the liturgy was reawakened, Jesus-mysticism was encouraged
(as well as by the biblical movement), and thus the canonistic narrow-
ing and minimalizing of sacramental theology was overcome. In the
Constitution on the Liturgy of Vatican Council II at least some elements
of mystery theology are still evident. The insistence on the presence
of Jesus Christ in all liturgical actions (SC 7) offers a good basis for un-
derstanding the sacraments in a systematic manner on the basis of their
unique character as liturgy.
2. On the renewal of ecclesiology and the rediscovery of the sacra-
mental economy of salvation, see above at 2.1 and 3.

27. C. E. O'Neill, Bilanz der Theologie, 248.

64 Sacramental Theology

3. On the rediscovery of the sacraments as word-event, see below

ated#2:
4. Since Helmut Peukert’s groundbreaking effort to explore events
of communication and interaction as fundamental theological categor-
ies,?° the sacraments have repeatedly been described as ‘’communica-
tive actions,’’ either in a general sense as a space within which the
reality of God and of humanity can be communicated,* or in the more
circumscribed context of communications theory.*! Christian Schiitz
correctly points out that these interpretations appear artificial, because
they do not ask themselves ‘‘whether and to what extent the model
of communication among human persons and the consequences for
communications theory that are drawn from that model can be applied
to the relationship of God and human beings.’’*? This relationship
seems to be described in a much too technical fashion when Alexandre
Ganoczy writes of Church as the ‘‘collective communication of God
among humans,’’? and defines sacraments as ‘‘systems of verbal and
nonverbal communication, through which people called to faith in
Christ enter into the movement of exchange within a particular, con-
crete community, take part in it and thus, supported by God’s self-
communication in Christ and by his Spirit, advance along the way to
becoming themselves.’’ In these proposals, the description of the com-

28. Ibid., 250-251. Cf. the extensive scholarly description and evaluation of mys-
tery theology and the discussion of it in A. Schilson, Theologie als Sakramententheologie
(see Bibliography 1); cf. also T. Maas-Ewerd, ‘‘Odo Casel OSB und Karl Rahner
SJ,’ Archiv fur Liturgiewissenschaft 28 (1986) 193-234 (with additional literature).
29. H. Peukert, Wissenschaftstheorie—Handlungstheorie—Fundamentale Theologie (Diis-
seldorf: 1976); on the history of Peukert’s influence, see H. U. von Brachel and
N. Mette, eds.,. Kommunikation und Solidaritét (Fribourg and Minster: 1985).
30. L. Lies, ‘‘Sakramente als Kommunikationsmittel,’” in G. Koch and others,
Gegenwartig in Wort und Sakrament (Freiburg: 1976) 110-148.
31. P. Hiinermann, ‘’Sakrament—Figur des Lebens,’’ in R. Schaeffler and P.
Huinermann, Ankunft Gottes und Handeln des Menschen (Freiburg: 1977) 51-87; A.
Ganoczy, Einfiihrung in die katholische Sakramentenlehre (Darmstadt, 1979) 106-135.
For a critical evaluation, see C. Schiitz’s article in MySal Erganzungsband, 349ff.;
U. Kithn, Sakramente, 220-221, with bibliography; A. Schilson, ‘‘Sakrament als Sym-
bol,’’ 137.
32. C. Schiitz in MySal Erganzungsband, 351.
33. A. Ganoczy, Einfiihrung, 114.
34. Ibid., 116; there is an explicit rejection of the idea of the sacraments as ‘‘the
Church’s self-fulfillment,’’ since this Church can scarcely be discovered empiri-
 The Sacraments in General 65

munication of divine grace takes place in an ambiguous manner and

is subject to misunderstanding, either because it is said that ‘‘the
human actors” ‘enter into discipleship of the one who has uttered the
creative pronouncement”’ and “‘repeat the words of God,’’5 or because
“‘a repetition of the beginning,’’ of the constitution of the Church in
the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus** is thought to be possible.
5. Two contrasting positions interpret the sacraments on the basis
of the cultic realm. Their primary weakness lies in the fact that ‘‘cult’’
appears as a onesidedly human activity in contrast to the theologically
rich concept of liturgy. Thus while it is true that an important aspect
of the sacraments appears when they are considered as human interpre-
tations of being [Dasein]°” or when, quite rightly, they are viewed as
imperatives of social transformation and anticipations of a reconciled
life (also, and especially, in the ‘‘material’’ realm).°* But in these dis-
cussions, the Christological and Trinitarian theological bases of the
sacraments are not brought into the picture.
6. Finally, we should mention here the various ‘‘approaches”’ that
attempt to expound the sacraments on the basis of anthropological con-
siderations. When Karl Rahner interpreted the individual sacraments
as God’s promise of salvation to individual human beings, spoken by
the Church in absolute commitment, and taking place in decisive situa-
tions in the salvation history of each individual, he was proposing a
new formulation of Thomas Aquinas’ interpretation of the total of seven
sacraments on the basis of the development of human life, both indi-
vidual and collective.3? This point of view was taken up in pastoral

cally. See also statements like: a Christian ‘‘moves from one stage of communica-
tion to another’; the practice of the sacraments should occur in the manner “‘of
a progressive ‘strategy of the future’ ’’ (ibid., 127); not the Scholastic notion of
causality, but rather ‘images drawn from cybernetics’’ should be applied to the
sacramental event (ibid.); ministers of the sacraments are to be seen as ‘’catalysts
in service of interactive relations,’” and the sacramental sign ‘‘as reality-laden in-
formation intrinsically related to the addressee’’ (ibid., 134).
35. Ibid., 121.
36. P. Hiinermann, ‘’Sakramente—Figur des Lebens,”’ 76.
37. R. Schaeffler, ‘’Kultisches Handeln,’’ Ankundt Gottes, 9-50.
38. F. Schupp, Glaube—Kultus—Symbol. Versuch einer kritischen Theorie sakramen-
taler Praxis (Diisseldorf: 1974). On this, see C. Schiitz in MySal Erganzungsband,
353ff.; U. Kithn, Sakramente, 227.
39. K. Rahner, Kirche und Sakramente, 37-67.
66 Sacramental Theology

publications, sometimes in a simplified form. For example, the Wurz-

burg synod of the German bishops said: ‘In the individual sacraments,
the sacramental nature of the Church unfolds itself in the concrete situa-
tions of human life.’”4° Some people now say that ‘‘critical points’’ in
the corporal-spiritual existence of the human being have become sym-
bols of humanity’s direction toward transcendence.“ In such discus-
sions it seems to be easier to rediscover the creative sacramentality of
human nature, and its character as image and real symbol of God, than
to say anything about the individual sacraments of the Church. For
even when the fundamental, biological situations of human life are in-
terpreted religiously, and in fact, even when this results in an expressly
Christological conclusion, that in Jesus Christ a human life becomes
the highest form of expression of God, still the theologies of grace and
of the Trinity, which are also essential to sacramental theology, have
not yet been touched on.

4.3 Limits and Structure of General Sacramental Theology and

Doctrine of the Individual Sacraments

Sacramental theology as a division of theology or “‘treatise’’*? is a

part of dogmatics (dogma of faith) and thus of systematic theology,
but it has strong ties to practical theology, as well. Of course, when
the study of liturgy is regarded as a discipline of theology, and there-
fore as neither a purely historical nor purely practical science, it can
also bring sacramental theology under its umbrella. Sacramental the-
ology exercises a critical function with respect to official Church teach-
ing and practice. It ‘certainly includes a warning not to make of the
sacraments simply the primary and adequate guide for a description
of the whole of Christian life. The Church is neither a purely sacramen-
tal Church; nor does the sacramental life of Christians encompass their

40. ‘’Schwerpunkte heutiger Sakramentenpastoral,’” Gemeinsame Synode der

Bistiimer in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Offizielle Gesamtausgabe (Freiburg: 1976)
1:245-257.
41. See, for example, the bibliographic references to W. Kasper and J. Ratzinger
in A. Schilson, ‘’Sakrament,”’ 134. It is not possible here to discuss the extensive
literature on the sacraments in the fields of catechesis, religious education, and
pastoral liturgy.
42. Still valid on this is K. Rahner, ‘Sakramententheologie,”’ in LThK IX, 240-243.
 The Sacraments in General 67

whole existence; nor did God make divine grace totally dependent on
the sacraments.’’4? Sacramental theology most definitely has this criti-
cal function toward canon law and its normative demands.
Karl Rahner made the suggestion, based on his insight about the
sacramental structure of all created reality and the developing clarifi-
cation of sacramentality in salvation history, that the individual sacra-
ments should not simply be treated one after another, but instead, each
should be described in its appropriate setting in an anthropology of
believing human beings living in the Church.“ This suggestion was
followed by Mysterium Salutis and Initiation a la pratique de la théologie.
Still, there is still some practical sense in making a special overview
of the sacraments in the traditional order.
In the same context, Rahner determined that the proper place for
general sacramental theology is ecclesiology, the theological teaching
on the Church.*
Thus it still makes sense, on the basis of the theological insight into
the sacramental structure of the Church and its liturgy, to speak sum-
marily of the sacraments in general and in doing so to cover all the
essential contents of traditional sacramental theology, so long as we
avoid a procedure by which, at a later stage, all sacraments would be
uniformly pressed into a single, identical schema.
When the individual sacraments are described singly, Catholic tra-
dition has followed a certain order (which is, certainly, not obligatory):
baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, reconciliation, anointing of the sick,
orders, marriage (cf. Council of Trent, NR 501/DS 1310, and Vatican
Council II, LG 11). Here the first five correspond to the individual,
the last two to the collective life-situation, a division that was familiar
to Thomas Aquinas. The beginning of the series with baptism, confir-
mation, and Eucharist reflects the sequence of solemn initiation in the
old Roman Church,*¢ and thus carries a special weight of tradition.
The connection between the two ‘‘major sacraments”’ of baptism and
Eucharist is not really interrupted by confirmation, which belongs to
baptism. In this book, therefore, the individual sacraments will be dis-
cussed in the traditional order.
43. Thomas Aquinas, S. Th. III, q. 64, ad 7c, quoted in Rahner, “‘Sakramenten-
theologie,’’ 242.
44. Schriften, I, 28, 42, 44-47.
45. Ibid., 42; LThK IX, 241ff.
46. A. Angenendt, ‘‘Bonifatius’’ (see n. 12 above).
 5

Fundamentals of
General Sacramental Theology

5.1 Symbolic Liturgical Actions as Mediation of the

Presence of God

5.1.1 Effective Symbolic Event

As long as there has been reflection on sacramental theology, sacra-

ments have been thought of as ‘‘signs’’ (see above, 4.1 and 4.2.2). But
this understanding of sacraments is imprecise and in need of clarifica-
tion. There are signs that are mere pointers to something distant, to
someone or something that is absent. There are conventional, agreed-
upon signs, signals, etc. Therefore the concept of ‘“symbol’’ seemed
better suited as a more precise term. The Greek word ‘‘symbol,’’
stemmed from symballein, meaning ‘‘to throw together,’’ and there-
fore describes the bringing together of two parts that originally be-
longed together, for the purpose of recognition: therefore a symbol
is a “‘sign of recognition.’’ (And thus it is understandable that the Chris-
tian creed was known very early as a symbolum.) Symbol, therefore,

68
 Fundamentals of General Sacramental Theology 69

is essentially connected with recognition, understanding, and commu-

nication. Still, there is no single concept of symbol that is agreed upon
by the various groups and fields of scholarship that concern themselves
with symbols at the present time.' It is the indisputable right of theol-
ogy to insist on its own understanding of symbols; but in order for
there to be communication about the things that pertain to faith, it is
important that we seek common points in Christian and non-religious
views of symbols.
There are such points of commonality, and they consist, principally,
in the following:
Symbols are not simply images or fixed, static signs, representa-
tions of something that is absent. Instead, they are ‘‘relational events,”’
they create relationships and belong within an ‘intentional field,’’ i.e.,
they lead to an understanding of reality that is relational, dynamic,
and process-oriented.” Thus they have the characteristics of conscious
event, of action, and they overcome divisions of time—among other
things, they make present what is past and thus are not dissipated
in pure actualism. The recognition, understanding and communica-
tion that happen in the symbolic event are unthinkable without lan-
guage and its critical function. Thus symbol and language can agree
in two quite essential aspects: (1) a reality ‘‘expresses’’ itself in a dra-
matic, eventful ‘‘representation’’; this ‘‘representation’’ is composed
of materials drawn from our world of experience, so that it does not
immediately arise from its inner reality and yet is intimately connected
with it; (2) the inner reality that is intended is itself ‘‘there’’ in the event-
ful representation and dramatically ‘‘unfolds”’ itself out of that repre-
sentation.
If a reality expresses itself in the realm of symbols as actually present
in the event, the symbol is called a ‘real symbol.’’ If a reality expresses
1. The most important of these are depth psychology (symbols as expressions
of the psychic unconscious), philosophy of language, cultural anthropology and
ethnology (rituals), social psychology, and sociology (construction or promotion
of identity through symbolic interaction). Principal works are: E. Ortigues, Le Dis-
cours et le Symbole (Paris: 1962); T. Todorov, Théories due symbole (Paris: 1977);
L.-M. Chauvet, Du symbolique au symbole (Paris: 1979)—this last in dialogue with
the structuralists, Heidegger, and Rahner. See also Neue Zeitschrift fiir Systematische
Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 27 (1985) no. 2 (a special issue on modern theo-
ries of symbol).
2. D. Zadra, ‘Symbol und Sakrament,”’ in Christlicher Glaube in moderner Gesell-
schaft 28 (Freiburg: 1982) 88-121, at 94-95.
70 Sacramental Theology

itself in the realm of language in an eventful representation, this process

is called ‘‘myth.’’? Considered from the point of view that the intended
reality itself is present in the language event (that is, that the language
does more than simply inform), that event is called ‘‘performative ut-
terance.’’* Precisely these characteristics illustrate the extraordinary
agreement between religious and non-religious concepts of symbol.
First, we should mention the efforts of scholars in the field of religious
studies in regard to symbols. If these symbols tend to represent a
making-present of some transcendence that still remains rather in-
definite, Christianity can, nonetheless, recognize therein authentic
values from which it need not make violent efforts to distance itself.
Gerard van der Leeuw’s remarks are worthy of notice: ‘‘Some ancient
symbols reappear again and again. They constitute the bridges exist-
ing within human nature itself between the two worlds in which
human beings participate. The symbols are the borders where the two
realities meet. They are not the imaginative creations of the human
mind; they are given.’’ He also writes: ‘Every event can be an instance
of the holy. If it is, we speak of a ‘symbol.’ ’’> Here also, of course,
we witness the relationship of symbolism, poetry, and especially myth.°®
3. This presumes, within the context of the extensive discussion of myth (cf.
the literature listed in n. 6 below), that a reality can express itself in a symbol.
Whether it does, in fact, express itself does not depend solely upon the myth or
symbol: other experiences of this reality are needed in order to be certain that we
are not dealing merely with a projection. At any rate, the present discussion shows
that rationalistic devaluation of myth has run its course. Cf. H. Blumenberg, Ar-
beit am Mythos 2d ed. (Frankfurt: 1981); K. Hiibner, Die Wahrheit des Mythos (Munich:
1985).
4. The concept is from J. L. Austin and J. R. Searle; it is gradually making itself
at home in theology. Cf. D. Zadra, ‘‘Symbol und Sakrament,’’ 101ff.; J.-M. R.
Tillard, “Les sacrements de l’Eglise,’’ Initiation II (see Bibliography 1), 392ff.
5. H. G. Hubbeling, ‘‘Der Symbolbegriff bei Gerardus van der Leeuw,’’ Neue
Zeitschrift fiir Systematische Theologie (see n. 1 above) 100-110, at 106 and 104.
6. Cf. the detailed studies on the function of myth: H.-P. Miiller, ““Mythos—
Anpassung—Wahrheit. Vom Recht mythischer Rede und deren Aufhebung,”’ Zeit-
schrift fiir Theologie und Kirche 80 (1983) 1-25; idem, ‘Das Motiv fiir die Sintflut.
Die hermeneutische Funktion des Mythos und seiner Analyse,’’ Zeitschrift fiir die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 97 (1985) 295-316 (with important remarks on the ‘‘im-
age’’ of God in mythical structures of seeing); idem, ‘Mythos und Kerygma. An-
thropologische und theologische Aspekte,’’ Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche 83
(1986) 405-435 (including the recognition of God in myth). H.-P. Miiller correctly
points out that, for an adequate analysis and interpretation of myth, a recovery
of metaphysics is necessary.
 Fundamentals of General Sacramental Theology 71

From the point of view of the philosophy of religion, the presence of

the holy occurs when it is symbolically ‘‘presented’’ or narrated. What,
then, distinguishes a sacrament in Christian faith from this point of
view?
The sacrament is a symbolic action in which human beings are en-
gaged as believers, as those who celebrate liturgy, as narrators, as per-
sons who act symbolically; but the divine Spirit uses this human action
as a means and a way by which to make Jesus Christ, with his histori-
cally unique saving activity, memorially, really, and actually present.
This making-present thus does not happen without human beings,
but neither does it happen simply through them (as happens from the
point of view of religious studies or history of religions). Instead, it
is the Spirit of God who takes the initiative and supports the whole
event, causing the effects in the human persons; but instead of depriv-
ing those human persons of their own activity, the Spirit actually
strengthens them for what they do.
The manner in which the sacraments as symbolic actions mediate
the presence of God can be still more precisely described. Theoretical
objections to Christian sacramental practice repeatedly reveal the same
doubts: how can human symbols or gestures ‘‘compel’’ God to be pres-
ent here? How can human beings who perform such symbolic actions
claim to have divine grace at their disposal? These questions reveal
mistaken ways of thinking. Sacramental theology does not claim that
the sacraments cause a nearness to God, who would “‘otherwise’’ be
absent. The error here is in attributing to God a spatial distance from
the world and human beings that is overcome by the sacraments.
Sometimes God is also thought of as standing intentionally at a dis-
tance, as if God were at the same time neutral to and waiting for human
beings, until the sacrament causes him to be gracious to them. In refer-
ence to the saving event in Jesus Christ, this mistaken line of thought
often supposes an additional distance of time, as though the sacrament
could uproot from the past an event that has faded into the misty dis-
tance. We sometimes hear utterances even in the churches that give
encouragement to such ideas, as when there is talk of the privation
or distance of God that is said to exist in places where the sacraments
cannot be administered. Here some basic theological preconditions are
being forgotten: That God, in the Holy Spirit, is really present to God’s
creation, to God’s humanity, and not in the shape of a static Other,
but in the dynamism of God’s loving desire, in constant self-
72 Sacramental Theology

communication. For God, who transcends time, God’s unsurpassable

presence in creation and in humanity in Jesus Christ is not past, but
clearly present. In this ‘‘attitude,’” God has no need of a constantly-
renewed motivation, an increase of intensity, or any other change. In-
stead, change is needed on the part of the human beings to whom,
because of their own makeup, God’s presence, God’s desire for self-
communication, and the saving event in Jesus Christ are never equally
vivid nor equally intensive. In the symbolic sacramental actions—but
not only in them—God’s Spirit effects the ‘opening’ of the bars that
human beings set up against God’s presence. The Spirit actualizes and
intensifies what ‘‘always already”’ is. A part of this process is the abil-
ity of symbolic actions, already described several times, to externalize
and make visible that which, from their very inner constitution, de-
mands actualization.
Despite the existence of false notions of sacraments as material con-
tainers or ‘‘channels’’ for a divine grace that remains indefinite, there
is an increasing trend in theology to consider that sacraments are best
and most accurately described as symbolic actions that mediate the
presence of God.” Special mention should be made of two theologians
who have played a particular role in this field. Among Lutherans, Paul
Tillich (1886-1965) devoted himself in outstanding fashion to religious
symbols and the realm of the sacramental.® Tillich not only empha-
sized the effective character of the symbols and their expository func-
tion; he also spoke expressly of God’s action by means of symbols:
“God, in revealing himself, creates symbols and myths through which
he can be recognized and through which human beings can approach
him,’’”? not through an autonomous human initiative, but because
human beings ‘’are taken up into the sacramental unity with the di-
vine Spirit.’’1° Symbol and sacrament are synonymous concepts for
Tillich. He saw the finite world as full of symbols; he was convinced
that human beings can encounter the sacramental everywhere. The
Church’s sacraments he regarded as places in which the sacramental,

7. See the overviews in A. Schilson, ‘“Sakrament als Symbol’’; A. Schmied,

“‘Perspektiven’’; U. Kiihn, Sakramente.
8. Cf. P. Lengsfeld, ‘Symbol und Wirklichkeit. Die Macht der Symbole nach
Paul Tillich,’’ in W. Heinen, ed., Bild—Wort—Symbol (Wirzburg: 1969) 207-224;
U. Reetz, Das Sakramentale in der Theologie Paul Tillichs (Stuttgart: 1974).
9. P. Tillich, Gesammelte Werke VIII (Stuttgart: 1970) 79.
10. P. Tillich, Systematische Theologie III (Stuttgart: 1966) 146.
 Fundamentals of General Sacramental Theology 73

which can be encountered everywhere, is especially concentrated. This

is connected with the idea that not all effective religious symbols are
recognized and acknowledged in the same way by human persons.
The sacrament is also characterized by the fact that it is accepted by
a group—namely, believers.
On the Catholic side, Karl Rahner (1904-1984) not only developed
the concept of real symbol (see also 1.2 above), which describes the
‘““expression”’ of a particular, present reality in symbol, as distinct from
an arbitrarily chosen sign; Rahner also understood the symbol as an
event, and the following examples he gives of symbolic events make
this clear: ‘In the Trinity the Father is himself when he utters himself
in the Son who is distinct from him. The soul exists, that is to say,
fulfils its own being, when it embodies and expresses itself in the body
which it ‘informs’ and which is different from it. A person succeeds
in adopting a certain attitude when [she or] he expresses it a gesture:
by ‘expresses’ itself the attitude comes into being, or acquires existen-
tial depth.’’!? If the Reformers said that a sacrament is only a sign or
a symbol of the promise of faith which alone is effective for salvation,
this conception of the sacrament as a complex, effective symbolic event
would, of course, be contrary to their ideas.
The sacramental theology of real symbols described above is ecu-
menically open to the extent that the symbolic action must be borne
by the faith that is given by God alone, and only in God does it find
its ultimate guarantee.

5.1.2 Jesus Christ as Author of the Sacraments

The modern notion of an ‘‘institution’’ or ‘‘inauguration’’ of the

sacraments by God in Jesus Christ is deceptive, because it suggests
a juridical action at a particular point in time. Although it is true that
Jesus, and the Judaism of his time, had a positive attitude toward sym-
bolic actions, practiced them and thus gave a certain preference to some
of them, it is impossible to make a case for his having, at a particular
historical time, performed special juridical actions. Scholasticism, from

11. K. Rahner, ‘Zur Theologie des Symbols,’’ Schriften IV, 275-311.

12. K. Rahner and H. Vorgrimler, Kleines theol. Worterbuch (Freiburg, 15th ed.,
1985) 398 (art. ‘‘Symbol’’). English trans.: Dictionary of Theology 2d ed. (New York:
Crossroad, 1981) 491.
74 Sacramental Theology

which the Council of Trent took the concept of institutio (see above
at 4.2.5), was unacquainted with any narrow, punctual idea of institu-
tion. Instead, it embedded the sacraments in a context going back far
beyond Jesus Christ, to the very beginning of creation. Of course, it
tried so far as possible to discover words of institution during the life
of Jesus, but where it found none, it pointed instead to apostolic tra-
dition. Institutio, for the Scholastic tradition, could also be seen in the
fact that God gave the sacraments their effective power, something
that is equally impossible to fix at a particular moment in time, and
that in some instances this is ascribed to the work of the exalted Christ
through the Spirit.¥
Sacramental theology is spared any legalistic narrowing in terms
of a special moment and particular words of institution, if it follows
the suggestion of Karl Rahner: this presupposes an internal and ex-
ternal connection between Jesus Christ and the Church. The essence
of that connection is that the incarnation of God in Jesus constitutes
the primordial symbol or primordial sacrament of divine grace; that
Jesus is the effective pledge of the gracious word of God; that God’s
Spirit wills a continuation and a palpable appearance of God’s prom-
ise of salvation in Jesus Christ, which is the Church. ‘Through its be-
lief in God’s grace that is eschatologically victorious in Jesus Christ,
a belief that it hears and proclaims in faith, the Church is the sacra-
ment of the world’s salvation, since it proclaims and makes present,
as eschatologically victorious in the world, that grace which will never
again disappear from this world and that invincibly is moving this
world towards the fulfillment of the kingdom of God.’’#4 Given this
precondition, the individual sacraments can be regarded as further de-
velopments and effective fulfillments of this fundamental, sacramen-
tal essence of the Church (see 3.4 above). They originate, accordingly,
from God in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit, insofar as the Church
itself originates from God. Thus it is easy to understand why the

13. J. Finkenzeller I, 173-184; A. Schmied, ‘Was ist ein Sakrament?’’ (see Bib-
liography 1) 151-152.
14. K. Rahner and H. Vorgrimler, Wérterbuch, 366-367 (Sakrament) (pp. 452-453
of the English translation). ‘’Eschatological’’ here means what even in the future
is unsurpassable and finally valid. See also the summary of Rahner’s sacramental
theology in K. Rahner, ‘“Das Grundwesen der Kirche,’’ Handbuch der Pastoraltheologie
I (Freiburg: 1964) 118ff.; idem, “Die Sakramente als Grundfunktionen der Kirche,’”’
Handbuch, 323-332.
 Fundamentals of General Sacramental Theology 75

Church arrived at its own unique symbolic actions only through a long
process, and learned in that process how to distinguish those of cen-
tral importance from those of less importance. This process has parallels
in the discernment of the canon of biblical books: the process of medi-
tation and reflection on which writings, in the sacramental form of
human words, contain the Word of God went on, with much waver-
ing back and forth, until the end of the seventh century. In the case
of the individual sacraments, the process lasted until the twelfth cen-
tury. If we consider the ecumenical differences with regard to both
these matters (the biblical canon and the number of the sacraments),
we can say that this process of clarification has not been completed
even now.
In this process of recognition we can discern those structures that
we have already noted several times in connection with the sacraments:
the symbolic actions are not ‘‘invented”’ or ‘‘decreed,’’ but have grown
gradually and have been combined with narrative and explanatory
words. They therefore possess many traits of what is conditional and
accidental, but that which is essential and absolutely important in them
is present in precisely this shape and form. That raises the question
of the Church’s authority to interfere by making changes in the form
of the sacramental symbolic actions, which has developed over time.
The answer is quite different, depending on which of the individual
sacraments is in question, and it presupposes historical knowledge and
respect for traditions.’

5.1.3 The Number Seven and the Inequality of the Sacraments

The total of seven sacraments in the Catholic Church, which was

definitively maintained by the Council of Trent (see 4.2.5 above), is
the product of a long process of reflection. There are no compelling
reasons for maintaining that number as absolute: it developed histor-
ically, and even its symbolic value (i.e., 3persons in God + 4 elements
of the world = 7 as the fullness of God’s salvific activity) is not per-

15. The Church moved with extreme caution in regard to the Eucharist because
of the venerable tradition of the Last Supper accounts; on the other hand, it has
shown the greatest flexibility in the case of the sacraments of orders. Cf. also the
principle of the liturgical reform, that the rites must be expressive and intelligible
(SC 21, which also speaks of ‘‘unchangeable elements divinely instituted’’).
76 Sacramental Theology

suasive.!6 Nor is it so rigid that it could not, in fact, be expanded

through a series of ‘‘unfoldings’’ out of one or another of the individ-
ual sacraments. The passage into areas in which we no longer have
sacraments in the strict, Roman Catholic sense, but where, in fact,
sacramental structures are present, is not really material; they are
merely fixed because of a traditional insistence on acts of institution
(that is, on what was taken to indicate divine origin) as guarantees of
unfailing effectiveness. Quite apart from the problematic development
of confirmation, Karl Rahner is probably accurate in observing that the
individual sacraments have their locus in concrete situations in the his-
tory of salvation of individual human persons, who enfold their (new)
decisions in the liturgical symbolic actions of the Church and for that
very reason are prepared to accept from the Church the assurance of
salvation.
The greater number of sacraments in the Catholic Church is accom-
panied by a differentiation in their rank (see 4.2.5 above). Traditionally,
baptism and Eucharist are regarded as the ‘‘greater’’ or ‘’major sacra-
ments.’’!” This emphasis, so important in relations with the Churches
of the Reformation, also has an objective foundation. In particular, on
the basis of the important biblical witnesses to baptism and Eucharist,
we can say of both these sacraments that in them as nowhere else,
the whole saving action of Jesus Christ and especially the paschal mys-
tery is made present in the manner of real symbols, and that in their
liturgy the invitation to participate in the life and fate of Jesus Christ
(in the sense of a Jesus mysticism) is particularly intense. Baptism and
Eucharist also take precedence in the Church’s ranking: baptism as
the symbolic action of incorporation into the Church, and the Eucharist
as the liturgical actualization of the community of believers.

5.2 Sacrament—Event of the Word of God

The word of God is intensively involved in the sacramental struc-

ture: it causes what it perceptibly ‘‘signifies,’’ namely the grace of God

16. A new effort in this speculative direction was made by J. Dournes in ‘‘Die
Siebenzahl der Sakramente—Versuch einer Entschliisselung,”’ Concilium 4 (1968)
32-40.
17. Cf. Y. Congar, ‘‘Die Idee der sacramenta maiora,’’ Concilium 4 (1968) 9-15,
with extensive material cited.
 Fundamentals of General Sacramental Theology 77

through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. Reflection on the salvific qual-
ity of the word of God begins, from the nature of things, with the holy
Scriptures. It gives special attention to its Trinitarian origins: before
time, the expressibility of God implies the eternal Logos who, as word
of the Father, became human, and who is in one person, the promise
of God to humanity and the acceptance of that word of promise by
humanity. Hence in every saving event, including the sacramental
events, word and materiality are enduringly tied to one another. The
word of God (always clothed in human words), however it is commu-
nicated, is not limited to demonstrative or informative function: it ef-
fects what it says; it brings what it announces.’®
As long as there have been sacraments, the sacramental symbolic
action has always been accompanied by words—not merely interpre-
tive words in the liturgical petition and other explanations (for example,
in a homily), but also the narrational, reciting, proclaimed word of God.
From the beginnings of sacramental theology (Augustine) to the pres-
ent, this has led to reflection on the more precise relationship between
this sacramental word and the external sign. Even at a time when the
non-verbal part of the external sign was regarded statically, as element
or matter, the accompanying sacramental words (the forma) were taken
to be decisive in the accomplishment of the sacrament. With reflec-
tion on the entirety of the sacramental economy of salvation, the
primacy of the word of God became even clearer.'® On the basis of
Christology, the proclamation of the word was seen as the Church’s
essential function, and the sacrament was recognized as the highest
and most compressed form of the Church’s word of proclamation. Karl
Rahner could even say that ‘the fundamental essence of the sacra-
18. See the overview of recent theology of the word of God: F. Sobotta, Die Heil-
swirksamkeit der Predigt in der theologischen Diskussion der Gegenwart (Trier: 1968),
with bibliography; H. Jacob, Theologie der Predigt. Zur Deutung der Wortverkiindigung
durch die neuere katholische Theologie (Essen: 1969); F. Eisenbach, Systematische Stu-
dien (see Bibliography 1), 502-533, with bibliography; U. Kiihn, Sakramente, 218,
n. 61, with references to works by L. Scheffczyk, O. Semmelroth, and H. J. Weber;
J. Thomassen, ‘’Uberlegungen zur Heilswirksamkeit der Verkiindigung,’’ in L.
Lies, ed., Praesentia Christi (Diisseldorf: 1984) 311-320, with bibliography; idem,
Heilsworksamkeit der Verkiindigung. Kritik und Neubegriindung (Diisseldorf: 1986).
19. R. Schulte, ‘‘Die Wort-Sakrament-Problematik in der evangelischen und
katholischen Theologie,’’ Theologische Berichte 6 (Ziirich: 1977) 81-122; F, Eisen-
bach, Systematische Studien, 542-555 (with bibliography, especially works of K. Rah-
ner and O. Semmelroth).
78 Sacramental Theology

ment is to be found in the words used,’’?° in the absolute promise of

salvation. When in these newer reflections the sacramental and extra-
sacramental proclamation of the word of God are compared with one
another, and when the absolute high point is found in the sacrament,
it is important not to overlook the fact that the difference is not in what
is effected; it is not in the gift. The effective word of God, as proclaimed
and accepted in the Church, is effective to the extent that it is the word
of God (and not human communication, teaching, etc.), and it is in
every form and manner of proclamation the true. presence of God’s
grace, of the saving event in Jesus Christ, through the power of the
Holy Spirit. What is different, especially with regard to the intensity,
the ‘‘compression”’ of the fulfillment, is the manner in which the gift
is communicated?!—different, then, not because of the gift itself, but
because of its reception.
For sacramental theology and praxis it is of decisive importance that
the word event in the sacrament not be thought of as restricted to the
speaking of a brief ‘‘formula,’’ something which may be justified, at
most, in cases of extreme necessity and under particular conditions.
A sacrament is always liturgy, and therefore must always be seen in
a verbal context. In addition to the petition for the coming of the di-
vine Spirit, it includes the proclamation of the effective word of God
and the human response.”? The sacraments are also, in their essence,
“‘actions of response arising from faith and effected by the Spirit.’’
These reflections on the sacrament as word event are valid, of
course, in different ways in accord with the differences among the indi-
vidual sacraments. The word event in a sacrament touches a particu-
lar situation in a community and/or in the life of a concrete individual
human being; it is a promise of salvation within that situation, and
it makes present the corresponding situation in the life of Jesus Christ.
20. K. Rahner and H. Vorgrimler, Wérterbuch, 366 (English trans., p. 452). In
Schriften XVI, 389, Rahner says that the sacrament is ‘‘the most intensive case of
God’s revealing word.” There are related reflections from the Lutheran point of
view in the works of G. Ebeling: see M. Raske, Sakrament, Glaube, Liebe. Gerhard
Ebelings Sakramentsverstindnis—eine Herausforderung an die katholische Theologie (Essen:
1973); U. Kithn, Sakramente, 215-218.
21. Cf. U. Kiihn, Sakramente, 218-219.
22. Cf. E. Lessing, ‘‘Kirchengemeinschaft und Abendmahlsgemeinschaft,’’ Wis-
senschaft und Praxis in Kirche und Gesellschaft 69 (1980) 450-462, at 458-459; A.
Schmied, ‘’Perspektiven,’’ 32.
23. U. Kiihn, Sakramente, 219.
 Fundamentals of General Sacramental Theology 79

It draws the believers into this Jesus-situation and thereby alters their
situation and, through these changed believers, it alters the situation
of the world.

5.3 Sacrament, Prayer, and Discipleship

In the course of history, the Latin Church created formulae for the
administration of the sacraments and (with some exceptions that will
be discussed in connection with the individual sacraments) gave them
an indicative form.”4 When, subsequently, the question about the exact
moment at which the sacrament is accomplished arose, the answer was:
when the minister utters this formula in connection with the physical
action.?5 This minimalizing was unjust to the total sacramental event.
We should again become aware that, apart from cases of pure neces-
sity, the whole liturgical symbolic action constitutes the fulfillment of
the sacrament, and that individual elements cannot be dispensed with
at will. Beyond that, it is also desirable that the ‘core words”’ in the
‘administration of the sacraments’’ should (re)acquire the optative
form of petitionary prayers. That is not some extra, spiritual, but basi-
cally superfluous desideratum. We are dealing here with the basic form
of the sacraments: they are prayers, and more precisely, they are
prayers “‘in the name of Jesus,’’ spoken by the community of believers,
from ‘‘minister’’ and ‘‘recipient,’’ with a content that depends on the
situation in which each individual sacrament is given. Such a prayer
calls on the God who has revealed the one name that brings salvation
(Acts 4:12). This prayer”* is assured of a unique effectiveness; it will
certainly be heard (John 14:13-14; 16:23-24; cf. Mark 11:24; Matt 7:7-11;
21:22, and others). It is the most ancient form of the liturgy. In recover-
ing the sacraments as prayer, we could learn a great deal, from a reli-
gious and theological point of view, from the Eastern Churches’
epiclesis, the petition for the coming of the divine spirit to sanctify the
earthly matter. We would thus be made aware, once again, of the Spirit
24. The old Roman liturgy hesitated over this for a long time. The first appear-
ance of indicative formulae cannot be demonstrated in the Roman liturgy before
the end of the seventh century. See A. Angenendt, ‘‘Bonifatius,’’ 135.
25. Cf. the decree for the Armenians: NR 503/DS 1312.
26. R. Schwager, ‘“Wassertaufe, ein Gebet um die Geisttaufe?’’ Zeitschrift fur
katholische Theologie 100 (1978) 36-61, at 56-59 on the prayer ‘‘in the name of Jesus,’’
precisely in the context of the sacraments.
80 Sacramental Theology

of God as the one who is at work in the sacraments for the salvation
of human beings. At the same time, we could avoid the misunderstand-
ing, whereby it appears that the person, whether man or woman, who,
according to the prescribed order of divine service, is entitled to speak
these ‘core words,’’ has the sacraments, with all their effects in the
realm of grace, at his or her disposal, or possesses a magical power
that serves to distinguish him or her from the others who participate
in the celebration. The renewal of the sacraments as a liturgy of prayer
would be of great ecumenical importance, both as regards the Eastern
Churches and the Churches of the Reformation, and even in relation
to Judaism, from which the Church received the structure of its highest
sacrament, the form of the Eucharistic prayer.?”
As long as the perduring common practice, which at the very least
displays a ‘‘magisterial’’ mentality,2® remains unchanged, we must give
special attention to the prayers that accompany the sacraments. They
are not some kind of superfluous ornamentation; rather, they are a
special opportunity for those who celebrate the sacraments and hope
to receive some benefit from them to be subjects, to be able to speak
for themselves in the presence of God. It would be a far too narrow
conception of the sacraments to restrict the subjective participation of
those who carry out the sacramental actions, and especially the so-
called recipients, to nothing but faith. The sacraments are places for
encounter with Jesus Christ, as sacramental theology correctly says.
But ““encounter’’ here means more than simply a momentary meet-
ing. It has a mystical meaning, i.e., human beings unite themselves
as intensively as possible with the person and destiny of Jesus Christ.
The older theology was aware of this when it described the sacraments
as renewed fulfillment of the events in the life of Jesus, of the myster-
ies of Jesus’ life,” a dimension that has been totally forgotten today.
27. K. Rahner’s important ideas on the subject of sacraments as prayer of the
church, using all the sacraments as examples, but with special concentration on
the sacrament of anointing the sick, are found in Kirche und Sakramente 22-30, 52-62.
For an epicletic and pneumatological understanding of the sacraments, from the
point of view of the Eastern Churches, cf. R. Hotz, Sakramente (see Bibliography
1) 173-300. See further B. McDermott, ‘‘Das Sakrament als Gebetsgeschehen,’”’
Concilium 18 (1982) 626-630.
28. A. Angenendt, ‘’Bonifatius,’’ 161, with reference also to the opinion of J.
Ratzinger.
29. On this, see G. Lohaus, Die Geheimnisse des Lebens Jesu in der Summa theolo-
giae des heiligen Thomas von Aquin (Freiburg: 1985). There are some more extensive
 Fundamentals of General Sacramental Theology 81

The sacraments are the places at which the events that make up the
living and dying of a human being are inserted and enfolded in the
events of the living and dying of Jesus, and human hopes of resurrec-
tion become part of his accomplished triumph. At this point we are
again taking up a suggestion of Karl Rahner, when he said that grace
is only understood in a Christian way if it is seen not as a metaphysi-
cal divinization, but as an assimilation to Jesus Christ, which is existen-
tially transformed into discipleship in his followers.*°
This mysticism begins in the language event of the sacraments. In
making present the events of the living and dying of Jesus, it is (also)
a spoken adoration of the Father and at the same time (also) a placing
oneself at the disposal of the impulses of the divine Spirit. But it is|
not restricted to the realms of language and of mental reflection. Johann |
Baptist Metz is right to call the sacraments “‘tangible praxis of grace,
without which there can be no mysticism of grace.’’3! In their physi-|
cally perceptible, comprehensible form, the sacraments assist the mys- |
tical making-present of the tender God, of the body-caring praxis of .
Jesus; they are ‘the appeal of grace in the senses.’’*? Thus it is clear
that this view of things does not imply a mere notion of interiority and
otherworldliness; instead, as with Jesus, this mystical dimension is
unitedto a concrete, practical, and even political dimension.
The following reflections may also contribute to the support of this
idea. Ordinarily, when people are praying they project the divine
dimension into a distant ‘““heaven,”’ a heavenly liturgy far removed
from the trials of this earth. In this way, the real nearness of God to
creation, to humanity in its concrete situation of need, is not taken seri-
ously enough. For Jesus, as Pascal said, this nearness means that his
suffering and death endure to the close of history. The one who is pres-
ent through the Spirit, in the liturgy as well, is not simply the Exalted
One in his glory, but the one who suffers and is oppressed in and with
all creatures.

suggestions on this topic also in L. Lies, ‘’Trinitatsvergessenheit gegenwartiger

Sakramententheologie?”’ Zeitschrift fiir katholische Theologie 105 (1983) 290-314.
30. K. Rahner, Schriften I, 220-221.
31. J. B. Metz, Jenseits biirgerlicher Religion (Munich and Mainz: 1980) 78.
32. Ibid., 73; cf. the whole section from pp. 73-79.
82 Sacramental Theology

5.4 Sacraments of Faith

We have already discussed ‘faith as one of the preconditions for

sacramental theology (1.5 above). Now we need to reflect more directly
on the connection between faith and sacraments.
In a very general sense, faith means freely accepting what a person
says because of one’s confidence in that person.* It is thus an essen-
tial element in the relationship between persons; it has the character
of a response and it rests on the trustworthiness of the person speak-
ing. If God is the speaker, the utterance is always mediated (see 1.1
above), so that from the human point of view God’s communication
is always more opaque than that of a human being. Because of the in-
finite distance between God and human beings, Jewish and Christian
tradition insists that humans are only able to accept this communica-
tion of God in freedom, if God himself enables their acceptance. The
word most often used in the Old Testament for faith means ‘‘to know
myself secure.’’ To God’s call and to the experience of security cor-
respond, at the same time, God’s claim on the human person in all
his or her dimerisions, a claim that, in the final analysis, demands that
humans love God (so that it is not mere acceptance and obedience)
and that finds its fulfillment in the union of divine and human love.
In the New Testament conception of faith, it is never a question of
founding one’s faith on the Church in addition to or instead of on God,
so that one trusts totally and completely in the Church. Faith rests al-
ways and exclusively in God. But, from God’s very first revelations
until now, faith is always given also to what God reveals as God’s will;
faith is not only an attitude of unshakable trust, for it also has a con-
tent. Christians are convinced that the Church is part of that content,34
but a Church neither as an autonomous entity nor as something for
its own sake; rather, as a reality living entirely from its head, Jesus
Christ, and in the Holy Spirit. From this point of view there is, even
in the New Testament, an attested connection between faith and sacra-
ment, so that the sacrament can be understood as a tangible fulfill-
ment or confession of faith (Rom 6:1-11; Gal 3:26-27; Acts 8:35ff.; Mark
16:16; John 6:47-51).

33. K. Rahner and H. Vorgrimler, Wérterbuch, 149-155 (Glauben);

English: 167
(Faith).
34. H. de Lubac, ‘‘Credo Ecclesiam,”’ in J. Daniélou and H. Vorgrimle
r, eds.,
Sentire Ecclesiam (Freiburg: 1961) 13-16.
 Fundamentals of General Sacramental Theology 83

Therefore, in accepting and affirming the sacraments, the Church’s

tradition has seen participation in them as primarily a confession of
faith and in this sense speaks of ‘sacraments of faith.’’> When the
tradition up to Vatican Council II (SC 59) also says of the sacraments
that they nourish and strengthen faith, that is not an inappropriate
expansion: why should the physically tangible, visible witness to faith
not strengthen the inner attitude, which is never purely spiritual, es-
pecially since the one who acts in both is one and the same, namely
the Holy Spirit of God? The original connection between faith and
sacrament is so close that the question whether faith is necessary for
the carrying out of the sacrament must be utterly bewildering. How-
ever, this question lies at the heart of a common teaching in the Catholic
Church, even though it can only be understood against the background
of its historical development: the teaching about the minimal condi-
tions for administering a sacrament. The teaching contains a number
of problematic distinctions or divisions.
The first distinction to be discussed in this connection is that be-
tween the ‘‘minister’’ and the ‘‘recipient’’ of the sacrament. The full
ugliness of the phrase is apparent only in German, where the two terms
are Spender and Empfinger. The Latin (and English) term ‘’minister”’
still has some aura of the meaning of one who gives aid or service.
But the development of sacramental theology has made it impossible
to dispense entirely with this pair of concepts. At the beginning of
sacramental praxis, there was a liturgy performed by all, the commu-
nity celebration of the sacramental symbolic action; but with the de-
velopment of the episcopal and priestly offices, for the sake of unity
and order in the communities, the question of competence in regard
to the sacraments quickly arose. It is certainly evident by the time of
Hippolytus of Rome (d. ca. 236). In line with Latin legal theory, it ap-
peared that the single condition that must be fulfilled by the minister
of the sacrament was the possession of authority (Vollmacht).%¢ In the
wake of divisions within the Church, and the appearance of heretical
clerics, who had previously been endowed with genuine authority,

35. The standard work is L. Villette, Foi et Sacrement I [NT to Augustine] (Paris:
1959); II [Thomas Aquinas to K. Barth] (Paris: 1964). Cf. also H. J. Auf der Maur
and others, eds., Fides sacramenti sacramentum fidei. Studies in honour of Pieter Smul-
ders (Assen: 1981), containing ten articles on the history of dogma and four sys-
tematic studies on the connection between faith and sacrament.
36. J. Finkenzeller I, 103ff.
84 Sacramental Theology

the further question arose whether sacraments administered by a here-

tic were not invalid. Augustine dealt with this problem, which was
an acute one for him because of the Donatists, with the thesis that even
such a sacrament was valid so long as it was administered in the form
recognized by the Church.
Thus another distinction entered the picture: that between ‘valid’
and “‘invalid’’ administration of a sacrament. The Church claimed the
ability to be able to decide whether a sacrament occurs or not. On the
basis of the Augustinian position concerning the minister of the sacra-
ment there developed, in the thirteenth century, the teaching about
the proper intention as a second condition to be fulfilled by the minis-
ter of the sacrament.*” At that time, the problems were less pressing
than they had been for Augustine. People inquired theoretically what
would happen if a mother, while bathing her child, should jokingly
baptize it in the name of the Trinitarian God, or if a priest gave abso-
lution in jest. The theological consensus was that, presupposing that
the minister of a sacrament could administer it (i.e., had the necessary
authority), he or she administers it validly if he or she has the inten-
tion, i.e., the purpose, ‘‘of doing what the Church does.’’ This view
was adopted also by the Council of Trent (see 4.2.5 above).
The Catholic Church had thus established a minimum, which did
not do justice to the sacramental event as a whole. The Church did
not inquire about the beliefs of the minister of the sacrament; thus faith,
on the part of one of the principal actors in the sacramental liturgy,
was not regarded as necessary. In critical cases the Church is even pre-
pared to accept the absence of authority in the minister of the sacra-
ment, since it recognizes a sacrament received in good faith, though
“invalidly’’ administered, as having the same saving effects as a
“‘validly’’ administered sacrament. In this case the Church itself in-
tervenes in favor of those in good faith and supplies what is lacking.3
As strange as this position may seem, it still bears powerful witness
to the conviction that the essential actor in the sacrament is not the
human being, but Jesus Christ through the divine Spirit, which will
not be thwarted in its effects even by the greatest possible unworthi-
ness, or even lack of faith on the part of the official minister. And this

37. Ibid., 108-111, 190-195; J.-M. Tillard, ‘Zur Intention des Spenders und des
Empfangers der Sakramente,”’ Concilium 4 (1968) 54-61, with bibliography.
38. H. Herrmann, Ecclesia supplet (Amsterdam: 1968).
 Fundamentals of General Sacramental Theology 85

conviction is, once again, one of faith—the faith of the Church as a

whole.
A parallel question related to the ‘‘recipient’’ of the sacrament. Its
origins were in the New Testament communities, who in turn could
refer directly to Jewish principles: the desire to belong to the commu-
nity of God included the will to orient one’s life on the faith of that
community. In turn, the community cannot accept any and all behavior
on the part of its members. Paul’s remarks (1 Cor 11:27ff.) on the
““worthy”’ reception of the Eucharist should be understood against this
background. From frequent meditation on these statements, which
were tangibly expressed in the institution of penance and reconcilia-
tion in the ancient Church, there arose a distinction between ‘‘worthy’’
and ‘‘unworthy”’ reception of the sacraments, the latter leading to a
harmful result. The ancient Church had very concrete ideas about the
‘“‘worthiness”’ of the recipients of a sacrament. They must confess their
faith publicly and offer tangible evidence of a Christian way of life.
For theology, the initial question was not whether too much im-
portance was thus given to human achievements and claims, since
there was an unbroken consensus, based on a clear theology of grace,
that no human being could do anything good unless God gave him
or her the ability, the will, and the means to accomplish it. Theologians
were more inclined to discuss whether people could ‘‘worthily’’ re-
ceive sacraments, if they were not in a position to give a clear expres-
sion of their purpose (intention) to receive them. The practice of
baptizing infants or anointing unconscious persons evoked this ques-
tion about the minimal disposition (appropriate readiness). The Catho-
lic Church adopted a theory that was mainly worked out by Albert
the Great and Thomas Aquinas, which said that a negative disposi-
tion was sufficient for the valid and worthy reception of a sacrament.
More precisely stated, the negative disposition exists so long as a
human being places no obstacle (obex) to God’s saving will. Clear ob-
stacles were an expressed will not to receive the sacrament, or a dis-
position of serious and unrepented guilt. At the Council of Trent this
teaching about the minimal disposition was officially accepted by the
Church (see 4.2.5 above).
Once again, this conception, one-sidedly oriented as it is to border-
line cases, does not do justice to the whole process of sacramental lit-
urgy. It does express, in its own way, the conviction that the faith of
the Church as a whole, the gift of the divine Spirit, accomplishes the
86 Sacramental Theology

sacramental events, and that God’s gracious action always anticipates

the human part, embracing even those who are unconscious or inca-
pable of independent action. But faith, as it is searchingly portrayed
in the revealed word of God, must be accepted by individual, concrete
subjects and accomplished in the forms of profession, liturgy and the
praxis of life. This insight gave rise to the generally accepted teaching
about the ‘‘fruitful’’ reception of a sacrament, which only happens
when a human being, led by the grace of God, makes the sacrament
a sign of his or her faithful acceptance of God’s promise of salvation.
This can also occur when the person consciously accepts a sacrament
that was previously bestowed on him or her, thus “‘ratifying’’ or
“‘renewing’’ it. This is sensible and even necessary for Christian life,
not only in the case of baptism, but also for other sacraments that can
only be received once but are to have real effects throughout a per-
son’s whole life, such as marriage or orders.°? The sacraments are de-
livered from momentary or mechanical conceptions, if we see them
as dynamically embedded in the whole dialogical life-story of a human
being with God, which never remains at the same level of intensity,
but has its heights and depths. In this sense, the Council of Trent said
of the sacraments that, through them, ‘every true justice begins, grows
or, having been lost, is restored’ (NR 505/DS 1600).

5.5 Sacrament as Mediation of Divine Grace

If, according to Catholic belief, the sacraments mediate divine grace,

and do so ‘’by the power of the completed ritual’’ (ex opere operato) this
conviction needs to be protected against a variety of possible misin-
terpretations. God’s grace exists where God is, and since God is in
creation and with God’s people, God's grace is ‘always already” there,
is always present to human beings. This is quite clear when grace is
understood primarily as that uncreated grace that is Godself, who
desires to communicate himself to creation and to human beings, and

39. On the connection between faith and sacrament, see also K. Rahner, ‘‘Per-
sonale und sakramentale Frémmigkeit,’’ Schriften II, 115-141, as well as his ‘“Glaube
und Sakrament,”’ Schriften XVI, 387-397. Also important is Rahner’s Kirche und
Sakrament 30, regarding a ‘‘revival’’ of the sacraments when the ‘‘obstacle’”’ has
been removed. This idea of “‘revival’’ or ‘‘revivification’’ can be found as early
as Augustine with regard to the sacraments that imprint a ‘’character’’ (see 5.7
below) and cannot be repeated.
 Fundamentals of General Sacramental Theology 87

who has ‘‘always already’’ made that communication. Sacraments are

thus neither means whereby God is moved to change something, nor
means for bringing about the presence of God. But God’s presence,
which is ‘‘always already’’ guaranteed, seeks concrete ways of insert-
ing itself in particular human situations. Concretely that means: ways
that are perceptible and evident to human beings in a human way,
and ways that people can follow. God desires to be present in particu-
lar human situations since God is not merely an incomprehensible,
transcendent presence, but has already entered concretely into human-
ity in God’s word made human and in the Holy Spirit, has already
given tangible expression, in the community of believers, to that di-
vine ‘‘arrival’’ within humanity. What is still lacking and has to be made
clear again and again is that this ‘‘arrival’’ of God happens concretely
in particular situations touching the community and individual per-
sons. This concretion occurs in the liturgical symbolic actions of the
sacraments: the express promise rests on them, because the effective-
ness of prayer and of the community assembly (no matter how small)
are secured by divine revelation. The difference in situations means
that the presence of God is effective in different ways, which in itself
justifies a differentiated view of sacramental grace according to the va-
riety of the sacraments.
‘“By the power of the completed ritual’ (ex opere operato) thus means
that the sacrament derives its validity and effectiveness from the power
of God. Human religious subjectivity, human faith, human readiness
to accept pardon and salvation from God are not the cause of the sacra-
ment’s effective power; they are the condition, brought about by the
Spirit of God, for the effective application of the grace of God that is
offered in the sacrament. The sign stands under the promise of God
and is at God’s disposal: God means it with full sincerity, it will never
lead human beings astray, and thus it can never lose its real sign
value—its significance as symbol of God’s unconditional promise of
salvation in Jesus Christ—even through the negligence of the Church’s
official ministers.
This connection between sacrament and concrete realization of the
grace of God, of course, suggests the question whether this means that
the sacraments are necessary for human salvation. The answer to this
question about the necessity of the sacraments for salvation must be
subtly differentiated. On the one hand, if God had decreed by some
legal action the necessity of one or several sacraments for salvation,
88 Sacramental Theology

God would at the same time have condemned countless human be-
ings, since it would be clear to God how many obstacles there are to
sacramental life for myriad humans. This kind of negative predestina-
tion would contradict the revelation of the divine salvific will, which
is effective for all people (Rom 11:32; 1 Tim 2:1-6). On the other hand,
the promptings of the divine Spirit in revelation, in choice, and in call
show that God effects his promise of salvation and saving presence
on a path that leads to a people of God and a Church, a path that indi-
viduals undertake ‘‘for’’ the others, and which they, as God’s wit-
nesses, must invite others to follow. From that point of view it is
impossible to conceive of many roads to salvation running so independ-
ently parallel to one another that they simply have nothing to do with
each other. This leads us in the direction of the Catholic conviction
that the sacraments as a whole may not be regarded as optional and
superfluous (Council of Trent: NR 509/DS 1604).
The high Scholastic theologians of the thirteenth century discussed
the question of the necessity of the sacraments for salvation and ar-
rived at a consensus.*° They often quoted the statement that God has
not bound divirie grace exclusively to the sacraments, and concluded
from this that the sacraments are not absolutely necessary, but only
an appropriate way to salvation. Their suitability is given anthropo-
logical foundation: it is fitting for human beings to arrive at spiritual
realities by means of material things. When a person does not recog-
nize the Church’s way of salvation as obligatory, there can be no ques-
tion of the sacraments’ being necessary for salvation. But when a
person acknowledges the appropriateness and importance of a sacra-
ment, she or he may not neglect it. A particular sacrament can become
necessary for an individual person (Council of Trent, NR 509/DS 1604).
A study of and reflection on the existence of sacraments can be an oc-
casion for some individuals to acknowledge their humanity with its
sense-oriented nature, their dependence on others, and their need for
God's assistance. The fact that such a reflection is a process that oc-
curs over time and is subject to ups and downs, depending on the par-
ticular Church and the stages of a person’s life—briefly, that in an
individual's life there may also be periods of distancing from the sacra-
ments, is as obvious as is the appropriateness of the sacraments for

40. J. Finkenzeller I, 144-147.

 Fundamentals of General Sacramental Theology 89

the Church, which as a community of faith, like every community, has

a need for symbolic actions of its own.
The connection between the different ways of salvation is expressed
in the Church’s teaching in terms of a desire (votum) for the sacraments.
Even without visible connection to the Church, and even without the
reception of a sacrament, a human being may receive sacramental grace
if she or he—prompted by God—has a serious, positive will directed
toward Church and sacraments. In the cases of baptism and reconcilia-
tion the Council of Trent expressly declared that these sacraments can
be replaced by a desire for them. But this desire may only intend the
sacraments and the Church in an inclusive sense, that is, when a per-
son is prepared to follow the dictates of his or her own conscience in
fulfilling the will of God. The possibility of living in God’s grace, of
being justified and attaining eternal life thus does not necessarily
presuppose a specific knowledge of Church and sacraments (NR
371/DS 3870ff.). This teaching does not deny a unified concept of di-
vine grace: the grace that effects such a desire is the unique grace of
God the Father in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit, the grace that
in the Son and for his sake has come to and been accepted by humanity,
that continues to seek its tangible expression, its concrete ‘bodiliness’’
in the Church and in the individual sacraments, but that in some people
already anticipates this embodiment as an abiding basis for its effec-
tiveness.*1

5.6 Sacrament and History

In the sacramental symbolic actions, concrete situations in an indi-

vidual human life or in the life of a community are brought before God,
the God who is not distant, but rather is present in a love that antici-
pates all needs. The presence of God is different from the intermittent
presence of human beings: with God, past and future are “‘present”’
together. If the sacraments are signs that effect what they signify—
that is, if they mediate the saving presence of God through Jesus Christ
in the Holy Spirit—then they make “‘present’’ the past, present and
future; and these are not simply some historical events, but the history
that is defined by God.

41. K. Rahner and H. Vorgrimler, Wérterbuch, 439 (Votum), English: 531 (Votum).
90 Sacramental Theology

Scholastic theology was aware of this.#? It spoke about a threefold

symbolic function of the sacraments. It is certainly not wrong to ex-
pand the medieval vision in a Trinitarian context, so that the structure
of faith-love-hope is made clear. A sacrament is, in the first place, al-
ways a memorial symbol (Thomas Aquinas: signum rememorativum).
That is, it is remembering, a narrative recall** of a past that, through
the effective sign, becomes present. This is the past in which the source
and origin of all saving and forgiving grace is to be found. Medieval
theology, in its mystical view, took as this source the suffering of Jesus
Christ that becomes present reality. Beyond that, the memory of the
whole life of Jesus, his adherence to his own people, his origin as Son
and Word of God from eternity, in which ‘‘always already’’ the salva-
tion of creation and humanity, was intended. A sacrament is, secondly,
a sign of grace at work in the present (signum demonstrativum). It points
to the divine Spirit who, here and now, is effecting divine love, human
love and forgiveness in the human person. A sacrament is, thirdly,
an effective anticipation of the future (signum prognosticum). It points
to the accomplishments of God’s purpose, the perfection of creation,
the universally-realized reign of God and, included in that, the per-
fection of the individual life in death and in eternal blessedness. And
so this making-present of the future results in the praise and adora-
tion of God the Father.
Sacramental praxis easily overlooks this making-present of all his-
tory as salvation history in every individual sacrament. Especially when
a sacrament is administered only in an attentuated rite, all attention
is drawn to the grace-filled event of the moment. When it is really
celebrated, as liturgy, which is normally the case only with the Eu-
charist, it attains to its fullness as a recovery of the abiding past in the
present and a stretching forward into the future already begun.

5.7 Sacraments of the Church

From what has been said it is probably clear that the sacraments
can be understood as fulfillments of the Church’s life or forms of the

42. J. Finkenzeller I, 128-129.

43. J. B. Metz, Glaube in Geschichte und Gesellschaft (Mainz: 1977) 185, speaks of
the fundamental narrative character of the sacramental event. [English translation:
Faith in History and Society (New York: Seabury, 1980) 206.]
 Fundamentals of General Sacramental Theology 91

Church’s self-actualization, without detracting in the least from the

sovereignty of God in communicating divine grace. Under the always
valid precondition tht God alone guarantees that divine grace will be
given, by sacramental or nonsacramental means, according to God’s
will, we can recognize a manifold involvement of the Church in the
field of sacraments.
First we ought to mention that, according to Catholic belief, it is
the Church’s task to recognize the necessary conditions for the validi-
ty and liceity of a sacramental action and to establish appropriate
norms. Since the sacraments are the Church’s liturgy, there is no doubt
that the Church has charge over the design, ordering, and reform of
sacramental liturgy. That does not exclude the possibility that there
could be improvements as regards the concrete application of this prin-
ciple, for example, regarding the minimalizing and juridical points of
view discussed above (4.2.3), or as regards the exclusion of most Chris-
tians from the designing of a liturgy that remains largely that of a cleri-
cal hierarchy. It must be admitted that the liturgical reforms, begun
by Vatican II, have created the preconditions for changing this nar-
row viewpoint. In the reform of each sacramental rite (as will be indi-
cated below in connection with each individual sacrament), blessings
were incorporated in the essential rite which, in their structure, cor-
respond to the Eucharistic prayer as the ‘‘quintessence”’ of all liturgy—
i.e., consisting of a memorial of God’s saving acts, an anamnesis, a praise
of thanks, as well as the petition for the coming and action of the di-
vine Spirit (epiclesis). When the essential action is the common prayer,
the question of the ‘‘minister’’ is relatively unimportant in principle.
At least there are signs of a future possibility whereby the blessing-
prayer could be seen as that which constitutes the sacrament, with no
restriction, without reason, on the number of those who can pray that
prayer. However, we cannot overlook the fact that from the Middle
Ages to the present the center of the Church’s interest has been focused
on the possession of authority, the proper intention of the ‘’minister,”’
and the disposition of the “‘recipient.’’ We have already discussed this
above (5.4). This overemphasis on legality is nonetheless an expres-
sion of reverence for the sacrament.
Besides this regulatory function of the Church, sacramental theol-
ogy perceives an internal ecclesial shaping of the sacraments. This
means that when a human person enters into the sacramental action
(asks to ‘‘receive’’ a sacrament), that person expresses a willingness
92 Sacramental Theology

to be a living member of the Church; that the one who desires to en-
counter Jesus Christ in the sacraments also expresses a positive desire
to encounter the Church, and neither can nor wishes to exclude the
Church from this encounter. The theological basis for this connection
between the fully dissimilar realities of Jesus Christ and the Church
is to be found in the New Testament teaching about the Body of Christ
(see 4.2.1 above). Theology has described this connection, in the
sacramental context, with the Scholastic concept res et sacramentum (see
4.2.3 above). Res et sacramentum, a kind of middle term between the
sacramental sign (sacramentum tantum) and the final effect of grace (res
sacramenti), must participate both in that final effectiveness and in the
visibility of the sign, but in such a ‘’middle’’ way that res et sacramen-
tum is not identical with either. This “‘middle’’ is seen by some
theologians“ in the special ecclesial relationship in which the first ef-
fect also participates, for example, in baptism, the acceptance into the
Church as the Body of Christ and thereby the remission of all sins; in
the Eucharist, the communion with the Church as community of love
and thereby the communion with Jesus himself; in penance, the recon-
ciliation with the Church injured by sin and thereby the eradication of
the sin by God. Accordingly, an individual sacrament always actual-
izes the fundamental sacrament that is Church and incorporates those
celebrating the sacrament, in a way unique to each sacrament, into that
fundamental sacrament. An acceptance of these ideas, which need not
be couched in Scholastic terminology, could liberate the sacraments
from any ideological form of individualism in their saving application.
In addition, from this point of view it is theologically plausible that
the Church can refuse the sacraments to those who do not have the
desire to participate actively in the Church community. In doing so,
it does not deny these people the grace of God, which is in no way
at the disposal of the Church.
A further implication of this conviction about an internal connec-
tion between Church and sacraments is the Catholic teaching that three
sacraments (baptism, confirmation, and orders) bestow a ‘’sacramen-

44. Consistently treated by K. Rahner in Kirche und Sakramente; he has a number

of followers. Cf. L. Bertsch and G. Gade, ‘’ ‘Res et sacramentum.’ Zur Wiederent-
deckung der kirchlichen Dimension in der Sakramentenkatechese,”’ in W. Léser
and others, eds., Dogmengeschichte und katholische Theologie (Wurzburg: 1985)
451-478.
 Fundamentals of General Sacramental Theology 93

tal character.’’45 The Greek word “‘character’’ or ‘‘sign of recognition’’

indicates that ‘spiritual and indelible sign’’ that, according to the Coun-
cils of Florence (NR 504/DS 1313) and Trent (NR 514/DS 1609), is
marked on the human soul. This teaching arose from the conviction
of the ancient Church in the third and fourth centuries, that baptism
and orders, even if conferred by heretical or unworthy officials, could
not be repeated. It is, in its own way, a witness to the fact that the
initiative of God, which lays hold of human beings, anticipates every
human decision. But in particular it tells us that God’s promise of sal-
vation in the sacrament also represents a call to individual human per-
sons to accept their ‘likeness to Christ’’ (Gal 3:27) beyond the
individual level as ecclesial existence, and that they accept the duties
that fall to them within the Church. In terms of the three sacraments
mentioned, the first duty is to celebrate the liturgy, but that is not the
only obligation. (According to Thomas Aquinas, in each of the three
sacraments the ‘‘character’’ gives a share in the priesthood of Jesus
Christ, but that priesthood includes witnessing both through word and
through the work of one’s life.)*° The call remains—that is, it does not
need to be repeated in the future, in so far as it cannot be lost, nor
can it be surpassed by anything greater or better.

45. E. Ruffini, ‘‘Der Charakter als konkrete Sichtbarkeit des Sakraments in Bezie-
hung zur Kirche,’’ Concilium 4 (1968) 47-53 (with bibliography).
46. K. Rahner, Kirche und Sakramente, and E. Schillebeeckx, Christus, Sakrament
der Gottbegegnung [Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God] 160, 170, etc.; Vati-
can Council II, LG 11.
 Bibliography 1

Sacraments in General

a) Books
Adam, A. Grundrif Liturgie. Freiburg: 1985 (Bibliography).
Ambaum, J. Glaubenszeichen. Schillebeeckx’ Auffassung von der Sakramenten.
Regensburg: 1980.
Auer, J. Allgemeine Sakramentenlehre und das Mysterium der Eucharistie. 3d. ed.
Regensburg: 1980.
______. Die Sakramente der Kirche. 2d ed. Regensburg: 1979.
Baudler, G. Korrelationsdidaktik: Leben durch Glauben erschlieBen. Paderborn: 1984
(Also on symbol and sacraments).
Biemer, G. Katechetik der Sakramente. Freiburg: 1983.
Boff, L. Kleine Sakramentenlehre. 5th ed. Diisseldorf: 1982.
Borobio, D., and others. La Celebracién en la Iglesia 1. Salamanca: 1985 (Liturgi-
cal theological foundations; the individual sacraments are to be discussed
in volume II).
Browning, R. L., and R. A. Reed. The Sacraments in Religious Education and Lit-
urgy: An Ecumenical Model. Birmingham, Ala.: 1985.
Chauvet, L.-M. Du symbolique au symbole. Paris: 1979.
Chauvet, L.-M., and others. Sacrements de Jésus-Christ. Paris: 1983.
Denis, H. Sacrements, sources de vie. Paris: 1982.
Duval, A. Des sacrements au Concile de Trente. Paris: 1985 (On all the sacraments
except confirmation).

94
 Bibliography 1 95

Eisenbach, F. Die Gegenwart Jesu Christi im Gottesdienst. Systematische Studien

zur Liturgiekonstitution des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils. Mainz: 1982.
Finkenzeller, J. Die Lehre von den Sakramenten im allgemeinen. Von der Schrift bis
zur Scholastik (HDG IV/1a). Freiburg: 1980.
. Die Lehre von den Sakramenten im allgemeinen. Von der Reformation bis
zur Gegenwart (HDG IV/1b). Freiburg: 1982.
Francesconi, G. Storia e simbolo. ‘‘Mysterium in figura.’’ Brescia: 1981 (Ambrose
on Sacraments).
Frenkle, N. J., and others. Zum Thema Kult und Liturgie. Stuttgart: 1972.
Ganoczy, A. Einfiihrung in die katholische Sakramentenlehre. Darmstadt: 1979.
Heumann, J. Symbol—Sprache der Religion. Stuttgart: 1983.
Hotz, R. Sakramente—im Wechselspiel zwischen Ost und West. Ziirich: 1979.
Jetter, W. Symbol und Ritual. Anthropologische Elemente im Gottesdienst. Gottin-
gen: 1978.
Jourjon, M. Les sacrements de la liberté chrétienne selon l'Eglise ancienne. Paris: 1981.
Jungel, E., and K. Rahner. Was ist ein Sakrament? Freiburg: 1971.
Kirchhoff, H., ed. Ursymbole und ihre Bedeutung fiir die religidse Erziehung. 2d
ed. Munich: 1985.
Kléckener, M., and W. Glade, eds. Die Feier der Sakramente in der Gemeinde
(FS H. Rennings). Kevelaer: 1986.
Knoch, W. Die Einsetzung der Sakramente durch Christus. Eine Untersuchung zur
Sakramententheologie der Friihscholastik von Anselm von Laon vis zu Wilhelm
von Auxerre. Munster: 1983.
Koch, G., and others. Gegenwartig in Wort und Sakrament. Eine Hinfiihrung zur
Sakrementenlehre. Wurzburg: 1976.
Kress, B. The Church. Communion, Sacrament, Communication. New York: 1985.
Kiihn, U. Sakramente. (Handbuch Systematischer Theologie 11). Giitersloh: 1985.
Lligadas Vendrell, J. ‘‘Ex opere operato.’’ El significado de la doctrina tridentina
sobre la eficacia de los sacramentos. Rome: 1981.
. La eficacia de los sacramentos: ‘‘Ex opere operato’’ en la doctrina del concilio
de Trento. Barcelona: 1983.
Lorizio, G., ed. Ecclesiae sacramentum (FS A. Marranzini). Naples: 1986.
Luthe, H., ed. Christusbegegnung in den Sakramenten. 2d ed. Kevelaer: 1984.
Martimort, A. G., ed. L’Eglise en priére. New edition. III: Les sacrements, by R.
Cabié and others. Paris and Tournai: 1984.
Martos, J. Doors to the Sacred. A Historical Introduction to Sacraments in the Chris-
tian Church. London: 1981.
Mens concordet voci (FS A. G. Martimort). Paris: 1983 (several articles on sacra-
mental theology).
Miiller, A. Die Sakramente der Kirche. Fribourg: 1975.
Neue Zeitschrift fiir systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 27 (1985) no.
2: special issue on modern symbolic theories.
96 Sacramental Theology

Nocke, F.-J. Wort und Geste. Zum Verstandnis der Sakramente. Munich: 1985.
O'Neill, C. Sacramental Realism. A General Theory of the Sacraments. Wilming-
ton: 1983.
Rahner, K. Kirche und Sakramente. Freiburg and Breisgau: 1960.
Reetz, U. Das Sakramentale in der Theologie Paul Tillichs. Stuttgart: 1974.
Ries, J., ed. Le symbolisme dans le culte des grandes religions. Louvain: 1985.
Rordorf, W. Liturgie, foi et vie des premiers chrétiens. Etudes patristiques. Paris: 1986.
Rosenberg, A. Einfiihrung in das Symbolverstindnis. Freiburg: 1984.
Ruster, T. Sakramentales Verstehen. Frankfurt and Bern: 1983 (especially impor-
tant on the relationship between word and sacrament).
Die Sakramentalitat der Kirche in der 6kumenischen Diskussion. Ed. Johann-Adam-
Mohler Institute. Paderborn: 1983.
Scharfenberg, J., and H. Kampfer. Mit Symbolen leben. Olten: 1980.
Schillebeeckx, E. H. Christus, Sakrament der Gottbegegnung. Mainz: 1960.
Schilson, A. Theologie als Sakramententheologie. Die Mysterientheologie Odo Casels.
Mainz: 1982.
Schmid-Keiser, S. Aktive Teilnahme: Kriterium gottesdienstlichen Handelns und
Feierns, 2 vols. Bern and Frankfurt: 1985.
Schneider, T. Zeichen der Nahe Gottes. 4th ed. Mainz: 1984.
Schénborn, C. ven. L’‘Icéne du Christ. 2d ed. Fribourg: 1978.
Schupp, F. Glaube—Kultur—Symbol. Versuch einer kritischen Theorie sakramentaler
Praxis. Diisseldorf: 1974.
Semmelroth, O. Vom Sinn der Sakramente. Frankfurt: 1960.
Skowronek, A. Sakrament in der evangelischen Theologie der Gegenwart. Pader-
born: 1971.
Snela, B. Das Menschliche im Christlichen. Elementare Strukturen der religiisen
Zeichen. Munich: 1986, especially 42-59 (an effort toward a structuralist
approach to the elementary structures and semantic units of the Church’s
sacramental system).
Spiegel, Y. Glaube wie er leibt und lebt. Vol. 3. Munich: 1984, 8-38 (on symbols).
Stohr, J. Wann werden Sakramente giiltig gespendet? Aschaffenburg: 1980.
Stock, U. Die Bedeutung der Sakramente in Luthers Sermonen von 1519. Leiden:
1982.
Symbolische und kiinsterlische Ausdrucksformen im Gottesdienst: Concilium 16 (1980)
no. 2,
Symbol und Kommunikation: Liturgisches Jahrbuch 35 (1985) no. 4.
Zur Theologie der Sakramente: Concilium 4 (1968) no. 1.
Theologische Berichte 9: Kirche und Sakrament. Zurich: 1980.
Tragan, R., ed. Fede e sacramenti negli scritti giovannei. Rome: 1985.
Triacca, A. M., ed. Trinité et liturgie. Louvain: 1984.
Van Beeck, F. J. Grounded in Love: Sacramental Theology in an Ecumenical Per-
spective. London: 1982.
 Bibliography 1 97

Villalén, J. Sacrements dans l’Esprit. Existence humaine et théologie sacramentelle.

Paris: 1977.
Wehrle, P. Die Bedeutung des Symbols fiir die religidse Erziehung. Munich: 1980.
Worgul, G. S. From Magic to Metaphor: A Validation of Christian Sacraments. 2d
ed. London: 1986.

b) Articles and Essays

Baumer, I. ‘‘Interaktion, Zeichen, Symbol. Ansatze zu einer Deutung litur-
gischen und volksfrommen Tuns.”’ Liturgisches Jahrbuch 31 (1981) 9-35.
Beinert, W. ‘Die Sakramentalitat der Kirche im theologischen Gespriach.”’ The-
ologische Berichte [Ziirich] 9 (1980) 13-66.
Borobio, D. ‘’Cristologia y sacramentologia.’’ Salmanticensis 31 (1984) 5-47.
Brinkman, B. R. ‘’For an aesthetic of sacramentology: a retrospective.’’ Zeit-
schrift fiir katholische Theologie 107 (1985) 341-364 (extensive bibliography).
Chauvet, L.-M. ‘‘Sacrements et institution.’ In M. Michel, ed., La théologie
a l’épreuve de la vérité (Paris: 1984) 201-235.
Dalmais, I.-H. ‘Le ‘Mysterion,’ contribution a une théologie de la liturgie.’’
La Maison Dieu 158 (1984) 14-50.
De Margerie, B. ‘Vers une relecture du Concile de Florence grace a la recon-
sidération de l’Ecriture et des Péres grecs et latins.’’ Revue Thomiste 94
(1986) 31-81.
Dulles, A. ‘‘The Symbolic Structure of Revelation.’’ Theological Studies 41 (1980)
51-73.
Fransen, P. ‘‘Modellen in de theologie van de sacramenten’’ Collationes 12 (1982)
131-155.
. ‘De sacramenten als gemeenschapsviering van de goddelijke mys-
teries.’’ Collationes 13 (1983) 139-163.
Ganoczy, A. ‘‘Sakrament.’’ Neues Handbuch theologischer Grundbegriffe IV (1985)
94-104.
Gamber, K. ‘‘Die Christus- und Geist-Epiklese in der friihen abendlandischen
Liturgie.’’ Praesentia Christi, FS J] Betz (Dtisseldorf: 1984) 79-100.
Garcia Prada, J. M. ‘‘Hermenéutica de los simbolos y crisis del lenguaje reli-
gioso.’’ Ciencia tomista 111 (1984) 515-550.
Garijo Guembe, M. M. ‘’Sakrament und Sakramentalitat.’’ Catholica 40 (1986)
110-124.
“‘Gottesdienst.’’ TRE XIV (1985) 1-97 (bibliography).
Houssiau, A. ‘“La rédecouverte de la liturgie par la théologie sacramentaire
(1950-1980).’’ La Maison Dieu 149 (1982) 27-55.
Hotz, R. ‘‘Religion, Symbolhandlung, Sakrament.’’ Liturgisches Jahrbuch 31
(1981) 36-54.
98 Sacramental Theology

Hiinermann, P. ‘‘Reflexionen zum Sakramentenbegriff des II. Vatikanums.”’

Eds. E. Klinger and K. Wittstadt. Glaube im ProzeB (Freiburg: 1984)
309-324.
Irwin, K. W. ‘‘Recent sacramental theology.’’ Thomist 47 (1983) 592-608.
Jiingel, E. “Die Kirche als Sakrament?’’ Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche 80
(1983) 432-457.
Lengeling, E. J. ‘‘Wort, Bild, Symbol in der Liturgie.”’ Liturgisches Jahrbuch 30
(1980) 230-242.
Lies, L. ‘‘Kultmysterium heute—Modell sakramentaler Begegnung.’’ Archiv
fiir Liturgiewissenschaft 28 (1986) 2-21.
McKenna, J., and others. ‘The epiclesis.’’ Ephemerides Liturgicae 99 (1985)
314-382.
Onatibia, I. ‘‘De la dialéctica al simbolismo.’’ Estudios eclesidsticos 56 (1981)
1398-1431.
Paprocki, H. ‘’Le Saint Esprit dans les sacraments de l’Eglise.’’ Istina 28 (1983)
267-281.
Pesch, O. H. ‘‘Das katholische Sakramentsverstandnis im Urteil gegenwar-
tiger evangelischer Theologen.”’ In Verifikationen, FS G. Ebeling (Tiibin-
gen: 1982) 317-340.
Rahner, K. ‘‘Personale und sakramentale Frommigkeit.’’ Schriften 2 (1955)
115-141.
—____.. ‘’Theologie des Symbols.”’ Schriften 4 (1960) 275-311.
____.. “Uberlegungen zum personalen Vollzug des sakramentalen Gesche-
hens”’ Schriften 10 (1972) 405-429.
Richter, K. ‘‘Riten und Symbole in der Industriekultur.’’ Concilium 13 (1980)
108-113.
Schillebeeckx, E. ‘‘Sakramente als Organe der Gottbegegnung.”’ In J. Feiner,
J. Tritsch, and F. Béckle, eds., Fragen der Theologie heute (Einsiedeln 1957)
379-401.
Schilson, A., ‘‘Sakrament als Symbol.’’ Christlicher Glaube in moderner Gesell-
schaft (Freiburg) 28 (1982) 122-150.
Schmied, A., ‘Was ist ein Sakrament?’’ Theologie der Gegenwart 20 (1977)
143-152.
. ‘“Perspektiven und Akzente heutiger Sakramententheologie.’’ Wis-
senschaft und Weisheit 44 (1981) 17-45 (bibliography).
Schneider, T. ‘Die dogmatische Begriindung der Ekklesiologie nach dem
Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil.’’ Renovatio et Reformatio, FS L Hédl (Miin-
ster: 1985) 80-116.
Schiitz, C. MySal Ergdnzungsband (1981) 347-355.
Schiitzeichel, H. ‘’Calvins Stellungnahme zu den Trienter Canones iiber die
Sakramente im allgemeinen.’’ Catholica 38 (1984) 317-339.
 Bibliography 1 99

Schulte, R. MySal IV/2 (Einsiedeln 1973) 46-155.

. ‘‘Die Wort-Sakramente-Problematik in der evangelischen und
katholischen Theologie.’’ Theologische Berichte (Ziirich) 6 (1977) 81-122.
Schulz, F. ‘Die jiidischen Wurzeln des christlichen Gottesdienstes.’’ Jahrbuch
fiir Liturgik und Hymnologie 28 (1984) 39-55.
Seybold, M. ‘’Die Siebenzahl der Sakrament.’’ Miinchener Theologische Zeit-
schrift 27 (1976) 113-141.
Standart, B., and others. ‘Le mystére de l’Esprit.’’ Questions liturgiques 67 (1986)
87-179.
Strebel, A. ‘‘Symboldenken und Symbolverstandnis in der neueren evan-
gelischen Theologie.’’ Symbolon (Cologne) n. s. 6 (1981) 129-144.
Tillard, J.-M. R. ‘“Les sacrements de l’Eglise.’’ Initiation a la pratique de la thé-
ologie 2 (Paris: 1983) 385-466.
. “Eglise et salut. Sur la sacramentalité de l’Eglise.’’ Nouvelle Revue
Théologique 106 (1984) 658-685.
Van Eijk, A. H. C. ‘De Kerk als sakrament en het heil van de wereld.’ Bijdra-
gen 45 (1984) 295-330.
Zadra, D. ‘’Sakramente und Zeit.’’ Probleme und Perspektiven dogmatischer The-
ologie, ed. K. H. Neufeld (Diisseldorf: 1986) 250-272 (on the system of
symbols).
 Bibliography 2

Ecumenical Dialogue on the Sacraments, with Particular Reference

to the Lima Documents
Dantine, J. ‘“Zur Konvergenzerklarung.’” Okumenische Rundschau 32 (1983)
12-17.
De Baciocchi, J. ‘“Les ministéres ecclésiaux dans le Texte de Lima.’’ Mélange
de science religieuse 40 (1983) 73-90.
Eham, M. Gemeinschaft im Sakrament? Die Frage nach der Moglichkeit sakramen-
taler Gemeinschaft zwischen katholischen und nichtkatholischen Christen. Frank-
furt and Bern: 1986.
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 61 (1985) 327-328; 62 (1986) 335-336 (bib-
liography on the Lima documents).
Fahey, M. A., ed. Catholic Perspectives on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry. Lon-
don and New York: 1986.
Geldbach, E., and others. Kommentar zu den Lima-Erklirungen. Géttingen: 1983.
Gemeinsame r6m-kath./ev.-luth. Kommission. Einheit vor uns. Modelle, For-
men und Thesen katholisch/lutherischer Kirchengemeinschaft. Paderborn and
Frankfurt: 1985.
Hinz, C. ‘‘Kommentare zu den Lima-Erklarungen.’’ Theologische Literatur-
Zeitung 109 (1984) 173-180.
Kerygma und Dogma 31 (1985) no. 1 (on the Lima documents).
Kihn, U. ‘’Das reformatorische Proprium und die Okumene.’’ Kerygma und
Dogma 32 (1986) 170-186 (on negative reactions to the Lima documents,
in particular that of E. Herms).
100
 Bibliography 2 101

Lehmann, K., and Pannenberg, W., eds. Lehrverurteilungen—kirchentrennend? Part

I: Rechtfertigung, Sakramente und Amt im Zeitalter der Reformation und heute.
Freiburg and Gottingen: 1986.
Mélange de science religieuse 42 (1985) 3-19 (on the Lima documents).
Neuner, P. Kleines Handbuch der Okumene. Diisseldorf: 1984, 141-177.
Pfniir, V. Die Wirksamkeit der Sakramente sola fide und ex opere operato: Das Her-
renmahl. Paderborn and Frankfurt: 1979, 93-100.
Regli, S. ‘‘Okumenische Konsenserklarungen mit rém.-kath. Beteiligung tiber
Taufe, Eucharistie und Amt: Ergebnisse.’’ Theologische Berichte (Ztirich)
9 (1980) 129-171.
Seybold, M., and GlaBer, A. Das ‘‘Lima-Papier.’’ Eichstatt: 1985.
Slenczka, R. ‘‘Okumenische Erklarungen und dogmatische Klarungen.”” Kerygma
und Dogma 32 (1986) 207-232.
Studia Liturgica 16 (1986), nos. 1-2, pp. 3-128 (on the Lima documents).
Thurian, M., ed. Churches respond to ‘‘Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry’’ 1. Geneva:
1986.
Tillard, J.-M. R. ‘’Ecclésiologie de communion et exigence oecuménique.”’
Irénikon 59 (1986) 201-230.
Voigt, G., and others. Lima und das reformatorische Proprium. Hannover: 1984.
 6

Baptism

6.1 Biblical Foundations

Baptism is the Christian symbolic action that is most often men-

tioned in the New Testament. There are two sayings of Jesus referring
to baptism; however, both of these are formulations that do not come
from Jesus himself, but instead represent a later stage of development:
Matthew 28:19 is clearly influenced by the liturgy, and Mark 16:16,
from the non-genuine ending of Mark, dates from the second century.
Thus we cannot determine any origination or institution of baptism
by Jesus. But there can be no doubt that even the earliest Christian
communities baptized. The appearance of Christian baptism is, accord-
ing to the present state of our knowledge,! not to be traced either to
Hellenistic influences, to purification rituals, or to Jewish proselyte bap-

1. G. Lohfink, ‘‘Der Ursprung der christlichen Taufe,’’ Theologische Quartalschrift

156 (1976) 35-54; R. Schwager, ‘’Wassertaufe, ein Gebet um die Geisttaufe?’’ Zeit-
schrift fiir katholische Theologie 100 (1978) 36-61, with bibliography at 36 n. 3; G.
Barth, Die Taufe in friihchristlicher Zeit (Neukirchen: 1981), is an exegetical treatment.

102
 Baptism 103

tism. Instead, Christian baptism is in continuity with the baptism ‘of

repentance for the forgiveness of sins’’ (Mark 1:4) practiced by John
the Baptizer.2 The symbolism—immersion in flowing water with the
implication of danger, in this case the destruction of an old, false orien-
tation of one’s life—and the inner content, a firm purpose of repent-
ance, a new orientation to the will of God and to the approaching reign
of God, are elements of John’s baptism that are retained in the Chris-
tian rite. In this connection, it was certainly of decisive importance for
the earliest Christian community that Jesus himself had been baptized
by John and by this gesture of solidarity with “‘people from the whole
Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem’’ (Mark 1:5) ac-
knowledged that he regarded the external demonstration of an inter-
nal disposition by means of a symbolic action as proper and important.
Of course, this is not to say that the Synoptic authors reported the bap-
tism of Jesus in order to give a foundation for the later sacrament of
baptism and to depict it in anticipation. Of the highest importance for
sacramental theology in general and for baptismal theology in particu-
lar is the fact that the Synoptic authors, in composing the baptismal
pericope,? supplement the scene of baptism with a revelation scene,
according to which it is only after baptism that the divine Spirit
descended on Jesus and Jesus’ mission was made known. It is not only
the temporal (real or possible) disjunction of water baptism and Spirit-
baptism that is of theological interest, but also the consideration that
the Synoptic authors certainly did not intend to deny that Jesus was
totally in the power of the divine Spirit even before his baptism, and
knew of his mission. There are also other places in the New Testament
that attest that the communication of the Spirit should not be thought
of as limited to an isolated, individual event. In this sense, a distinc-
tion is to be made between the communication of the Spirit and the
making known of that fact (in one or another manner, which under
certain circumstances may be a sacramental one).
If the New Testament nowhere offers us a theology of the early
Christian sacrament of baptism, still it contains a great number of state-

2. Cf. G. Barth, Die Taufe in friihchristlicher Zeit, 22-23, 38ff.

3. The pericope is analyzed with the greatest care and with his accustomed acuity
by A. Vogtle, ‘‘Herkunft und urspriinglicher Sinn der Taufperikope Mk 1:9-11,”’
in his Offenbarungsgeschehen und Wirkungsgeschichte (Freiburg: 1985) 70-108, with
a thorough discussion of the literature, especially the recent commentaries on Mark.
104 Sacramental Theology

ments and hints that were later to contribute to such a theology.* These
are the most important:
1. The Acts of the Apostles distinguishes between water baptism
and Spirit-baptism; baptism of the Spirit can even precede water bap-
tism (10:47; 11:16). The time interval between the two in 8:12-17 later
served as a biblical argument for the separation of confirmation from
baptism. Baptism is given ‘‘in (into) the name of Jesus’’ (2:38; 8:16;
10:48; 19:5; cf. 22:16). In line with the theology of names in the New
Testament and especially in Acts, the decisive point about this proc-
ess is that it is something done in the name of Jesus, for it is in that
name that forgiveness of sins and salvation take place.> In the name
of Jesus, the event of salvation in Jesus is summarized in its briefest
and most concentrated form.
2. Romans 6:1-11 is a comprehensive exposition of the reasons for
the new ethical life of Christians; this passage is not a sacramental-
theological explication of baptism.* From Pauline theology in general,
not only from this passage, it appears that the saving event in Jesus
Christ immediately touches all human beings, and not first those who
came to believe and were baptized; Paul could say that ‘“we’’ have
died on the cross with Jesus Christ even before baptism (cf. Romans
5:6-10; 7:4; 2 Cor 5:14). Paul is thus aware of a communion of believers
with Jesus Christ, a union with him in his whole destiny—life, death,
and resurrection—a real incorporation into him that surpasses space
and time and is decisive for the Christian life. This meditation, rooted
in a strong personal love of Jesus, used to be called ‘“Christ mysticism,”’
a concept that has been unjustly devalued. In Romans 6:4-8, Paul
describes an event in which ‘‘we’’ are quite concretely” united with
the crucifixion, burial, and raising up of Jesus. Within this event, bap-
tism represents a certain moment in the death of Jesus, namely a unity
with Jesus’ burial, a real being-buried-with Jesus (as reflected also in

4. In what follows, I am indebted to the solid treatment by R. Schwager (see

n. 1 above).
5. Ibid., 39-40.
6. The exegetical literature on this passage is listed in R. Schwager, ‘’Wasser-
taufe,’’ 41, nn. 14 and 15. On what follows, see the same work, pp. 41-47. On
Rom 6:1-11, cf. also A. Schilson, Theologie (Bern and Frankfurt: 1985) 234-245, with
bibliographical notes.
7. Rom 6:5 does not speak of a similarity, imaging or reflection, but a very con-
crete being-in-unity; R. Schwager, ‘‘Wassertaufe,’’ 46
 Baptism 105

the baptismal statement of the Pauline school found in Col 2:11-12).

The burial, which in itself is not a saving event, points to the reality
of having died, so that the content of the symbolic action of baptism
is as follows: in it the one being baptized recognizes that she or he
has died on the cross with Jesus Christ long before this present action.
The salvation of humanity consists in this unity with Jesus, here made
tangible, so that baptism is really a saving event, and not a mere
memorial. Again, however, this should not be understood in terms
of a particular point in time, for the recognition that one is united with
the death of Jesus on the cross arises out of the faith that already brings
salvation. In faith, the one baptized is also united with the resurrec-
tion of Jesus: in faith, rising with Jesus and the beginning of new life
have also occurred. Paul offers us here an important indication of the
way in which, despite all differences, the saving event in Jesus Christ
is united and made one with the symbolic action and praxis of Chris-
tians who are dead to sin.
Other Pauline texts referring to baptism indicate also that saving
faith precedes baptism: if it is true that all of us, in the one Spirit, were
baptized into one body (1 Cor 12:13), then it is not baptism that first
communicates the divine Spirit. According to Galatians 3:26-27, faith
causes human beings to become ‘‘children of God’’; baptism an-
nounces (publicly) the condition of being buried with Jesus and the
will to remain united with him in new life.? Even this brief survey
shows that Paul assigns much greater weight to faith than to baptism.”
Also important in this connection is the distinction Paul makes between
reconciliation and salvation: reconciliation occurred on the cross, but
salvation will occur in the future, through faith. Baptism, when dis-
tinguished from the confession of faith and regarded in itself as a sym-
bolic action, represents the sense-perceptible expression of the fact that,
on the cross, the power of sin was destroyed and the world reconciled
with God, before individual conversion in faith. It is obvious for Paul
that this symbolic action is an action of the Church (see the context
of 1 Cor 12).

8. On this, see ibid, 50-51.

9. Ibid., 52-53.
10. One could add to this his statements on the saving character of proclamation
and his pneumatology, as well as his remarks on the ‘‘power of God” that was
proclaimed by the gospel message from the cross, and not by baptism (ibid., 53).
106 Sacramental Theology

3. In 1 Peter 3:19-21, baptism is designated an image of salvation

through water, the counterpart.of the ark in the flood, in the days of
Noah; the text adds the explanation that it acts ‘‘not as a removal of
dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience,
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ’’ (v. 21). Here the important
idea of calling on God, which was only implied in the formula ‘‘in (into)
the name of Jesus,’’ is expressly stated. The later expansion, ‘‘in the
name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit’’ (Matt 28:19) is a
Trinitarian development of the Christological confession. What hap-
pens in baptism into the name of the triune God and in the proclama-
tion of the word, as the context of Matthew 28:18, 20 shows, is the
making-present of Jesus, his resurrection and rule over heaven and
earth, a making-present that encompasses all space and time and is
therefore spiritual (pneumatic).
4. The whole event, the symbolic action of water baptism and the
Spirit-baptism in faith to a new Christian life, can be summarized as
“being reborn’’ or the ‘‘washing of rebirth’’ (John 3:5; Titus 3:5).
It is clear on the basis of this New Testament evidence" that the
action of baptism in water may not be regarded exclusively as the deci-
sive communication of the grace of God, the Holy Spirit, justification,
etc. The symbolic action of water baptism, which refers to the death
of Jesus on the cross for us, is dialogically embedded in faith in the
act of God that anticipates all conversion and all faith, and in the prayer
of petition to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit that asks
especially for the assistance of the divine Spirit in the new life to be
lived, and that may be most briefly described as a prayer ‘in the name
of Jesus.’’!2 What happens here is a common confession of faith, a com-
mon prayer of the community, the Church, but not a common act of
baptizing. In this symbol of burial, the one being baptized allows some-
thing to happen to himself or herself; the person acts as a recipient,

11. Ibid., 58-59.

12. R. Schwager (ibid., 56-59) gives an extensive treatment of the effective prayer
“in the name of Jesus”’ that is certain to be heard (John 14:13-14; 16:23-24; cf.
Mark
11:24; Matt 7:7-11; 21:22; James 1:6; 1 John 3:22). See also F. Courth, ‘’Die
Taufe
‘auf den Namen Jesu Christi’ in den Zeugnissen der Dogmengeschichte bis zur
Hochscholastik,’’ Theologie und Glaube 69 (1979) 121-147. Courth expresses a wish
(p. 147), and rightly so, that the baptismal formula be made a summary expres-
sion of the priestly prayer of petition (epiclesis) and the Church’s acceptance
of
the faith of the one to be baptized.
 Baptism 107

as the one who, through this renunciation of the old, accepts the
strength for new life (both renunciation and acceptance being effected
by the Spirit), and as the one to whom is guaranteed an acceptance
into the body of Christ, which is the Church. Raymond Schwager’s
conclusion is grounded in the New Testament: the symbolic action of
water baptism is an ecclesial ‘‘primal prayer’’ for Spirit-baptism that
is certain to be heard, but God can also give the baptism in the Spirit
to a person even in the absence of such a prayer.’

6.2 The Rite of Initiation

The saving event that touches an individual human person and al-
lows that person to begin the practice of Christian life is also desig-
nated, in the language of the history of religions, as “‘initiation’’
(dedication, induction). Since it is a truly fundamental event, it is not
restricted to a momentary action, but lasts throughout a lifetime. From
a New Testament point of view, and thus in current theology as well,
it can be addressed under various aspects: as a mystical union with
Jesus Christ, more than a merely figurative entering into him, remain-
ing in him, having ‘put him on,”’ but as an entry into sharing his des-
tiny, as a linguistic-dialogical event in which the preached word calls
out and faith responds to it, as acceptance into the Church as the body
of Christ, as being seized by the Spirit sent by the exalted Jesus Christ.
The concept of “‘initiation’’ can be an aid to us in not directing our
attention simply to the symbolic action of baptism, but instead to the
total, fundamental event. Even in the old rite of initiation, this con-
nection was expressed.
The oldest postbiblical witnesses" for the celebration of baptism in-
dicate a connection between the immersion in the water and a three-
fold (Trinitarian) calling upon God (epiclesis) spoken over the person
being baptized. According to the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (ca.
215), the solemn initiation followed a three-year catechumenate.” It

13. R. Schwager, ‘‘Wassertaufe,’’ 60.

14. I refer especially to Justin (d. 165). The Didache (ch. 7) should, in my opinion,
be assigned a late date. It speaks of a previous fasting and instruction and con-
tains only one reference to Matt 28:19.
15. A. Angenendt, Kaiserherrschaft und Kénigstaufe (Berlin: 1984). Part I: “Das
Sakrament der Initiation im frithen Mittelalter,’’ 21-164 (with bibliography).
108 Sacramental Theology

included baptism with preceding and following rites and a conclud-

ing celebration of the Eucharist. Among the rites of preparation, in
order to make the ‘change of rulership’’ externally visible, was an ex-
orcism and renunciation of the devil!® as well as a ‘‘prebaptismal’’
anointing. Baptism consisted of a combination of threefold immersion
and confession of faith in three (Trinitarian) steps and in dialogical form
(‘‘interrogative conferral of baptism’’). From Hippolytus’ testimony it
is clear that it was not the one baptizing who was important, what-
ever that person’s intention or moral qualities; the significant person
was the one being baptized, and his or her acceptance in faith.” After
baptism, the newly baptized person received a (postbaptismal) anoint-
ing by the priest, and then an imposition of hands, signing of the fore-
head and anointing with chrism by the bishop. The celebration of the
Eucharist, with the community’s prayer for the newly baptized, was
an essential part of initiation.
There is no question of a baptismal formula as the central point of
the whole event. The indicative formula, ‘’I baptize you,’’ which is
easily explained on the basis of the baptism of infants, is not found
in the Roman liturgy before the end of the seventh century.'® The bless-
ing of the baptismal water was developed as early as the third and
fourth centuries. (The important witnesses are Tertullian in the West
and Basil in the East.) This consisted of an exorcism of evil and an
epiclesis as a blessing of the water. At this point, material stipulations
first begin to restrict the dynamic conception of the whole event. Prob-
lems arose concerning those who conferred baptism (in the country-
side, these could include deacons and lay people) in connection with
the question of baptism by heretics and the Donatist controversy (see
6.3), but the imposition of hands continued to be reserved to the
bishop.’ In the Roman liturgy the imposition of hands was combined
with a second, postbaptismal anointing, which also became the
prerogative of the bishop. This (postbaptismal) anointing was other-

16. A. Angenendt, “Der Taufexorzismus und seine Kritik in der Theologie des
12. und 13. Jahrhunderts,’’ in A. Zimmermann, ed., Miscellanea Mediaevalia 11 (Ber-
lin: 1977) 388-409.
17. Angenendt, Kaiserherrschaft, 27.
18. A. Angenendt, ‘’Bonifatius und das Sacramentum initiationis. Zugleich ein
Beitrag zur Geschichte der Firmung,’’ Rémische Quartalschrift 72 (1977) 133-183,
at 135.
19. Ibid., 143.
 Baptism 109

wise unknown in the Western Church, but it was probably customary

everywhere to use only oils blessed by the bishop for the purpose of
anointing. As with the baptismal water, attention was diverted from
the liturgical action as a whole and concentrated on this oil, which was
regarded as the real vehicle of grace.”° Practical problems arose out of
the question whether the bishop had to be present at all baptisms in
his (often very extensive) diocese, or if not, how he was to be repre-
sented. In the Western Church this was complicated by a multiplica-
tion of dates for baptism, since the new teaching on original sin created
anxiety about salvation, so that it no longer seemed advisable to bap-
tize only in the Easter season. We find the first evidence of a separa-
tion of baptism and episcopal imposition of hands with signing of the
forehead in Novatian, around the middle of the third century.”! This
separation was obviously promoted by the baptism of infants, which
by the third century was already an old custom. A letter of Pope Inno-
cent I to the bishop of Gubbio in the year 416 (only in Latin, DS 215)
was of great importance. Here the priests are permitted to anoint, but
only with oil consecrated by the bishop; however, they are forbidden
to sign the forehead with oil, since this is reserved to the bishops who
thus confer the Holy Spirit. At this point, evidently, the unity of the
rite of initiation had been destroyed and the sacrament of confirma-
tion was born. When the Roman version of the liturgy was adopted
by the Carolingian reformers, the process was complete.”

6.3 Historical Decisions

The first questions to which the Church gave definitive answers

were those regarding the validity of baptisms administered outside the
Catholic Church after a schism. Pope Stephen I defended their validity
in 256 against Bishop Cyprian of Carthage in the so-called controversy
over heretical baptism (only in Latin, DS 110-111); similarly, Silvester
I, in 314, forbade the rebaptism of Donatists who returned to the Great
Church, unless they had not been baptized in the name of the Trinity
(only in Latin, DS 123). This topic was broadened later: now the ques-
tion was not merely about baptism by unworthy priests, but doubts

20. Ibid., 145-146.

21. Ibid., 157.
22. Ibid., 157-158.
110 Sacramental Theology

were raised whether baptisms by Jews or pagans were valid. In 866,

Nicholas I sent an answer to Bulgaria, where such cases were supposed
to have occurred, that whenever someone had been baptized in the
name of the holy Trinity or in the name of Christ,?3 the person was
not to be rebaptized (only in Latin, DS 644-646). In theology, this teach-
ing accorded very well with the notion of a sacramental ‘‘character,’’
as developed by Augustine: a mark imprinted once and for all by bap-
tism (see 5.7 above).
The baptism of small children who were unable to make decisions
for themselves had been sharply and repeatedly criticized, beginning
with Tertullian in the third century. It was defended by Church authori-
ties, for example Innocent III in 1201 (NR 526/DS 780) and 1208 (NR
527/DS 794), with reference to original sin: as a human person acquired
original sin without consenting to it, so without his or her consent it
would be forgiven by the power of the sacrament. But it was also
taught, in this connection, that it was contrary to the Christian reli-
gion to force anyone to accept Christianity;74 adult people who were
baptized against their will and had never given their consent to it
received neither the mark of the sacrament nor its effects (Innocent
III, 1201: NR 526/DS 781).
The first summary teaching on the sacrament of baptism is contained
in the Council of Florence’s Decree for the Armenians (NR 528-531/DS
1314-1316). This text, which rests on the work of Thomas Aquinas,
reads:
Among all the sacraments holy baptism holds the first place because it
is the gateway to the spiritual life; by it we are made members of Christ
and belong to His body, the Church. And since through the first man
death has entered into all (cf. Rom 5:12), unless we are born again of
water and the Spirit, we cannot, as the Truth said, enter into the King-
dom of heaven (cf. Jn 3:5).
The matter of this sacrament is true natural water; itoes not matter
whether it is cold or warm. The form is: ‘I baptize you in the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” We do not deny, how-
ever, that true baptism is also effected by these words: ‘’May the ser-
vant of Christ, N., be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son

23. On the hesitancy of high Scholastic theologians regarding baptism in the name
of Jesus Christ, cf. F. Courth, ‘‘Die Taufe ‘auf den Namen Jesu Christi.’ ’’
24. Augustine had misinterpreted Luke 14:23 to say that violence could be used
in religious matters. Cf. O. Karrer, ‘‘Compelle intrare,’” LThK III, 27-28.
 Baptism 111

and of the Holy Spirit,’’ or: ‘By my hands N. is baptized in the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” For as the prin-
cipal cause from which baptism derives its virtue is the Holy Trinity,
while the instrumental cause is the minister who confers the sacrament
externally, the sacrament is performed whenever the act carried out by
the minister is expressed along with the invocation of the Holy Trinity.
The minister of this sacrament is the priest, to whom by reason of his
office it belongs to baptize. But in case of necessity not only a priest or
deacon, but also a layman, or a woman, or even a pagan and a heretic
may baptize, provided [she or] he observes the Church’s form and in-
tends to do what the Church does.
The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all guilt, original and
actual, and also of all punishment due to the guilt itself. For this reason,
no satisfaction is to be enjoined on the baptized for their past sins; and
if they die before committing any fault, they immediately gain access
to the Kingdom of heaven and the beatific vision.

This text speaks entirely as if adult baptism were still the norm. The
relationship between faith and baptism is not discussed. The reference
to John 3:5 reveals a total obliviousness to the previously-held convic-
tion that the process of ‘‘rebirth’’ includes both descent of the divine
Spirit and coming to belief, and that Spirit-baptism is not simply iden-
tical with water baptism.
The Council of Trent, in its seventh session in 1547, accepted four-
teen statements (canons) on baptism that do not represent a summary
or connected doctrine of baptism. Rather, they take positions on ques-
tions which were seen at the time as threatening to Catholic teaching
(NR 532-545/DS 1614-1627). Some of them deal with topics that be-
long more properly to the theology of grace, such as the relationship
among faith, law, and loss of grace (canons 6-10). The council reiter-
ated the teaching that even ‘‘heretics’’ can administer true baptism
(canon 4), and declared that baptism is necessary for salvation (canon
5) and cannot be repeated (canon 11). The practice of infant baptism
is defended—against, among others, the sixteenth-century ‘’ Anabap-
tist movement’’—with a statement that little children are baptized in
and because of the faith of the Church, without their having made an
act of faith of their own (canons 12-14).

25. Translation adapted from J. Neuner, S. J. and J. Dupuis, S. J., The Christian
Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church (Westminster, Md: Christian
Classics, Inc., 1975).
112 Sacramental Theology

What is said in these statements about faith is inadequate as a re-

sponse to the Reformers’ theology of faith. A proper evaluation of the
Council of Trent’s efforts would require us to examine its important
decree on justification. Even so, it is regrettable that the council's at-
tention is concentrated on questions of the legality and validity of bap-
tism, and of its necessity for salvation, in the absence of any theological
basis or context. The introduction of the baptized in the destiny of Jesus
Christ and their incorporation in the Church are not mentioned. Part
of what is lacking here was supplied by the council in its teaching on
original sin in 1546 (NR 356-357/DS 1514-1515). In the first section,
which is here cited, it simply took over, word for word, the teaching
of a synod in Carthage, in North Africa, held in the year 418:

4. If anyone denies that infants newly born from their mothers’ womb
are to be baptized, even when born from baptized parents, or says that,
though they are baptized for the remission of sins, yet they do not con-
tract from Adam any original sin which must be expiated by the bath
of regeneration that leads to eternal life, so that in their case the formula
of baptism ‘‘for the forgiveness of sins’’ would no longer be true but
would be false, anathema sit. For, what the apostle says: ‘’sin came into
the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread
to all because all have sinned’’ (Rom 5:12), should not be understood
in another sense than that in which the Catholic Church spread over
the whole world has understood it at all times. For, because of this rule
of faith, in accordance with apostolic tradition, even children who of
themselves cannot have yet committed any sin are truly baptized for the
remission of sins, so that by regeneration they may be cleansed from
what they contracted through generation. For ‘‘unless one is born of
water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’’ (John 3:5).
5. If anyone denies that the guilt of original sin is remitted by the grace
of our Lord Jesus Christ given in baptism, or asserts that all that is sin
in the true and proper sense is not taken away but only brushed over
or not imputed, anathema sit. For, in those who are reborn God hates
nothing, because there is no condemnation for those who were buried
with Christ through baptism into death (cf. Rom 8:1 and 6:4), ‘“who do
not walk according to the flesh’’ (Rom 8:4) but who, putting off the old
human and putting on the new human, created after the likeness of God
(cf. Eph 4:22-23; Col 3:9-10), innocent, unstained, pure and guiltless,
have become the beloved sons of God, ‘‘heirs of God and fellow heirs
 Baptism 113

with Christ’’ (Rom 8:17), so that nothing henceforth holds them back
from entering into heaven.”6

The essential contribution of Vatican Council I to the theme of bap-

tism is in the ecumenical area (see 6.5). But here we should also men-
tion the reform of the liturgy, which led to a rite for the baptism of
children that is not an imitation of adult baptism, and which also de-
veloped a special form of initiation for adults.?”

6.4 Baptism of Children

The practice and theology of baptism of children have been of major

importance for sacramental theology. Since the baptism of children (and
particularly the baptism of infants) disrupts the process by which a
person comes to believe and begins the practice of a Christian life, and
disregards the order of things posited in the New Testament, in which
hearing the word is followed by conversion, coming to faith, and sym-
bolic action, it contributed heavily to a separation between faith and
personal action on the one hand, and the sacrament on the other. It
strengthened the impression that the “‘real’’ event is the ritual. Thus
the baptism of infants became the classical model of a sacrament, since
it appeared that here the effectiveness of the sacrament was clearly
independent of the worthiness of the minister, independent of the con-
sciousness of the recipient, so long as the latter placed no “‘obstacle’’
to its reception, and dependent only on the relationship between valid
matter and correct form. The deficiency and danger in this develop-
ment gave rise to repeated discussions on the legitimacy of infant bap-
tism, the circumstances under which baptism might legitimately be
delayed, etc.”

26. Ibid.
27. R. Kaczynski, Enchiridion Documentorum Instaurationis liturgicae I (1963-1973)
(Turin: 1976), ‘“Kindertaufe’’ 556-572, ‘‘Initiation Erwachsener’’ 830-859. Cf. also
A. E. Hierold, ‘‘Taufe und Firmung,’’ HKR, 659-675, at 660-661 on the baptism
of adults (with catechumenate) since 1972, in the old order of baptism, confirma-
tion, Eucharist; ibid., 665-666 on the preconditions for baptism, especially among
adults.
28. From the literature on this subject in Bibliography 4, see especially the works
by F. Reckinger, W. Molinski, H. Hubert, and E. Nagel.
114 Sacramental Theology

In all this, an extended discussion that has taken place since the
middle of the twentieth century on the New Testament sources re-
mained inconclusive. There is no certain witness in the New Testa-
ment for the probability of a baptism of children; neither the mention
of the baptism of a ‘‘whole house,’’ nor Jesus’ hospitable welcome of
children (Mark 10:13-16), nor Paul’s statement that the children of be-
lieving parents are ‘“holy’’ (1 Cor 7:14) provides unimpeachable proof.”
Clear statements about baptism of children around the end of the sec-
ond and beginning of the third century presume‘a practice that has
already become customary. In the important witnesses from that pe-
riod onward (Tertullian, Hippolytus, Augustine) we also read of god-
parents: at first these are the natural parents.” It was out of this practice
that Augustine, in his controversy with Pelagius and his followers over
the theology of grace, developed his teaching about the necessity of
baptism for salvation even of the youngest children. Why, he asked,
are children baptized if they are not burdened with guilt and in need
of pardon for the sake of salvation? The idea that those closest to these
children must come to their aid was more important than the ques-
tion of individual decision. Thus the conviction arose that the faith of
the Church can and must substitute for the faith of the children.
Scholastic theology introduced here the distinction between faith as
a capacity given or ‘‘poured into’’ one by the grace of God (habitus)
and faith as a responsible realization of this capacity (actus): in bap-
tism, children receive faith as habitus, but this does not dispense them
from the necessity, as adults, of awakening and exercising this habitus
of faith as actus.
The great anxiety that resulted, in theology and in the Church, about
the eternal salvation of children who may die without baptism has been
relieved, in the present century, by a deeper reflection. It is not that
the teaching about original sin and its dangers has been abandoned,
but rather that it has been traced back to its true essentials.31

29. In A. Angenendt, Kaiserherrschaft, 67, we find the note that the Christian fam-
ily of the early days, unlike the early Middle Ages, was a nuclear family, in which
it would be unlikely that the father would make the decision regarding baptism.
30. Ibid., 92.
31. Cf. H. M. Késter, Urstand, Fall und Erbsiinde in der kath. Theologie unseres
Jahrhunderts (Regensburg: 1983), (principal texts, bibliography); idem, ‘‘Urstand,
Fall und Erbsiinde. Von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart,’’ Handbuch der Dog-
mengeschichte II/3c (Freiburg: 1982); idem, ‘Paradies, Urund Erbsiinde im Denken
 Baptism 115

The doctrine of original sin on the basis of Pauline theology (espe-

cially in Rom 5) and the Council of Trent says that humanity has, from
the beginning, rejected the clearly-acknowledged will of God and so
from the beginning there has existed a context of evil which affects
all human beings. Every human being, without being consulted, is born
into a situation that is marked by a ‘’no’’ to God, and by a general
lack of peace, by injustice, and by temptation. This situation did not
arise of itself, but was created by conscious, wrong human decisions,
and is constantly being augmented by such decisions. To that extent
it can be called a ‘‘sinful’’ situation, and the word ‘‘inherit’’ [original
sin is referred to in German as Erbsunde, i.e., inherited sin] refers to
the entry of newborn human beings into this negatively warped situa-
tion. There is no question here of a personal sin for which the new-
born is responsible. The situation only becomes one of attributable guilt
when a human being consciously adopts it as his or her own and be-
comes a wrongdoer in person. However, no human being is born into
a situation that is exclusively and completely evil. Instead, from the
beginning of its life, the child and later adult is called by the grace and
mercy of God, the Father, whose universal salvific will includes all
human beings without exception. The child is born into a humanity
that, as a whole, has been hallowed by the incarnation of the eternal
Son of God, and was so hallowed even in anticipation of that incarna-
tion. It belongs to a humanity in which God’s Spirit is continually at
work. We may not think of these two preexisting conditions of the
human situation (what Karl Rahner called ‘‘existentials’’), one nega-
tive and one positive, as equal in status and power. Instead, accord-
ing to faith, God is much more powerful than evil, and God’s grace
is and will remain victorious.
From this point of view baptism is the effective symbolic action by
which the Church makes known that God’s grace is victorious even
for newborn human beings, and that this human being is incorporated
in that human community in which God’s will is acknowledged, and
which stands in resistance to the powers of evil. Should baptism not

reprasentativer Theologen der Aufklarungszeit,’’ Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 91

(1982) 116-132, 195-205, 281-290; idem, Urstand, Fall und Erbsiinde in der evangelischen
Theologie des 19. Jahrhunderts (Frankfurt and Bern: 1983); see also A. de Villalmonte,
El pecado original (Salamanca: 1978), with commentary on ca. 800 publications since
1950; N. Lohfink and others, Zum Problem der Erbsiinde (Essen: 1981); A.-M. Dubarle,
Le péché originel (Paris: 1983).
116 Sacramental Theology

be given to a newborn child for some reason, this does not mean that
this person stands outside God’s grace and is rejected by God.
Even though we thus avoid placing undue theological weight on
baptism, still there are important reasons in favor of the baptism of
infants and children. No newborn human being is born into a neutral
family, a neutral social or human situation. No human life begins at
an absolute zero. Each of us is subjected to the influence and the deci-
sions of other people. If those who are responsible for the child are
convinced of the positive quality of Christian relationships, they will
desire to include their child in those relationships; in that case, bap-
tism represents their recognition both of the dangerous context of evil
to which they do not wish to deliver up their child, and of the protec-
tive community of faith in which they wish to see their child grow up.
Since the child must live in some concrete place, no matter what, they
decide for the place they find to be good, and they would not regard
this as robbing the child of its freedom. So baptism also represents
the relatives’ acknowledgement of the prevenient grace of God, of
God’s choice and call. If the sacrament of baptism is understood in
line with what was said above (6.1) as a prayer of petition, then when
a child is baptized the Church’s petition intercedes for the child in order
that, when it comes to the age of decision, it may choose the way of
Jesus Christ. A positive, faith-filled tutelage of the child by those who
are responsible for its upbringing does not exclude an education to-
ward freedom and does not necessarily mean a spiritual rape or a denial
of self-determination.

6.5 Ecumenical Perspectives

The quarrels of the third and fourth centuries left behind them the
impression that baptism is the last remnant that separated Christians
have in common. Since the primary actor in baptism is Jesus Christ
himself, the validity of a baptism inside or outside the Church must
be acknowledged, and baptism may not be repeated. This conviction
could not be shaken even by the great Church divisions of the sixteenth
century. The ecumenical movement that has emerged more and more
strongly since 1910 has made clear that baptism is not so much a mea-
ger remnant of unity as it is the expression of an existing community
 Baptism 117

in faith and a promising beginning.22 That was also Vatican II’s view
of baptism: ‘‘By the sacrament of baptism, whenever it is properly con-
ferred in the way the Lord determined, and received with the appropri-
ate dispositions of soul, a [human being] becomes truly incorporated
into the crucified and glorified Christ and is reborn to a sharing of the
divine life, as the apostle says: ‘For you were buried together with him
in Baptism, and in him also rose again through faith in the working
of God who raised him from the dead’ (Col 2:12; cf. Rom 6:4). Bap-
tism, therefore, constitutes a sacramental bond of unity linking all who
have been reborn by means of it. But baptism, of itself, is only a be-
ginning, a point of departure, for it is wholly directed toward the ac-
quiring of fullness of life in Christ. Baptism is thus oriented toward
a complete profession of faith, a complete incorporation into the sys-
tem of salvation such as Christ Himself willed it to be, and finally,
toward a complete participation in Eucharistic communion’’ (Decree
on Ecumenism 22; cf. also par. 3).
In the struggle toward an ecumenical common declaration that cul-
minated in the so-called Lima texts of 1982, baptism offered the fewest
difficulties.

6.6 Summary

Baptism, as the first symbolic action of the Church in the life of a

Christian, is part of a comprehensive process that in the narrower sense
consists of the beginning of the Christian way of life, but in a broader
sense encompasses the whole of that life. Within this process, the sym-
bolic action means primarily the rejection of a way of life that is shaped
by the evil situation in which humanity exists. But the process as a
whole, and thus baptism as well, is first of all an action of God and
not a human initiative. This means in detail that: (1) Baptism indicates—
and brings about by indicating it—the incorporation of a human being

32. Cf. J. Triitsch, ‘“Taufe, Sakrament der Einheit—Eucharistie, Sakrament der

Trennung?”’ Theologische Berichte (Ztirich) 9 (1980) 67-95.
33. Text edition: Taufe, Eucharistie und Amt. Konvergenzerklarungen der Kommis-
sion fiir Glauben und Kirchenverfassung des Okumenischen Rates der Kirchen (Frankfurt
and Paderborn: 1982): on baptism, 9-17; cf. also the commentary on the text: G.
Voss, ed., Wachsende Ubereinstimmung in Taufe, Eucharistie und Amt (Freising and
Paderborn: 1984): on baptism, 22-36; see also Bibliography 2.
118 Sacramental Theology

in the body of Jesus Christ, i.e., in the renewed humanity of those who
believe in Jesus Christ. This process takes place, in indissoluble unity,
both on the internal-spiritual and the external-social level; it includes
belonging to and solidarity with the multitude of unknown believers
in past, present, and future, as well as a legal induction into the Church
and membership in a particular community. (2) By this very fact, bap-
tism makes visible the fact that God’s salvation in Jesus Christ through
the divine Spirit has taken hold of this person, so that, by the power
of the prevenient grace of God, sins (if this person is a sinner) are for-
given and justification is bestowed on him or her. (3) Baptism places
the whole life of this person within the prayer of the Church. It indi-
cates the Church’s desire that the one being baptized may assent by
a free decision to the faith that God’s Spirit has awakened in the
Church, and may affirm and deepen this faith in his or her life. Bap-
tism indicates the ongoing call of the one baptized (‘‘sacramental
character’) to witness this faith not only in word, but also in practice:
in the unity of love of God and love of human beings, in following
Jesus, and in service of justice.
Where these three effects of baptism are found together, baptism
can truly be called the beginning of a new life by the power of the Holy
Spirit, and given the biblical designation of ‘‘rebirth.’’
 Bibliography 3

Sacraments of Initiation

Angenendt, A., ‘“Bonifatius und das Sacramentum initiationis. Zugleich ein

Beitrag zur Geschichte der Firmung,’’ Rémische Quartalschrift 72 (1977)
133-183.
Baptism, Confirmation, International Bibliography 1975-1984. Strasbourg: 1985.
Bourgeois, H. L’initiation chrétienne et ses sacrements. Paris: 1982.
Brosseder, J. ‘’Taufe und Firmung.’’ NHthG IV (1985) 167-182.
Farnedi, G., ed. I simboli dell’iniziazione cristiana. Rome: 1983.
Schmitz, H. ‘’Taufe, Firmung, Eucharistie. Die Sakramente der Initiation und
ihre Rechtsfolgen in der Sicht des CIC von 1983.’’ Archiv fiir katholisches
Kirchenrecht 152 (1983) 369-407.
Sprinks, B. D., ed. The Sacrifice of Praise. Louvain: 1981. Studies on baptism
and Eucharist.
““Strukturen christlicher Initiation,’’ Concilium 15 (1979) n. 2.
Thurian, M., and G. Wainwright, eds. Baptism and Eucharist. Geneva: 1983.
Collection of texts on liturgical traditions.

119
 Bibliography 4

Baptism

Angenendt, A. ‘Der Taufexorzismus und seine Kritik in der Theologie des

12. und 13. Jahrhunderts.”’ In A. Zimmermann, ed., Miscellanea Mediae-
valia (Berlin) 11 (1977) 388-409.
______. Kaiserherrschaft und K6nigstaufe. Berlin: 1984.
Aubin, P. Le Baptéme. Paris: 1980.
Barth, G. Die Taufe in friihchristlicher Zeit. Neukirchen: 1981.
Burnish, R. The Meaning of Baptism. London: 1985.
Courth, F. ‘‘Die Taufe ‘auf den Namen Jesu Christi’ in den Zeugnissen der
Dogmengeschichte bis zur Hochscholastik.’” Theologie und Glaube 69 (1979)
121-147.
Delling, G. Die Taufe im Neuen Testament. Berlin: 1963.
Duggan, R. D. ‘’Conversion in the ‘Ordo initiationis christianae adultorum.’ ’’
Ephemerides Liturgicae 96 (1982) 57-83, 209-252.
Hierold, A. E. ‘‘Taufe und Firmung.’” HKR 659-675.
Hossiau, A., and others. Le baptéme, entrée dans l’existence chrétienne. Brussels:
1983.
Hubert, H. ‘’Kirchenbild, Sakramentsverstandnis und Kindertaufe.’’ Miinchener
Theologische Zeitschrift 20 (1969) 315-329.
_____.. Der Streit um die Kindertaufe. Eine Darstellung der von Karl Barth 1943
ausgelosten Diskussion um die Kindertaufe und ihre Bedeutung fiir die heutige
Tauffrage. Frankfurt: 1972.

120
 Bibliography 4 121

Jungel, E. Barth-Studien. Ziirich: 1982, 246-314 (on Karl Barth’s view of baptism).
Labourdette, M.-M. ‘’Le péché originel dans la tradition vivante de l’Eglise.’
Revue Thomiste 92 (1984) 357-398.
Lienemann-Perrin, C., ed. Taufe und Kirchenzugehérigkeit. Munich: 1983 (with
historical material as well).
Lohfink, G. ‘Der Ursprung der christlichen Taufe.’’ Theologische Quartalschrift
156 (1976) 35-54.
Maki, P., ed., Taufe und Heiliger Geist. Helsinki: 1979.
Molinski, W., ed. Diskussion um die Taufe. Munich: 1971.
Nagel, E. “Die ‘Heiligkeit’ der Christenkinder nach Tertullian.’’ Zeitschrift fiir
katholische Theologie 100 (1978) 62-68 (with bibliography on infant
baptism).
___.. Kindertaufe und Taufaufschub. Die Praxis vom 3.-5. Jahrhundert in Nord-
afrika und ihre theologische Einordnung bei Tertullian, Cyprian und Augustinus.
Frankfurt: 1980.
Nepper-Christensen, P. ‘“Die Taufe im Matthausevangelium.’’ New Testament
Studies 31 (1985) 189-207.
Neunheuser, B. Taufe und Firmung. Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte IV/2.
2d ed. Freiburg: 1982.
Orbanic, Z. L’atteggiamento e la prassi della chiesa sull’eta del battesimo. Rome: 1983.
Quesnel, M. Baptisés dans l’espvit. Baptéme et Esprit Saint dans les Actes des Apétres.
Paris: 1985.
Reckinger, F. Kinder taufen—mit Bedacht. Eine Darstellung der Diskussion um die
Kindertaufe im katholischen Raum seit 1945 mit kritischen Stellungnahmen und
pastoralen Ausblicken. Steinfeld-Kall: 1982.
Schenke, L. ‘’Zur sog. ‘Oikosformel’ im NT.’’ Kairos 13 (1971) 226-243.
Schillebeeckx, E. ‘“Begierdetaufe.’’ LThK 2:112-115.
Schulte, R. ‘“Die Umkehr (metanoia) als Anfang und Form des christlichen
Lebens.’’ MySal 5 (1976) 117-221.
Schulz, H.-J. ‘“ ‘Wann immer einer tauft, ist es Christus, der tauft!’ ’’ In Praesen-
tia Christi, FS J. Betz, Diisseldorf: 1984, 240-260 (on Greek patristics).
Schwager, R. ‘‘Wassertaufe, ein Gebet um die Geisttaufe?’’ Zeitschrift fiir
katholische Theologie 100 (1978) 36-61.
Stenzel, A. Die Taufe. Eine genetische Erklarung der Taufliturgie. Innsbruck: 1958
(historically important).
Trititsch, J. ‘“Taufe, Sakrament der Einheit—Eucharistie, Sakrament der Tren-
nung?”’ Theologische Berichte (Ziirich) 9 (1980) 67-95.
 7

Confirmation

7.1 Biblical Foundations

Since the sacrament of confirmation is the liturgical symbolic ac-

tion that, according to Catholic belief, visibly confers the divine Spirit,
an understanding of the sacrament and the problems connected with
it presupposes knowledge of the biblical statements about the Holy
Spirit. Particularly important for the connection between New Testa-
ment pneumatology and confirmation is the two-volume work called
Luke-Acts.1 It was the Spirit of God who produced the man Jesus (Luke
1:35) and visibly descended upon him (Luke 3:22), and who (certainly
before that ‘“descent’’) filled him (Luke 4:1). In the power of this Spirit,
Jesus undertook his public work (Luke 4:14); to the Spirit he traced
his mission, at the same time religious and secular, in the sense of the
words of the prophet Isaiah (Luke 4:18-19). Jesus taught, concerning
this divine Spirit, that God the Father will give the Spirit to those who

1. See the commentaries on Luke and Acts: M. Rese, ‘Das Lukas-Evangelium.

Ein Forschungsbericht,’’ Aufstieg und Niedergang der rémischen Welt II/25 (Berlin:
1985) 2258-2328 (bibliography); F. Hahn, ‘“Der gegenwartige Stand der Erforschung
der Apostelgeschichte,’’ Theologische Revue 82 (1986) 177-190 (bibliography).

122
 Confirmation 123

ask (Luke 11:13). Here we can discern a twofold view of the divine
Spirit: it comes upon individual human beings, fills them and inspires
them to a particular mission, but at the same time it is necessary for
all who desire simply to live within the humanity renewed by God,
since God’s Spirit is the prophetically promised messianic gift of sal-
vation.” Acts refers explicitly to the promise of the divine Spirit in the
prophet Joel (2:28-32) and has Peter explain the experience of the Spirit
on the first Pentecost in this way: ‘This Jesus God raised up, and of
that all of us are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand
of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy
Spirit, he has poured out this that you both see and hear’’ (Acts 2:32-33;
the entire sermon of Peter is in vv. 17-36). It is necessary to receive
the divine Spirit in order to be rescued from the peril of death and
brought to God; certainly, no one but God alone decides for how many
this promise of salvation will be realized, but Peter gives assurance
that those who repent and are baptized ‘‘in the name of Jesus Christ
so that your sins may be forgiven’’ will receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit (vv. 38-39). Here the twofold manner of the divine Spirit’s com-
ing is made clear: the Spirit comes spontaneously, from the limitless
sovereignty of the divine Father who gives the Spirit through Jesus,
and it is given in connection with the sacrament and the reorientation
of one’s life. Neither way of receiving the Spirit is understood as ex-
clusive of the other. In both instances it is God who gives; God re-
mains sovereign in the sacramental action as well, since it is God who
decides about the Spirit’s coming to human beings and its activity
within them. Thus these New Testament texts concerning the Spirit
offer no basis for the opinion that the Church claims to have the di-
vine Spirit at its disposal and to be able to ‘‘channel’’ it.
We should also take note of these conclusions in connection with
the text that in Catholic theology has served as the classic witness for
the sacrament of confirmation: Acts 8:14-17. In Samaria’ there were

2. Documentation can readily be found in works on pneumatology, e.g., those

of Y. Congar (Der Heilige Geist) and C. Schiitz (Einftihrung) (see ch. 1, n. 22 above),
or in encyclopedia articles on ‘‘Pneuma.”’
3. Here we cannot go into the question of the purpose of the author of Acts
in telling this story. The idea that the Holy Spirit, promised by the prophets at
the end-time, had already been poured out on the earliest Christian community,
and the assumption of the power to impose hands by agents of that community
are certainly to be read in the context of the separation of the Church from Israel.
124 Sacramental Theology

believers who had accepted the word of God and been baptized, but
on whom the Holy Spirit had not ‘‘fallen.’”” The Jerusalem apostles sent
Peter and John to them; these apostles prayed for the coming of the
divine Spirit, laid their hands on the believers, and these Christians
also received the Holy Spirit. Afterward it is said that the divine Spirit
was given “through the laying on of the apostles’ hands”’ (vv. 18-19).
The statement should certainly not be understood in an exclusive sense,
so that the rite of imposition of hands is contrasted with the prayer
for the coming of the Spirit. The ancient gesture of blessing, the im-
position of hands (Gen 48:15) was combined with prayer.‘ This is men-
tioned in Acts without any theological reflection, as a matter of course
(cf. 6:6: imposition of hands following prayer; 9:12-18; 19:6), but no-
where does it suppress the saving and Spirit-communicating quality
of faith in the gospel (cf. 15:7-8).
Thus these New Testament witnesses to the Spirit authorize the
conclusion that God’s Spirit, as the gift of the Father through the Son,
is on the one hand promised and really given to human beings who
represent God’s new humanity and in whom, by the power of the
Spirit, eternal life has already begun, but that on the other hand the
Church can effectively pray for the coming of the divine Spirit for a
particular purpose. Acts speaks unsystematically of special tasks for
whose fulfillment the divine Spirit is needed: giving witness to the faith
(2:22-36; 4:8-12, etc.), missionary work to win new people to the faith
(8:29, 39; 13:2ff., etc.), making important decisions for the life of the
Church (10:19; 11:12; 15:28; 20:28).
The other New Testament passages concerning the Spirit (primarily
in Paul and John) do not contradict the viewpoint of Luke’s volumes.
But they concentrate on the creative divine Spirit who gives new life,
who changes human beings, leading them to faith and ever deeper
insight, who continually seeks to produce practical ‘‘fruits of the Spirit’
in human attitudes, who strengthens them to use the freedom that
has been given them, who bestows different gifts for the upbuilding

4, See the standard work on imposition of hands: K. GroB, Menschenhand und

Gotteshand in Antike und Christentum (Stuttgart: 1985). In connection with the dis-
cussion of the sacrament of orders we should also pose the question, still unan-
swered at the present, whether the instances of laying on of hands mentioned in
the New Testament all, or in most cases, were not gestures of blessing, but signs
of election (lifting up of hands). Cf. also A. T. Hanson and others, ‘“Handaufle-
gung,’’ TRE XIV (1985) 415-418.
 Confirmation 125

of the Christian community and thus guarantees the unity of believers.

In short: they describe the Spirit as the essence of God (John 4:24),
as the way in which God, after the exaltation of Jesus Christ, is pres-
ent in humanity. In this way of coming and remaining, God, the Spirit,
is absolutely free, not at anyone’s disposal and unpredictable. It would
contradict the New Testament to try to make the presence of the di-
vine Spirit in human hearts dependent on the administration of a sacra-
ment. But it would not be contradictory to regard a sacrament as the
prayer for the Spirit’s coming and acting in a special way.

7.2 Historical Decisions

In the Latin Church, the detaching of the postbaptismal anointing—

as symbol of the strengthening and claiming of a human being for God
(consecration)—and the imposition of hands by the bishop from the
act of baptism with water (see 6.2 above) made confirmation a sepa-
rate sacrament. This division was finalized by the Carolingian reform.*®
The theological reflections that on rare occasions accompanied this proc-
ess of division concentrated on the actions of anointing (which was
also understood pneumatologically) and imposition of hands. The con-
nection with baptism was retained: the detached rite was regarded as
the completion of baptism, reserved to the bishop, according to a synod
at Elvira (present Granada), around 300 (only in Latin, DS 120-121).
The first reasoning for this imposition of hands as the prerogative of
the bishop was given by Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258), citing Acts
8:14-17. In addition, the consecration of the chrism (composed of olive
oil and balsam) was always reserved to the bishop.
In the patristic period we find witnesses who understand the rite
after baptism not merely as an external expansion or completion, but
as an intensification of the baptismal action. The theological medita-
tion concentrated on two symbolic concepts, chrism and sphragis. The
anointing was seen as a visible communication of interior power, even
the strength that made it possible to undergo martyrdom, a witness-
ing to faith that endures even to death. Baptism, in its complete form,
including episcopal imposition of hands, was understood as the transfer
of a human being into the ownership of Jesus Christ and to his serv-
ice, as the sealing (sphragis) of a decision made once and for all. From
5. Cf. A. Angenendt, Kaiserherrschaft und Konigstaufe (Berlin: 1984) 75-91.
126 Sacramental Theology

that point of view we can understand how the indelible mark (charac-
ter) attributed to baptism was also attached to confirmation, after it
was detached from baptism. It was this understanding of the sacra-
ment that gave it its name in Latin theology: confirmatio.
Scholastic theology was at pains to define the inner content of con-
firmation: it was said to show that human beings were spiritually and
religiously mature, to give them the strength to witness to faith in the
broader sense and to bestow on them the irrevocable task of participa-
tion in the life and mission of the Church (hence the non-repeatability
of confirmation implied by the ‘‘character’’). The relationship to bap-
tism was always preserved, and it was never said that confirmation
was the exclusive or even a preferred way in which the Holy Spirit
comes to a human person.
The Church’s dogmatic statements on confirmation arose out of the
efforts toward unity with the separated Eastern Churches in the four-
teenth and fifteenth centuries. In Eastern theology, the ‘anointing with
myron”’ was strictly distinguished from baptism, but it was connected
with it, as it still is in the Eastern Churches, where it was and is be-
stowed on the infant by a simple priest. In 1351 the Pope expected the
Armenians to acknowledge that chrism could only be consecrated by
the bishop (NR 548/DS 1068), and that the sacrament of confirmation
could ‘‘by reason of his office’ and ‘‘ordinarily’’ (i.e., according to
the normal order of things) be administered only by the bishop (NR
549/DS 1069), but the Pope, and he alone, could also empower simple
priests to administer it (NR 550/DS 1070); candidates who had not been
confirmed according to these rules must be reconfirmed by a bishop
(NR 551/DS 1071). The Council of Florence in 1439 also sought, in its
teaching for the Armenians, to compel them to accept the Latin view
of confirmation (NR 552-553/DS 1317-1318). In this text, which relies
on Thomas Aquinas, we also read of the special effects of confirma-
tion. It states that ‘‘through confirmation our grace is increased and
our faith strengthened’’ (NR 502/DS 1311), and further: ‘’The effect
of this sacrament is that in it the Holy Spirit is given for strength, as
. . to the apostles on the day of Pentecost, in order that the Christian
may courageously confess the name of Christ. And, therefore, the one
to be confirmed is anointed on the forehead which is the seat of shame,
so that [she or] he may not be ashamed to confess the name of Christ,
and chiefly His cross, which according to the apostle, is a stumbling
block for the Jews and foolishness for the Gentiles. This is why [she
 Confirmation 127

or] he is signed with the sign-of the cross’’ (NR 554/DS 1319). Along
with its teaching about the sacramental character of confirmation, this
council emphasized that the sacrament could not be repeated (NR
504/DS 1313).
The next occasion for official Church statements about confirma-
tion was the rejection of this sacrament by the Reformers: the latter
saw in confirmation a devaluation of baptism and, in accord with their
principle that a sacrament must have been expressly instituted by Jesus
Christ and bear a promise of grace, they could not recognize confir-
mation as a sacrament. The seventh session of the Council of Trent
(1547), in its teaching on the sacraments in general, counted confir-
mation among the seven sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ (NR
506/DS 1601) and repeated the teaching about the sacramental charac-
ter imprinted by confirmation (NR 514/DS 1609). In the same session
it produced three doctrinal statements on confirmation:
1. If anyone says that the confirmation of those baptized is a useless
ceremony and not a true and proper sacrament; or that of old it was noth-
ing more than a sort of catechesis in which those nearing adolescence
gave an account of their faith before the Church, anathema sit.
2. If anyone says that those who ascribe any power to the sacred chrism
of confirmation are offending the Holy Spirit, anathema sit.
3. If anyone says that the ordinary minister of holy confirmation is not
the bishop alone but any simple priest, anathema sit (NR 555-557/DS
1628-1630).®
The third sentence was not intended to condemn the Eastern Church’s
usage of confirmation by the priest, but to designate it as an ‘’extraor-
dinary’’ procedure.
In the Protestant Churches, confirmation was known even in the
sixteenth century as a non-sacramental service of worship, in which
young people (about fourteen years old) were recognized by the com-
munity as full members of the Church; it was combined with a com-
memoration of baptism and an explicit, confessional-type dedication
of those being confirmed to the way of Jesus Christ. This custom, which
has been in general use since the eighteenth century, reveals a need
(found also in the Catholic Church) to ask of those approaching adult-

6. Translation adapted from J. Neuner, S.J. and J. Dupuis, S.J., The Christian
Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church (Westminster, Md.: Christian
Classics, Inc., 1975).
128 Sacramental Theology

hood a personal, responsible statement of their attitude toward the bap-

tism conferred on them as infants, and if that response is positive, to
obligate these young Christians to a life of conscious witness. The in-
sight that in this sense baptism needs an expansion and completion
led, among Catholics, to extended discussions in the field of practical
theology about the right age for confirmation. The more confirmation
is seen as a public act of conscious, inner affirmation of conversion
and faith, a making-present of the baptismal event, and a freely-chosen
entry into an ecclesial and missionary existence, the stronger is the in-
clination to advance the suggested age for confirmation to the thresh-
old of genuine adulthood.
Vatican Council II expressed itself on several individual aspects of
confirmation. In the Constitution on the Liturgy we read: ‘’The rite
of confirmation is to be revised and the intimate connection which this
sacrament has with the whole of Christian initiation is to be more lu-
cidly set forth; for this reason it will be fitting for candidates to renew
their baptismal promises just before they are confirmed”’ (SC 71). In
the dogmatic Constitution on the Church, what is said about the ef-
fects of confirmation is evidently based on a comparison with baptism.
It is said of the faithful that ‘‘bound more intimately to the Church
by the sacrament of confirmation, they are endowed by the Holy Spirit
with special strength’’ (LG 11); their special ecclesial mission is also
expressed when their calling to an apostolate of the laity by baptism
and confirmation is traced to the exalted Lord (LG 33). The practical
situation in the Catholic Church has become such that not only bishops,
but priests authorized by them can confirm (and in case of need, any
priest, even without authorization). Vatican Council II clarified the
question of the ‘‘minister’’ in part, by saying of the bishops: ‘‘they
are the original ministers of confirmation’’ (LG 26), and therefore in
no way the exclusive ministers; moreover, the Eastern Church prac-
tice of confirmation by priests with chrism blessed by the patriarch or
bishop was expressly acknowledged (OE 13-14). In the reformed rite
of confirmation,’ the sacrament is administered, after a prayer for the

7. The new order of confirmation was established by the apostolic constitution

Divinae consortium naturae (15 August 1971): AAS 63 (1971) 657-664. The correspond-
ing liturgical order is found in R. Kaczynski, Enchiridion Documentorum Instauratio-
nis liturgicae 1, 1963-1973 (Turin: 1976) 814-820; cf. A. E. Hierold, ‘’Taufe und
Firmung,’’ HKR, 659-675, at 671-675 on confirmation, especially the new regula-
tion regarding the ‘minister of confirmation,’’ 672-673.
 Confirmation 129

coming of the divine Spirit, by an anointing on the forehead with

chrism, accompanied by an imposition of the hand, as the words are
spoken: ‘‘Be sealed with the gift of God, the Holy Spirit.’’ When adults
are baptized and confirmed, the old order of initiation (baptism, con-
firmation, Eucharist) is to be observed.

7.3 Summary

On the basis of the origins of confirmation, it is possible to regard

this sacrament as that symbolic action in which the Church prays for
a special effectiveness of the Holy Spirit in and for a baptized person.
The Church is, in principle, free to determine the particular aspiration
of this prayer more precisely. On the basis of tradition, an interpreta-
tion in terms of the completion of baptism suggests itself, in the sense
that, in confirmation, the baptized recall their own baptism, become
conscious of an intimate union with Jesus Christ, and strengthen both
the orientation of their whole lives to Jesus Christ (‘“conversion’’) and
their acceptance of the faith of the Church. This can be accompanied
by a new, personal commitment to live as a witness for that faith in
the world, the acceptance of a mission, or ‘‘apostolate’’ from the
Church. These ways of filling out the content of the sacrament are not
mere human inventions; they are guaranteed by God through the ex-
alted Son, to the extent that the latter desires to see his mission con-
tinued by the community of believers, in the power of the Holy Spirit
who is present among them. If the Church maintains that Jesus Christ
is the one really acting in this sacrament, since he gives the Spirit be-
stowed on him by the Father to those who ask, for the fulfillment of
specific tasks, that does not mean that the Church assumes authority
of the divine Spirit or regards the Spirit as being at the Church’s
disposal.
Two misunderstandings ought to be avoided. (1) Confirmation may
not be regarded as the first and fundamental communication of the
Holy Spirit to any human being. Since God’s grace is, in the first place,
nothing different from God’s own self, and since God’s coming to a
human being, God’s dwelling in the most intimate center of a human
person, depends entirely on God’s free initiative, the point at which
the divine Spirit is communicated to the human person is identical with
this gracious coming of God; however, it can never be discovered and
pinpointed by any human person. In the grace-filled event of confir-
130 Sacramental Theology

mation, the Spirit of God present in the human being moves the be-
liever in a particular direction to the fulfilling of the will of God. (2)
But confirmation must not be understood as the sacrament of the lay
apostolate. It indicates the beginning of being a Christian in the eccle-
sial and secular public realm as gift and task, the strengthening of faith
and the empowerment to witness to it; thus, together with baptism,
it is fundamental for all ‘‘states’’ and ministries in the Church. Confir-
mation is one of the ‘‘lesser’’ sacraments; it was never regarded as
necessary for salvation. Nevertheless, as a visible expression of our
dependence on God’s Holy Spirit, it is of great importance. As an ac-
knowledgment of the prophetic promise of the Spirit and its fulfill-
ment in accord with the mysterious will of God, as a symbolic action
incorporating the venerable gestures of anointing and imposition of
hands, it documents the enduring connection of the Christian Church
with Israel. The desire for confirmation in the Reformed Churches
shows that the existence of this sacrament need not stand in the way
of ecumenical endeavors.
 Bibliography 5

Confirmation

Amougou-Atangana, J. Ein Sakrament des Geistempfangs? Freiburg: 1974.

Barral-Baron, N. Renouveau de la confirmation. Paris: 1983.
Biemer, G. Firmung. Theologie und Praxis. Wurzburg: 1973 (bibliography).
De Halleux, A. ‘Confirmation et Chrisma.”’ Irénikon 57 (1984) 490-515.
Ferrari, G. ‘‘Teologia e liturgia della confirmazione in Oriente e Occident’’
Nicolaus 12 (1985) 295-316.
“Firmung.”’ Internationale kath. Zeitschrift 11 (1982) 409-456.
Il sacramento della confermazione. Bologna: 1983.
Kretschmar, G. ‘’Firmung.’’ TRE XI (1983) 192-204.
Lanne, E. ‘‘Les sacrements de I’initiation chrétienne et la confirmation dans
l’Eglise d’Occident.’’ Irénikon 57 (1984) 196-215, 324-346.
Larrabe, J. L. ‘La Confirmacién, sacramento del Espiritu en la teologia moderna.”
Lumen 32 (1983) 144-175.
Ligier, L. La Confirmation. Paris: 1973 (criticizes the decline of imposition of
hands in favor of anointing; rich in materials).
Meyer, H. B. Aus dem Wasser und dem Heiligen Geist. Aschaffenburg: 1969.
Miihlen, H. ‘‘Firmung als sakramentales Zeichen der heilsgeschichtlichen
Selbstiiberlieferung des Geistes Christi.’’ Theologie und Glaube 57 (1967)
263-286.
Nordhues, P., and H. Petri, eds. Die Gabe Gottes. Beitrage zur Theologie und
Pastoral des Firmsakraments. Paderborn: 1974.
Schiitzeichel, H. Katholische Calvin-Studien. Trier: 1980, 9-27 (Calvin’s critique
of confirmation).
Zerndl, J. Die Theologie der Firmung in der Vorbereitung und in den Akten des Zweiten
Vatikanischen Konzils. Paderborn: 1986.

131
 8
Eucharist

8.1 Introduction

Among the seven sacraments of the Church, the Eucharist has the
highest place. For Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians it is the
liturgy pure and simple. Here, as with no other sacrament, the objec-
tive rite and the deepest subjective, emotional and mystical piety are
united; the most important human capabilities (music, architecture,
crafts, painting, poetry) are brought into service; all the theological dis-
ciplines have striven and are still striving for knowledge, insight, and
a way in which to do it justice; and all the doctrines of faith from the
theology of creation to eschatology come together in this one sacra-
ment. This intensive and extensive attention makes it impossible to
speak adequately of this sacrament and its history in a brief overview.
Similarly, the various crises endured by the Eucharist can only be
mentioned here. When there is discussion of resistance to and lack of
interest in liturgy and symbols, the Eucharist is the form of worship
most affected. To the same degree, it is the object of a newly awakened
interest in ‘‘the Lord’s supper as an assurance of belonging, an ex-
perience of security; the Lord’s supper as a new beginning in the snares

132
 Eucharist 133

of guilt and violence; the Lord’s supper as the experience of shared

life in the bread broken with one another; the Lord’s supper as a meal
of hope, a dream.’’! In its new forms, Eucharist is to reveal the Church
as always young and dynamic, politically and socially active, inviting
and missionary; far beyond the inner circle, it should be ‘‘an open,
public meal of fellowship for peace and God’s justice in the world,’’?
in which even the unbaptized can participate by eating and drinking.
In efforts to preserve the Eucharist to the fullest extent possible from
having a cultic appearance—though the cultic aspect still shows its vi-
tality in huge celebrations with mass participation—the anthropologi-
cal and sociological meaning of mutual eating and drinking receives
special emphasis.°
This kind of open praxis (and the more modest form of ‘“unauthor-
ized”’ alterations in the liturgy), with the discussions surrounding it,
not only lead to admonitions and warnings from Church officials and
theologians; they also deepen the existing rifts within a single Church
and even lead to a splitting off of sects,* so that Jesus’ legacy becomes
a source of strife and disunion. These and similar observations draw
attention to the preconditions that must be fulfilled if we are really to
speak of Eucharist. Whatever value the memorial of Jesus in a broader
form may have for new approaches to Christian praxis and faith, the
Christian celebration can only under particular conditions lay claim to
the name that, by preference, is given to this sacrament by Catholic
and Protestant Christians: Eucharist or Lord’s Supper.
A first condition is the genuine and active desire for Church unity.
This is threatened, in the first instance, by a lack of reconciliation, by
aggressivity and dogmatism (on all sides!). According to a word of Jesus
that has been handed down to us, reconciliation is a precondition for
liturgy (Matt 5:23-24). At a time when many eyewitnesses and hearers
of Jesus were still living, Paul spoke of the impossibility of celebrating
Eucharist in the community, as long as divisions existed (1 Cor 11, es-

1. U. Kiihn, Sakramente, 264.

2. J. Moltmann, Kirche in der Kraft des Geistes (Munich: 1975) 270.
3. M. Jossutis and G. M. Martin, eds., Das heilige Essen. Kulturwissenschaftliche
Beitrige zum Verstdndnis des Abendmahls (Stuttgart and Berlin: 1980).
4. As one example among many, let me mention the activities of the Lefebvre
group and the consequences thereof; cf. A. Schifferle’s dissertation, written under
my direction and entitled Marcel Lefebvre—Argernis und Besinnung (Kevelaer: 1983),
especially 131-166.
134 Sacramental Theology

pecially 17-20; cf. also 10:17). In an expression that is still often cited,
Augustine called the Eucharist ‘‘the sign of unity, the bond of love’’
(Vatican II, SC 47). Walter Kasper writes correctly that: ‘‘It is certainly
contrary to the essence of eucharist and to the decisions of the early
Church on this subject, to make of the eucharist a celebration of race
or class, either by making it an exclusive eucharist of the privileged,
or by turning it into a revolutionary celebration of the underprivileged.
But it contradicts the essence of the eucharist to the same degree, if
one ignores the ethical preconditions and consequences of a common
eucharistic celebration: agape concretely realized (cf. Mt 5:23-24), the
miniumum of which is the fulfillment of the demands of social justice.’’>
The Eucharist, as the embodiment of our confession of faith, obvi-
ously raises the question of the faith of those celebrating it. In many
memorials of Jesus it is evident that there is no awareness at all that
Jesus was the very model of a “‘pious Jew,”’ a person who lived en-
tirely from and toward God, filled with his mission and determined
to be faithful to that mission, and to the Father who sent him, even
to the end. How could we think of Jesus without being conscious of
God? We can only speak of Eucharist in any meaningful sense where
there is faith in God and in God's all-penetrating presence. That may
sound more obvious than it is for many people. Do not many notions
of the Eucharist contain the implicit idea that in this sacrament Jesus
(and, with Jesus, God) is present, though he is otherwise distant, taken
up into ‘‘heaven’’? That he is ‘‘made”’ or ‘‘caused to be’’ present by
a human agent? It is a precondition for Eucharist, as for every sacra-
ment, that one believe firmly that God is the reality who determines
all things and who is present at all times and everywhere.
The presence of the triune God is a real presence. The opposite of
a real, that is, a fully genuine presence would be a presence only in
thought, perhaps illusory, in any case uncertain. But how could God
be thought of in terms of spatial distance, beyond some abyss that our
thought might be able to bridge? God is really present to everyone and
everything, and even if Jesus were nothing more than one human be-
ing rescued and taken to God, he would be where the dead who are
saved for God are, namely, with God. And so he would in any case
be really present for those who believe in God's real presence. But Jesus

5. W. Kasper, ‘’Einheit und Vielfalt der Aspekte der Eucharistie,’’ Internationale

katholische Zeitschrift 14 (1985) 196-215, at 212-213. Emphasis supplied.
 Eucharist 135

is immeasurably more than merely a human being who has been res-
cued from death and taken to God, since he is the human being with
whom that in God which can be uttered, the eternal ‘‘logos’’ has united
itself inseparably and without confusion. Where God truly is present,
there is the real presence of Jesus.
This presence of God cannot be comprehended in ideas of space
and time. The question: ‘“When does God begin and end?”’ is as sense-
less as the question: ‘‘Where is God?”’ On the basis of biblical testimo-
nies about God, Christian faith speaks of God as spirit or pneuma (John
4:24); God’s presence for us is thus a pneumatic presence (see 2.3 and
5.1.1 above). When we say of a human being that he was awakened
by God from death to eternal life, and that he was wholly saved, that
is, raised from the dead, we obviously include his body. But the body
that has been definitively taken up into God’s glory, as so impressively
described in 1 Corinthians 15:35-55, is of an entirely different quality
from that of our bodies, limited as they are by space and time. The
body hidden in God is ‘‘the work of the Spirit’ (pneumatikos: not “‘spiri-
tual,’’ as so many translations say, but ‘’Spirit-empowered’’). Thus
the presence of God and the presence of Jesus, as Son of God and
as glorified human being, can always and only be a pneumatic presence.
It is fundamental to Christian faith, and thus also to the faith-
preconditions for the Eucharist, that God’s presence is only made evi-
dent for us through God’s holy pneuma, the divine Spirit. This Spirit
is not to be sought here or there, but in the innermost depths of our-
selves, in our ‘‘hearts’’ (Rom 5:5). There, through the Spirit, and not
through our own effort or achievement, occurs that opening, that dis-
closure that we call ‘‘faith,’” and that indwelling of God in a union
or communio that cannot be described in words. This is the goal of Chris-
tian faith and of its praxis, the goal of all devotion, all liturgy and thus
of all the sacraments, but especially of the Eucharist. If a Christian
celebration is not oriented toward the real, pneumatic presence of God
in Jesus through the Spirit, and if this union with God is not its final
and highest end, it should not be called ‘’Eucharist.”’
We should mention one other pneumatological precondition for Eu-
charist. It is God’s Spirit who awakens faith in the hearts of human
persons, who leads them to acknowledge and witness to this faith,
and thus forms the Church. The fundamental features of the Church
are the work of the Spirit of God. There the Spirit not only brings about
the encounter of individuals with God, but is continually at work in
136 Sacramental Theology

them to bring together the Church as community. A certain trust in

this work of the Spirit is part of any sacramental celebration: trust that
those celebrating are not the victims of error or illusion. One aspect
of this trust in the Holy Spirit is the confidence that the Church in its
fundamentals need not be disturbed by historical research. Historical
findings in the context of faith can never be so clear and certain that
they compel any person to accept a particular conviction; in that case
we could no longer speak of a freedom of belief. In the case of the Eu-
charist, historical-critical research has produced well-founded doubts
as to whether we can speak of a direct, immediate ‘‘institution’’ or
‘origination’ by the historical Jesus, whether he had instructed his
friends to celebrate ‘‘this’’ in his memory, whether the words of insti-
tution over bread and cup could have been the same ones used by him,
and so on. The traditional witnesses for the essential statements on
the Eucharist lead us back so close to Jesus, both in time and in con-
tent, that faith still has enough historical points of contact to retain
its intellectual integrity. Historians cannot explain how the earliest
Christian community could simply have invented the heart of the Eu-
charistic tradition in so short a time after Jesus’ departure. But it is not
only historians who establish an “‘institutional connection’’ between
Jesus and the Eucharist; that guarantee is really the work of the Spirit
of God.
It follows from what has been said that the Church has the right,
in principle, to restrict access to the Eucharist, and that there can be
no objective injustice involved when that is done. In forbidding ac-
cess, the Church does not decide whether God will be intimately pres-
ent to a human person, in love and favor, and this barring of access
need not necessarily mean that Christians within the Church keep their
distance even at the level of human contacts and Christian charitable
activities from those who think differently. For atheists or adherents
of non-Christian religions the Church can be inviting and humanitarian
in many ways, but it can and may not alter the function of the Eu-
charist to make it a supper open to the whole world.
The case of the Eucharistic communities of Christians who still live
in separated Churches is different. Must we demand of them a com-

6. There are some good overviews of the current situation, e. g., U. Kihn’s in
TRE I (1977) 145-212 or that of G. Wainwright in EKL I (1986) 29-32, both with
bibliography. Cf. also T. Schneider, Zeichen (Mainz: 1984) 173-183.
 Eucharist 137

mon creed? That they also hold a Trinitarian faith and acknowledge
the real presence of God through God’s Son Jesus in the Holy Spirit
is an obvious precondition for celebrating the Eucharist and for Eu-
charistic communion. Beyond this, some Churches, for example the
Orthodox and Roman Catholic, require that full Church unity be ac-
complished before there can be full Eucharistic community.” Although
ecumenical dialogue has made astonishing strides in the last twenty-
five years, our historical inheritance includes some dogmatic statements
that, in the opinion of many Church leadership bodies, cannot be sur-
rendered without loss of Church identity. Thus the Roman Catholic
Church demands, for reception of the Eucharist, the acknowledgement
that Jesus Christ is present in a special and unique manner (see be-
low, 8.4.2 and 8.4.3), and requires, for a ‘‘valid’’ celebration of the Eu-
charist, that it be conducted by a ‘‘validly’’ ordained priest,’ although
the lack of this ‘’validity’’ certainly cannot mean that God’s gracious
presence would be lacking or that the priestless celebration would be
without any value. Small groups or individual theologians are power-
less in face of such demands. But in the Christian tradition there are
other witnesses that do not make a full unity of Church and creed the
precondition for Eucharistic communion, and that see the Eucharist
not only as a sign of full unity, but also as a means and a way to con-
tinually deepen a fundamental unity that, because of faith and bap-
tism, already exists—so that the Eucharist reveals and causes the
Church’s unity (Pope Innocent III, d. 1216; PL 217, 879).

8.2 Biblical Foundations

8.2.1 The Last Supper Accounts

The Last Supper accounts found in the New Testament are regarded
in all Christian Churches as the historical and theological basis for the

7. The Catholic Church is more prepared than the Orthodox to extend Eucha-
ristic hospitality without mutuality, as the literature reveals. Cf. also A. Mayer,
‘‘Die Eucharistie,’’ HKR 676-691.
8. U. Ktihn, Sakramente, 302, is pleased to note that Vatican II did not use the
word ‘‘validity,’’ but instead spoke of a ‘‘deficiency’’ in the Protestant Eucharist,
and not of a total absence or lack. The Catechism for Catholic Adults prepared by
the German bishops’ conference in 1985, however, referring to NR 920 and 713,
again speaks of the only “valid’”’ celebration by the ‘‘validly’’ ordained priest (359).
138 Sacramental Theology

Eucharist or Lord’s Supper.’ However, they are not historical reports

in the sense of the term used by modern historians. They presuppose
the earliest Christian liturgy, the assembly gathered ‘‘in the name of
Jesus’”’ and in faith in his real presence, in memory of that which God
accomplished in him, and in the experience of real community with
him, with hope of a continuing communion with him. They are evi-
dently intended to serve the concrete shaping of this liturgy and its
religious-theological understanding.’ Historically, the Eucharist goes
back to that last meal that Jesus ate with his most intimate circle of
disciples on the evening before his death. We may regard it also as
historically certain that Jesus had at least a strong premonition of his
approaching violent death, now that, in obedience to his mission, he
had offered the most extreme provocation to the Temple hierarchy.
It is scarcely disputed that it was Jesus’ expectation and interpretation
of his violent death that distinguished this last meal from other meals.
“It is true that Jesus’ last meal was much like the meals he had shared
with his disciples, as well as with toll collectors and sinners (Mk 2:16;
Lk 15:2), and in which, in anticipation of the messianic time of salva-
tion, they all shared in the saving community of God, but this meal
also marked a turning point: while before this occasion the commu-
nity was made possible by the presence of Jesus, this farewell meal
looks forward to the new situation that will be brought about by his
approaching death.’’!! There can be no reasonable doubt that Jesus
also couched this meal within Jewish table liturgy. According to the
reports of the Last Supper, he combined the breaking and giving of
bread and the offering of the blessed cup with interpretive words.
While these words can no longer be reconstructed in their precise form,
there are no good grounds to think that such words were not spoken
9. For an introduction to what follows, see: G. Delling, ‘‘Abendmahl III,’” TRE
I (1977) 47-58; H. Frankemidlle, B. J. Hilberath, and T. Schneider, ‘“Eucharistie,’’
NHt#thG I (1984) 297-317, especially 297-305; J. Roloff, ‘“Abendmahl 2,’’ EKL I (1986)
10-13, all with bibliography. For more detail, see T. Schneider, Zeichen, 128-173;
X. Léon-Dufour, ‘’Das letzte Mahl Jesu und die testamentarische Tradition nach
Lk 22,” Zeitschrift fiir katholische Theologie 103 (1981) 33-55; idem, Le partage du pain
eucharistique selon le Nouveau Testament (Paris: 1982); H.-J. Klauck, Herrenmahl und
hellenistischer Kult. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum ersten Korintherbrief
(Miinster: 1982); U. Kiihn, Sakramente, 266-278.
10. Form-critically, they belong to the category of cult etiologies, a not very attrac-
tive title. But see what X. Léon-Dufour has to say about Luke 22.
11. J. Roloff, ‘‘Abendmahl”’ (see n. 9 above), 11.
 Eucharist 139

by Jesus or that he was not referring to himself and his own destiny.”
Therefore in their essence they may be regarded as historically certain.
Jesus could have spoken words of interpretation when giving the bread:
“This is my body’’; for the cup: ‘’This cup is my blood for many.’’
The saying over the bread, with the Aramaic word gufa, would refer
to the whole, historically existing person; the word over the cup ‘’ex-
tends’’ the movement of Jesus’ life for others, and particularly for those
who are far from God, even into death: this death, as well, will be
for the benefit of the many, of those who are far from God. The presen-
tation of gifts thus interpreted in the context of the meal promises that,
beyond Jesus’ death, community will be maintained with him, with
his whole person and not only his ‘‘cause,’’ and that the community
of those who take part in the meal will be possible in view of that for
which Jesus lived and died, namely, the reign of God.
‘“‘The post-Easter community, led by the exalted Lord present in
the Spirit, by continuing in a new form the pre-Easter meals and es-
pecially the feast of Jesus’ death with his disciples (i.e., in the form
of thanksgiving, ‘in memory,’ calling on the Spirit), rightly laid claim
to those pre-Easter celebrations (and especially the last meal) as a gift
of the Lord to the Church.’’4
The reports of the Last Supper, as we have them, preserve both
the liturgical practice of the early Christian communities and certain
religious-theological interpretations drawn from that practice. The re-
port in Mark (Mark 14:22-25) and that in Paul’s Letter to the Corin-
thians (1 Cor 11:23-26) are regarded by scholars today as ancient
versions, independent of one another, drawn from an original version
that is no longer extant.45 Whether Jesus’ last meal was a Passover sup-
per as the Synoptics say, in disagreement with John (18:28; 19:14), can
no longer be determined. There is no tradition of Jesus’ giving an in-
terpretation in terms of Passover. Only later did theologians think it

12. For example, see J. Roloff, ‘“Abendmahl,’’ 10-11, against efforts in this direc-
tion by H. Lietzmann and W. Marxsen. H.-J. Klauck gives a detailed critique of
the thesis of Hellenistic origins. According to his findings, in the actions with bread
and cup Jesus conveyed the significance of his surrender to death as a prophetic
sign of fulfillment, which they understood only in light of the Easter experience:
Klauck, Herrenmahl, 365-374. :
13. J. Roloff, ‘‘Abendmahl,’’ 10, with regard to a possible ‘original form.’’
14. U. Kiihn, Sakramente, 269.
15. Cf. J. Roloff, ‘‘Abendmahl,’’ 10.
140 Sacramental Theology

proper to devalue the Jewish Passover as a mere foreshadowing of the

‘Paschal mystery’’ of Jesus. The word over the cup in Mark (14:24):
‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,’’
interprets Jesus’ violent death in terms of Exodus 24:5-8 as a new cove-
nant, and understands Jesus as the servant of YHWH depicted by
Isaiah, who as mediator of the covenant (cf. Isa 42:6; 49:8) bore the
sins of ‘‘the many,”’ that is, of all, and who interceded for the guilty
before God (Isa 53:12). The eschatological point of view (Mark 14:25;
Matt 26:29; Luke 22:18), even if it does not go back to Jesus himself,
bears the marks of his spirit: it reflects the certainty of Jesus’ convic-
tion about the realization of the reign of God, and it reveals the confi-
dence with which Jesus, as a just Jew, went to his death, in the firm
faith that YHWH would not abandon those who are faithful.’
Matthew’s report (Matt 26:26-29) is completely dependent on Mark,
but reveals still stronger marks of liturgical stylization.’” It expands the
shedding of the blood of the covenant for the many with the explana-
tion, ‘‘for the forgiveness of sins.’’
In the ancient account of the Last Supper in Paul’s writing (1 Cor
11:23-26), we probably find the earliest tradition that the interpretive
words were directly connected with the cup, not with the blood.”
Otherwise this is a stylized, theologically weighted text that serves
Paul’s purpose of opposing abuses in the Eucharistic celebration at
Corinth. But for that very reason it is of great value in revealing the
early development of an interpretation of the Eucharist. The ‘‘supper
of the Lord” is already clearly distinguished from ordinary meals. Un-
doubtedly, Paul and the addressees of the letter share a belief in a real,
‘“sacramental’’ presence of Jesus (cf. 11:27). The recipients of the let-
ter evidently had a well-developed understanding of sacrament, but
had forgotten that the Eucharistic meal involved a personal encounter
with the Crucified, which presupposed and resulted in a companion-
able attitude in solidarity with others. In his urgent warning, Paul uses
the word ‘‘memorial’’ (anamnesis) in order to point out that in this meal
the event of the cross is made present, so that those who eat and drink
may participate in it. The immediate effect of the event of the cross
is, according to the word over the cup, the ‘new covenant,” in fulfill-

16. Cf. H. Vorgrimler, Hoffnung auf Vollendung, 2d ed. (Freiburg: 1984) 41-42 (with
literature on Jesus’ eschatology).
17. J. Roloff, ‘“Abendmahl.’’
18. Ibid.
 Eucharist 141

ment of the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31-34. The liturgy makes this cove-
nant present, whenever it is celebrated, and thus keeps before our eyes
the fact that God expects of the partners in the covenant a particular
ethical standard of behavior. In this memorial-that-makes-present, the
participants (if they celebrate the Eucharist ‘‘worthily’’) proclaim ‘‘the
death of the Lord, until he comes’ (11:26). It is in this form that Jesus’
eschatological point of view is retained.
In recent research”? it has been pointed out that this report reveals
an accommodation of the Eucharist to Hellenistic memorial meals for
the dead. It is true that the reference to a historical institution by Jesus
and the influence of Jewish historical thinking are of primary impor-
tance, but a process of Hellenizing can be demonstrated at many levels.
This Hellenizing is represented especially by the development of the
Eucharist into a stylized cultic action and, with regard to the ‘“anamne-
sis,’’ the increasing similarity to a Hellenistic memorial meal. These
findings, however, should at least be supplemented by the observa-
tion that even Jewish festival meals were liturgically stylized (and that
the concepts of ‘‘cult’’ and ‘‘cultic’’ should be reserved for pagan rit-
uals), as well as the fact that memorials that made present the mighty
works of God were and are an essential component of Jewish liturgy.
The memorial celebration of Eucharist does not depend on the con-
cept of ‘‘anamnesis.’’ Even if Jesus did not say, in good Hellenistic
style, ‘‘do this in memory of me,”’ his symbolic action within the for-
mat of a Jewish festival meal could have served as a basis for the
memorial structure of the Eucharist. In any case, it seems a false direc-
tion for research to attempt to make the ‘‘institution’’ of the Eucharist
by Jesus, the Jew, more historically credible by seeking to find formal
rituals in the Judaism of Jesus’ time, involving bread and wine if pos-
sible, to which Jesus only had to give a new meaning—whether that
ritual be the table blessing (bere akha),”° or the historically dubious sac-
rifice of praise (tod@).?1

19. Cf. H.-J. Klauck, Herrenmahl, 285-364.

20. A derivation of the Eucharist from the berakah, influential among Catholics,
was attempted by L. Bouyer, Théologie et spiritualité de la priére eucharistique (Paris:
1966).
- H. Gese, ‘Die Herkunft des Herrenmahls,’’in his Zur biblischen Theologie
(Munich: 1977) 107-127 posits an origin in the todah; in agreement with him is J.
Ratzinger, Das Fest des Glaubens (Einsiedeln: 1981) 47-54; against this interpreta-
tion is H.-J. Klauck, Herrenmahl.
142 Sacramental Theology

Luke’s account (Luke 22:15-20) incorporates concepts from sacrifi-

cial theology in the interpretive words (‘‘given,’’ v. 19, ‘‘poured out,”’
v. 20) and, like Paul, the statement that the ‘“new covenant”’ is com-
pleted in the blood of Jesus (v. 20). The command to ‘‘do this in mem-
ory of me,”” repeated twice by Paul, is found once here. Xavier
Léon-Dufour has made an important contribution with his study of
the Lukan account.”? According to him, in the earliest Christian com-
munities there was a twofold response to the question: How could a
genuine and effective memorial of Jesus, who had entered into death,
be maintained? how could a personal union with the living but absent
Jesus be possible? One answer is reflected in cultic tradition, the other
is echoed in testamentary tradition. The two are not mutually exclu-
sive. The cultic tradition, which might better be called a “‘liturgical tra-
dition,’’ concentrated on the new manner of Jesus’ presence and the
event of the cross; the group of disciples became the community as-
sembled around Jesus at a liturgical meal. This liturgical concentration
is found in the Last Supper accounts of Mark and Matthew. The
testamentary tradition, in contrast, places the emphasis on the ‘‘testa-
ment’ that the departed had left behind. Léon-Dufour is able to point
to a number of examples of testamentary tradition in Jewish writings.
In the New Testament, he finds, it exists in the literary genre of Jesus’
farewell speeches. John’s Gospel has deliberately and completely
replaced the liturgical tradition with the testamentary tradition. Luke,
on the other hand, has incorporated the liturgical tradition (presence
of Jesus in 22:19 and, in a present, symbolic action, his death in 22:20)
within a farewell speech and thus given the whole a testamentary form
(extending from 22:15 to 22:38). The evangelist is concerned to em-
phasize that the institution of the sacramental action is not the whole
of Jesus’ testament, which also includes the urgent admonition to ser-
vice in thought and deed (22:24-30), to watchfulness in times of peril
(22:31-38), and to expectation of the completion of the meal in the reign
of God (22:15-16). Thus the evangelist reminded the Christians of his
time of that which was essential for Jesus, namely that their relation-
ship with God was not to consist wholly in liturgical devotion.

22. X. Léon-Dufour, ‘’Das letzte Mahl Jesu,’’ on Luke 22; also his Le partage,
211-317 (see n. 9 above).
 Eucharist 143

8.2.2 Other New Testament Texts

The experience of knowing that Jesus, although he had been killed

by human beings, lives and can be present in another manner, which
is also perceptible to the senses, is reflected in the stories about table
fellowship with the One whom God had raised up (Luke 24:13-35; John
21:1-14). These encounters at table have the function of ‘opening up’’
the Easter experience: just as Jesus’ meals with outcasts and public
sinners had been evidence of God’s will to forgive and bestow mercy,
so the post-Easter experiences made it possible to understand God’s
mighty deeds in and for Jesus more and more profoundly; as the Em-
maus story says, they gave people the courage to be witnesses (cf. also
Acts 10:41).
The New Testament texts that already contain theological reflec-
tion on the Eucharist quite clearly presume a transformation of the gifts,
but they do not say what it is that happens to them. They are more
interested in the communion with Jesus Christ that is made possible
precisely through sharing in these gifts. For Paul, that communion is
soteriological and Christological in character: it is a saving commun-
ion in the blood of Christ (1 Cor 10:16) and membership in the glori-
ous realm of the divine Lord (1 Cor 10:21); but it is also ecclesiological
in character: communion in the one bread brings about (not ‘‘crowns’’)
the unity of that body of Christ that is the Church (1 Cor 10:17). The
Johannine Gospel portrays a theological origin of the two major sacra-
ments, and thus of the Church, in the Crucified (John 19:33-37). This
Gospel speaks of the Eucharist in the great bread discourse (John
6:22-65), which is placed in the context of Passover (6:4) and the feed-
ing of five thousand (6:5-15). The “‘true bread from God”’ is compared
to the manna in the desert, which nourished but could not prevent
death and thus was at best a prefiguring (typos) of the true bread. A
Christological and a sacramental aspect are to be distinguished in the
discourse. What they have in common is the statement that whoever
has a living (‘‘personal’’) relationship to Jesus already has eternal life
and will be raised up from physical death. In the Christological sec-
tion (vv. 32-51b), the true bread of life is described as a gift of the di-
vine Father; the meal, which gives eternal life, is faith in the Son (a
faith that is also given by the Father; 6:44). In the sacramental section
it is Jesus who gives himself in the two Eucharistic gifts, which are
his flesh and blood (51c-59). Eating and drinking these gifts causes a
144 Sacramental Theology

mutual and continuing indwelling in one another (v. 56). From the be-
ginning, a soteriological expansion is evident: ‘‘and the bread that I
will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (v. 51c). The realism
of incarnational thought in this Gospel corresponds to the realism of
its sacramental thought, and the sharp accentuation in both may be
traced to the final, anti-Docetic redaction of the Gospel. But the dis-
course is not content to speak of the salvific content of the sacramen-
tal gifts, for it has a strongly dynamic character: it describes Jesus’
mission, his coming from and going to the Father, and it assures those
who believe and share in the sacrament that they are included in that
process. This process that leads to life is the work of the divine Spirit,
for ‘‘it is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless’’ (v. 63).

8.2.3 Summary and Problems

The Eucharist appears in the New Testament as a formal liturgy

distinguished from ordinary common meals,” even though both may
include rituals of blessing and praise. What sets the Eucharist apart
from all other liturgies is the gift that goes back to Jesus’ actions dur-
ing his last meal.4 In the time between Jesus’ death and the final, per-
fect union with him, the Eucharist guarantees (sacramental) commun-
ion with Jesus, clarifies the meaning of Jesus Christ’s death and resur-
rection, and creates the community of the faithful.
In relation to the action involving the gifts, three groups of words
are of particular importance: the word about repetition, the words about
memorial, and the words over the bread and cup respectively. The first
two state that God in Jesus is the one who really accomplishes this
event; it is God’s power alone that can make present what is past, so
that this saying always refers the Church back to Jesus. The words over
the bread tell us that Jesus gives himself, in his whole historical and
personal reality, in the distribution of this bread; they invite us, in tak-
ing and eating this bread, to enter into the deepest possible union with
Jesus; they are addressed to a group of people and thereby express
the fact that real community occurs among those who deliberately eat

23. Cf. W.-D. Hauschild, ‘‘Agapen. I. In der Alten Kirche,’’ TRE I (1977) 748-753.
24. For what follows I am particularly indebted to X. Léon-Dufour, Le partage,
and the affirmative review of that book by M. Rese in Theologische Zeitschrift (Basel)
40 (1984) 423-425.
 Eucharist 145

of this bread. The words over the cup are intended to express the
deeper meaning of Jesus’ act: through his blood he has inaugurated
a new and definitive relationship between the human community and
God, into which those who drink from this cup are incorporated.
Of course, these statements have an internal continuity with other
central biblical themes: those that speak of God’s benevolent attitude
toward human beings, of the presence of God, of God’s common his-
tory with humanity. The Eucharist is in immediate contact with what
has been revealed about the life-giving activity of the divine Spirit, the
creative power of the divine Word. Thus proclamation of the Word
and a prayer for the action of the Spirit have been part of the Church’s
Eucharistic celebration from the very beginning, for sound biblical rea-
sons. But in particular the testamentary tradition, recently expounded
by Xavier Léon-Dufour, shows that the Eucharist may not be celebrated
in isolation from people’s concrete lives. The Eucharist not only presup-
poses an ethical and solidary mind-set and praxis, but also demands
certain practical consequences: ‘’Effective love of neighbor is the only
‘reality’ that is an authentic and living heritage from Christ in the
Church.’’?5 For the New Testament, the points at which the Eucharist
is open to people’s lives are more important than theological explana-
tions. Léon-Dufour lists some conditions and some ways leading to
a better and deeper understanding of the Eucharist from a biblical basis.

The conditions: the eucharist essentially means community and not the
relationship of individuals to the ‘‘holy sacrament,’’ and the words of
institution do not apply to a thing in isolation, but are part of a narrative
which aims at a relationship among all participants. Concerning the
means of access to this reality, Léon-Dufour points first of all to the
rhythm of cult and daily life among Christians, which can be linked up
with the cultic and testamentary tradition in the accounts of Jesus’ final
meal, since in those accounts the gift that is Jesus himself, through his
personal sacrifice in cross and resurrection, are joined with the duty of
Christians, in effect from then on to love one another. Secondly, Léon-
Dufour speaks of a symbolic interpretation of eucharist: bread and wine
indicate the two dimensions of daily life and festival in human existence,
and food itself represents the new life that is bestowed on the commu-
nity. Third, for Léon-Dufour the realities of covenant, the blood that has
been shed and the sharing in the mystery are appropriate pointers to

25. X. Léon-Dufour, Le partage, 114.

146 Sacramental Theology

the relationship between God and humanity, since all three are first of
all and primarily gift.

If we now attempt to clarify these New Testament fundamentals

further, using categories drawn from the theological tradition, we may
say that a certain variety in the theological interpretations of the Eu-
charist found in the New Testament, and especially the twofold form
of the interpretative words over bread and cup have made it ‘’easier,’’
for a long time, to let theological descriptions of the Eucharist sepa-
rate into bits and pieces. In official teaching of the Catholic Church,
as we will see, there are three pieces: real presence, the sacrifice of
the Mass, and sacramental communion. From what has already been
said it is clear that, from a New Testament point of view, communion
offers the least difficulties. If the New Testament texts are not inter-
ested in giving a more precise explanation of the ‘“how”’ of Jesus’ pres-
ence in the gifts, they still testify to a sacramental realism, i.e., they
hold irrevocably to Jesus’ genuine presence as a fully living person.
They also presuppose that the purpose of partaking of these gifts is
entry into intimate communion with him, and not eating one’s fill: that
means that in this celebration the gifts are changed into something
different from what they were before. It is obvious to those Christians
celebrating the Eucharist who formerly had been Jews that it is not
the human participants who bring about this change. The one who
creates all good things is God, the omnipresent, to whom all things
belong. Bread and wine are also God’s possession; they are at God’s
disposal; they are God’s gifts. The blessing over the gifts calls on God,
and faith trusts that God will act upon them.
The greatest problems are involved with the thematic area that may
be briefly designated ‘‘the theme of sacrifice’ (with the caution that
here, in relation to the Bible, we are only talking about Jesus’ sacri-
fice). The difficulties derive from the New Testament texts and the dis-
parate interpretations we find there. It is certain that the Eucharist
makes present the resurrection of Jesus, since it celebrates in faith the
presence of Jesus as the Risen and Living One and gives thanks to the
Father for raising him up. But as the word over the cup indicates, the
Eucharist primarily makes present the death of Jesus and its salvific

26. M. Rese, review of Dufour (see n. 24 above) 425, referring to Dufour, Le par-
tage, 321-340.
 Eucharist 147

significance for us and for all. This raises the unavoidable question of
Jesus’ understanding of his own death. The easiest answer, if it were
adequate, would be to see Jesus’ acceptance of death simply as the
consequence of his obedience to his mission from the Father and his
love of humanity, and his death as the high point of his ‘‘pro-
existence.’’?” That would avoid the many objections that Anton Vég-
tle and others raise against the idea that Jesus understood his death
as that of a representative atoning sacrifice, which would be another
condition of salvation in addition to Jesus’ previous preaching about
God.”§ The designations of ‘‘sacrifice’’ and ‘‘self-surrender’’ for Jesus’
consistent acceptance of his death are within the framework of what
we know of the historical Jesus: they comprehend (even if they do so
in a way that is subject to misunderstanding because of their passive
sound) Jesus’ radical obedience to his mission, his identification with
all human beings who are victims of evil, and his intercession for all.?°
But did God demand of Jesus, at the end of his life, that he die as a
representative atonement, making this a precondition for reconcilia-
tion? The objection to this is that the sacrifice of human life in a death
of atonement is absolutely alien to the God of biblical revelation.*° On
the other hand, many witnesses in the New Testament make a close
connection between the death of Jesus and the idea of representation
and atonement.*! Helmut Merklein takes up an idea expressed earlier
by Rudolf Pesch, that in the death of Jesus God personally atoned for
recalcitrant Israel.3? In this case Jesus’ preaching about God would not
need correction: God is the one who is already always reconciled, and

27. Cf. the summary of his own previous work by H. Schiirmann, ‘’Pro-Existenz
als christologischer Grundbegriff,’’ Analecta Cracoviensia 17 (1985) 345-371. Cf. also
H. Merklein, ‘‘Der Tod Jesu als stellvertretender Siihnetod,’’ Bibel und Kirche 41
(1986) 68-75, at 68.
28. A. Végtle, Offenbarungsgeschehen und Wirkungsgeschichte (Freiburg: 1985)
141-168. (Basic questions in the discussion about Jesus’ understanding of his death
as mediating salvation, with arguments by the various authors involved.)
29. R. Schwager, ‘Der Tod Christi und die Opferkritik,’’ Theologie der Gegen-
wart 29 (1986) 11-20, with bibliography.
30. H. Frankemdlle, in NHthG I (1984) 303. On this whole problem, see F.-L.
Hossfeld, ‘‘Verséhnung und Siihne,’’ Bibel und Kirche 41 (1986) 54-60, with bibli-
ography.
31. A. Weiser, ‘Der Tod Jesu und das Heil der Menschen,’ Bibel und Kirche 41
(1986) 60-67, with bibliography.
32 H. Merklein, ‘‘Der Tod Jesu,”’ especially 69-70, with bibliography.
148 Sacramental Theology

from whom all reconciliation comes. God's forgiveness, both logically

and temporally, precedes all human conversion.® It is God who an-
nuls the law that sin will be visited on the sinners. ‘‘Atonement”’ is
thus not a satisfaction demanded for an insult given to God, but is
the possibility opened by God for those who, in Israel, rejected Jesus
to escape the promised judgment. The elements introduced into the
tradition of the supper, including the reference to the servant of God
from Isaiah 53, the eschatological covenant sacrifice related to Exodus
24:8, or the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:31-34, would thus witness to
God’s steadfast fidelity to Israel. But this would not express the idea
of Jesus’ death as an additional condition of salvation for all.*4

8.3 Concept and Basic Form of the Eucharist

8.3.1 The Fundamental Liturgical Form

The Church testifies most deeply and comprehensively to its un-

derstanding of the Eucharist in the liturgy itself.°° Therefore it is ex-
tremely important that the newest research gives special attention to
the theological structure of the Eucharistic liturgy.*
A reconstruction of Jesus’ last supper is, as we said, impossible.
Neither is it possible to reconstruct the form of the Christian Eucharis-

33. H. Merklein, Die Gottesherrschaft als Handlungsprinzip (Wurzburg: 1978) 204.

Cf. 2 Corinthians 5:19.
34. The question whether, as in the German and English translations of the Eu-
charistic texts, it should be said that Jesus’ death was ‘‘for all,’’ or whether we
should hold to the literal translation ‘‘for many,’’ would not thereby be less ur-
gent. No one is or ever has been excluded from the effective, loving will of God,
and the Noachic covenant between God and all humanity was never cancelled.
35. J. Betz, Sacramentum Mundi I (Freiburg: 1967) 1224. Cf. H.-J. Schulz,
Okumenische Glaubenseinheit aus eucharistischer Uberlieferung (Paderborn: 1976) 24-32
(the Eucharistic Prayer as normative witness of faith); K. Richter, ed., Liturgie—ein
vergessenes Thema der Theologie? (Freiburg: 1986), especially the dogmatic essays by
M. M. Garijo Guembe and H. Vorgrimler.
36. C. Giraudo, La struttura letteraria della preghiera eucaristica (Rome: 1981); H.
B. Meyer, ““Das Werden der literarischen Struktur des Hochgebets,’’ Zeitschrift
fiir katholische Theologie 105 (1983) 184-202 (with bibliography); E. Mazza, Le odierne
preghiere eucharistiche, 2 vols. (Bologna: 1984), and the review by H. B. Meyer in
Zeitschrift fiir katholische Theologie 108 (1986) 170-174; J.-M. R. Tillard, ‘‘Segen,
Sakramentalitat und Epiklese,’’ Concilium 21 (1985) 140-149.
 Eucharist 149

tic celebration in the first centuries in all its details; too much was left
to oral tradition and, even beyond the fourth century, to free formula-
tion. But from the witnesses surviving in the New Testament and there-
after we can be certain that the form of the liturgy was always based
on a structural plan. In both theological and liturgical scholarship, there
has long been a consensus that this schematic structure is of Old Testa-
ment and Jewish origin. Cesare Giraudo succeeded in establishing the
details of this underlying theological and theoretical structure and its
adoption in Christianity.°7 We find here a prayer addressed to God
(in the Christian tradition this is in principle always addressed to the
Father), and consisting of two principal parts: a historical commemora-
tive prayer in which both praise and a reminder of God’s saving deeds
are expressed—and, in accordance with Hebrew ideas, this recollec-
tion already includes God’s making present of those deeds—(anam-
netic part); and a petitionary prayer that calls on God to continue to
remember God’s people, or the individual offering the prayer (epicletic
part).38
Sometimes one or the other part is expanded by the introduction
of a scriptural citation relating to a particular saving action (called an
embolism or insertion). Giraudo was able to show that the Church’s
Eucharistic prayer reveals precisely this twofold structure and that in
the anamnetic part the account of institution is interpolated as a scrip-
tural citation directly addressed to the hearers. This quotation of the
account of institution is the ‘‘central high point of the dynamic of the
prayer,’’ which supports and gives the reason for the whole celebra-
tion (though this internal reason for the celebration should be distin-
guished from its external occasion). The special event that is memorial-
ized and made present by the quotation is God’s saving work in Jesus
Christ, the paschal mystery of Jesus, that which God accomplished
in the death and resurrection of Jesus. The common and primary point

37. C. Giraudo, La struttura, 11-177, 179-269: structures of prayer in the Old

Testament and Judaism; 271-355: the same structures in the Eucharistic Prayers
of the East and West. Giraudo’s findings are still valid, even if on the basis of Ne-
hemiah 9:6-37 he is too optimistic about the existence of a todd.
38. The memorial is often joined to the petition with the phrase, ‘‘and now”’;
it gives the reason for the petition. The structure is occasionally expanded in the
Old Testament by an ‘opening eulogy’’ and a “‘closing doxology.”’ Cf. the forty-
five texts presented by C. Giraudo, La struttura, 155-159.
39. H. B. Meyer, ‘Das Werden,”’ 198.
150 Sacramental Theology

of contact between Jesus’ last supper and the Church’s Eucharistic

celebration is this action of God in and for Jesus; the Eucharistic celebra-
tion is therefore not primarily the memorial of Jesus’ last supper.*° The
meaning of the making-present, in praise and anamnesis, of God’s sav-
ing action in Jesus Christ is not primarily to be found in the change
wrought in the gifts; rather, its meaning, in the first instance, is that
it brings the participants (here we mean the full participants: those who
communicate) into a unique communion with Jesus, a community that
is, for human persons, a participation, mediated by the Eucharistic gifts,
in Jesus’ paschal mystery and in his present glory.
Thus the Church’s liturgy in itself makes clear that the question
about the ‘’point in time’’ at which the change (or consecration) takes
place, and what are the precise words that bring it about (i.e., what
is the ‘‘form’’ of the sacrament) represent a falsely stated problem for
liturgical history and theology. The Eucharistic prayer as a whole, with
its three essential parts (anamnesis with thanksgiving, from ‘‘gratias
agamus”’ on; story of institution; epiclesis) is not directed toward the
gifts. It is a prayer directed to God the Father.*! ‘In this the eucharis-
tic celebration corresponds to what Jesus did at the Last Supper, when
he prayed to the Father over the gifts at table. Because, and to the ex-
tent that the Church does the same thing, following Jesus’ instructions,
the Church’s eucharistic celebration participates in the ‘sacramental’
effects of Jesus’ action, when he, through his eternally valid and ef-
fective word, accomplished his Passover in anticipation at the Last Sup-
per. That means that the eucharistic prayer as such and as a whole
‘eucharistizes’ the bread and wine.’’42 New light also falls on the priest,
who is necessary for the ‘‘validity’’ of the sacramental action: he acts
in persona ecclesiae, that is, as one authorized to speak for the commu-

40. Cf. E. Dekkers, ‘‘L’Eucharistie, imitation ou anamnése de la Derniére Céne?””

Recherches de science religieuse 58 (1984) 15-23. H. B. Meyer, 1986 (see n. 36 above)
calls the Last Supper a (proleptic sacramental) fulfillment in advance, while the
Eucharist is an (anamnetic sacramental) subsequent fulfillment (Nachvollzug) or re-
accomplishment of the Paschal mystery of Jesus.
41. E. Mazza, Le odierne preghiere 1, 283-317; C. Giraudo, La struttura, 361-365.
H.-J. Schulz, ‘“Okumenische Glaubenseinheit explains the relationship between this
point of view and the declarations of the Councils of Florence and Trent. Cf. also
A. Angenendt, ‘‘Bonifatius’’ (Bibliography 3), 163-164: originally the whole canon,
including the preface, was consecratory; the narrower concept began with Ambrose.
42. H. B. Meyer, 1986 (see n. 36 above), 173.
 Eucharist 151

nity, when, in the name of the community and supported by its

‘“‘amen,’’ he proclaims the mighty deeds of God (anamnetic part) and
prays that they may become effective in the present celebration
(epicletic part).
The Eucharistic liturgy contains still other theologically significant
elements. For the anamnetic part recalls not only and not immediately
God’s saving action in Jesus Christ. It is a memorial of God’s name,
of creation, of all God’s earlier deeds of power, and embedded among
these is God’s action in and for Jesus that is accomplished in the glorifi-
cation of Jesus Christ. And that in turn is a prophetic signal of the com-
ing, definitive fulfillment of all creation. In the story of institution and
the anamnesis that follows it (which is an ‘‘insertion”’ in the anamne-
sis) this prophetic sign is ‘‘liturgically actualized,’’ and carried forward
in the prayer for the dead,“ in the expectation that God will also ful-
fill God’s creation in them.
Apart from the service of the word that precedes it, the Church’s
Eucharistic celebration has two centers or crystallization points. Each
culminates in an epiclesis, a prayer to God the Father for the action
of the Holy Spirit.** The account of institution is the center of the
anamnesis within which that event is made present. The first epicle-
sis, the prayer that the gifts be received and that the Spirit will act to
change them, is oriented to that account, as is the ‘‘extension’”’ of that
epiclesis, the petitions in the canon, which ask that the divine Spirit
will be active in all who are remembered in view of their ultimate end.”
The communion epiclesis is oriented to the second center, praying that
the Eucharist—this prayer—may reach its goal, which is communion
with Jesus Christ in the form of mutual indwelling (not merely his pres-
ence), and thus the unity of the Church and ‘‘an anticipatory taste of
the food of immortality.’’4” Both prayers for the Spirit, in turn, show

43. C. Giraudo, La struttura; H. B. Meyer, ‘“Das Werden,”’ 200, n. 58.

44. H.B. Meyer, ‘‘Das Werden,’ 199, n. 53. On the Eucharist as eschatological
sign, see G. Wainwright, Eucharist and Eschatology (New York: 1981).
45. It is theologically incorrect to call the division of the epiclesis into two parts
‘“‘unfortunate,’’ as does K.-H. Bieritz, EKL I (1986), 9 tut.
46. H. B. Meyer, ‘‘Das Werden,”’ 200.
47. Idem; see also Meyer, 1986 (see n. 36 above), 174. Cf. also C. Giraudo, La
struttura, 366-370, where there are some noteworthy remarks on the Eucharist as
sacrament for the forgiveness of sins.
152 Sacramental Theology

that the body of Jesus Christ and his presence in the Eucharist, as well
as communion with him, are pneumatic, i.e., the work of the Spirit.

8.3.2 The Concept of Eucharist

There is no single word that, of itself, expresses the entire content

and meaning of the Eucharist.’? They all refer to some partial aspect
that represents the whole (pars pro toto). The term most frequently used
in recent Catholic parlance, ‘‘Eucharist,’’ is derived from eucharistein,
meaning to have a grateful demeanor, to be thankful. It is a transla-
tion of the Jewish bere akha, which refers to the thanksgiving in table
prayer (Luke 22:19, par.). By the end of the first and beginning of the
second century, ‘“Eucharist’’ had become established as referring to
the whole Eucharistic service of worship, and particularly for the prin-
cipal prayer (see the important evidence in Ignatius of Antioch and,
in the second century, Justin). Paul speaks of the ‘“Lord’s supper’’ (1
Cor 11:20), a title that recent ecumenical discussions have approved
as being without confessional overtones. The word ‘‘supper,’’ how-
ever, describes only one aspect of the event, and the expression incor-
porates the title ‘“Lord,’’ (German Herr), which presents certain
problems. Since Luther (1522), the most popular word among German
Lutherans has been Abendmahl (literally: ‘‘evening meal’’), which recalls
its origins in Jesus’ Last Supper: the effect is that the present event
is not so readily included. Besides the one-sidedness of the ‘’meal’’
designation, this expression has the further problem that, as has now
been established, the ancient Church even in the first century preferred
to hold its Eucharistic celebration early in the morning (on Sunday).
The early Christian designations, ‘‘breaking bread’’ (which could also
refer to an ordinary meal) and ‘‘coming together,’’ have not survived
in current usage. Important Greek theologians of the third and fourth

48. Cf. J.-H. Nicolas’ contribution in H. Luthe, ed., Christusbegegnung in den

Sakramenten (see Bibliography 1) 316-317; F. X. Durrwell, Der Geist des Herrn (Salz-
burg: 1986) 140-145 (the Eucharist as, in an eminent way, the sacrament of the
Holy Spirit).
49. Cf. J. A. Jungmann, ‘’ ‘Abendmahl’ als Name der Eucharistie,’”’ Zeitschrift
fur katholische Theologie 93 (1971) 91-94; J. Talley, ‘Vor der Berakha zur Eucharistie,’’
Liturgisches Jahrbuch 26 (1976) 93-115; L. Lies, ‘‘Eulogia—Uberlegungen zur for-
malen Sinngestalt der Eucharistie,’’ Zeitschrift fiir katholische Theologie 100 (1978)
69-97; C. Giraudo, La struttura, 260-269; J. Roloff, EKL I (1986) 11-12.
 Eucharist 153

centuries called the Eucharist eulogia. The word means a gift of bless-
ing, the glorification and self-glorification of God, a grateful remem-
bering of God’s gifts. Expressions that used to be very popular among
Catholics, such as ‘‘most holy sacrament of the altar,’’ and ‘‘sacrifice
of the Mass,’’ though earlier in their origins, were unmistakably used
to oppose Reformation ideas and expressed only partial aspects of the
whole. Equally common in the past was simply ‘‘the Mass,’’ a short
form of ‘‘sacrifice of the Mass,’’ which originated in the sixth century
as missa, and in emphatic form as missa solemnia; at first it referred to
the closing act of a worship service with a blessing. In vulgar Latin
it could also mean ‘‘renunciation,’’ which made it reminiscent of the
sacrifice and led to its being applied to the whole Eucharistic cele-
bration.

8.4 Historical Stages and Decisions

8.4.1 The Development of a Eucharistic Theology

The history of theological reflection and preaching on the Eucharist
has been studied in such an extensive literary corpus and described
in so much detail that any brief summary must appear very superfi-
cial.5° The theologians of the ancient Church, who in many cases were
themselves liturgists, spoke about the Eucharist primarily in sermons
and catecheses. The fundamental contribution to Eucharistic theology
in the first centuries resulted from the comparison of the biblical state-
ments about the Eucharist with Platonic thought. This did not involve
simply ‘‘incorporating’’ a whole philosophical system into Christianity;
rather, forms of thought and methods of expression that we tend to
think of as ‘popular philosophy” were used to clarify what was al-
ready believed. This popular philosophical view of things included a
conviction of the existence of a transcendent, spiritual world, the home
of the Divine and the One, the True, the Good, and the Beautiful; a

50. The best easily available description in German is by A. Gerken, Theologie

der Eucharistie (Munich: 1973) 61-156. For more detail, see the articles by J. Betz
in LThK III, 1142-1157; ‘“Eucharistie als zentrales Mysterium,’’ MySal IV/2 (1973)
185-319 (including the whole history of dogma); Eucharistie. In der Schrift und
Patristik, Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte IV/4a (Freiburg: 1979).
154 Sacramental Theology

sober view of our world of experience, with its mutability and its often
deceptive appearances; and the presumption that there is communi-
cation between the two worlds. While it was possible for human be-
ings to ascend to the higher world by means of severe renunciation
and undergoing tests of endurance, following a path that essentially
consisted in liberating oneself from the bonds of our world, the com-
ing of the Divine into our world was thought to take place when it
transformed earthly realities into its own image and made of them its
dwelling place. This image, which one could grasp with the senses,
made the divine Original present in its fullness, enabled communica-
tion with it, and even participation in it, even though this presence
of the Divine might be only temporary and veiled. It is obvious how
Christian thought could recognize itself in this (Platonic) world of ideas
and how many features of that system are regarded even today as in-
dispensable for Christianity. It was out of this idea of original-and-
image that the theory of real symbols, so important for sacramental
theology, was developed. In Christian faith, the possibility of making
present God and God’s world, hidden and yet completely real, is at-
tributed to the activity of the divine Spirit.
The Jewish understanding of the real recalling to present life of past
events, in remembering them before God, combined very smoothly
with this conception of things. The Jewish way of thinking corre-
sponded to the Greek concept of anamnesis and expanded it with the
aid of the historical viewpoint familiar to Jews: now not only could
God be believed to be really present, through the Holy Spirit and
through persons who had been elevated to divine status, but whole
events, the historical deeds of God in power, could be present in im-
ages. This presence in image or symbol was, as we have said, tem-
porary and veiled, but it would be wrong to call it ‘only in image, only
symbolic,’’ for in this view of things it was true to say: the more spiri-
tual it is, the more real it is. To speak of the presence of Jesus Christ
in image, parable, symbol, etc., did not imply any weakening of the
reality in the eyes of ancient theologians; rather, it was an expression
of the hope that in eternity it would finally be possible to encounter
God unveiled.
When Greek theologians from Justin to John Chrysostom, the Alex-
andrians and the Antiochenes, all spoke of the true presence of Jesus
Christ and his saving deed, they each emphasized, according to their
 Eucharist 155

particular interest of the moment, either the person of Jesus or his work
of redemption. Expressions about the real presence of Jesus in the Eu-
charist show that, from an early period (Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian,
Ambrose), there was belief in a change taking place in the gifts. The
fundamental biblical text was John 6. Theological reflection on this as-
pect of the Eucharist, of course, went hand in hand with the develop-
ment of Christology. When the Alexandrian theologians (Clement,
Origen, Cyril of Alexandria) interpret the Eucharist as the coming of
the divine Logos into the bread, and regard communion with the Lo-
gos as the essential thing, they allow the memorial of Jesus’ death to
retreat into the background and be eclipsed by the idea of incarnation.
The Antiochene theologians, on the other hand, concentrate on the
identity of the Eucharistic body of Jesus with his historical body, and
see in the anamnesis (John Chrysostom in particular) the making-
present of the deed of redemption on the cross. In it, they see the prom-
ise of Malachi 1:11 (an important verse for the Fathers of the Church!)
fulfilled; they designate the Eucharist, from the time of Didache 14,1,
as a sacrifice (prosphora, sacrificium, oblatio), referring to the prepara-
tion of the gifts as offere, although this is not meant to refer to any new
and unique sacrifice in addition to the cross of Jesus. It is deliberately
stated that the gifts are taken from that which in any case belongs to
God; they are, in the memorial, placed before the eyes of God: me-
mores offerimus. There was undoubtedly an anti-Gnostic tendency in
this attention to the material gifts. But what the Eucharist makes real
is primarily the spiritual sacrifice, in the sense of 1 Peter 2:5 or Hebrews
13:15, as the sacrifice of praise of all the participants for God’s mighty
deeds, beginning with creation, and culminating in the Christ event.
For Latin theologians like Tertullian and Cyprian, the two separated
gifts are already a sign of the passion of Jesus Christ; their interest in
the ‘‘elements’’ is much more drastic than that of the Greeks. We find
the first explicit theory of transformation (metabolism) in the work of
Ambrose (d. 397). Also among the Latins, around 400, we find a ne-
glect of the epiclesis, in connection with the view that the account of
institution has a consecratory effect. It is everywhere stated that the
action of making present is to be traced to the work of the Holy Spirit,
and that Jesus Christ, in the Spirit (according to the Letter to the
Hebrews) is the real liturgist who associates human beings with him-
self in glorifying the Father.
156 Sacramental Theology

Augustine deserves special mention in two connections. First of all,

he studied in the greatest detail the question of the presence of the
archetypal divine reality in its sacramental image (see above, 4.1 and
4.2.2), with special reference to the Eucharist. In addition, he presented
a combined version of sacramental and ecclesial theology of the body
of Christ. In the Eucharist it is always the whole Christ who is present
and contained, both the individual body of Jesus and the mystical-
universal body that is the Church; it is the sacrament of the totus
Christus caput et corpus; the Eucharist exists precisely in order that one,
holy Church may be created; this Church is therefore the inner reality
of grace intended by God in the Eucharist, it is the res of this sacra-
ment. This does not mean that the Church is elevated in autonomous
self-glorification, since it is her head who is and remains the primary
agent, and the Church can do nothing without Jesus Christ. Both con-
cepts, however, took a negative turn as soon as Augustine’s original
meaning was no longer understood. His theology of symbol and im-
age was simply more influential than that of other theologians because,
in the late Middle Ages, he was the greatest theological authority after
the Bible. His ecclesial understanding of the Eucharist promoted the
idea that, in addition to the making-present of the sacrifice of the cross,
the Church was offering itself and acting with Jesus Christ in offering
his sacrifice.

8.4.2 Concentration on the Real Presence

Eucharistic theology could not always and forever retain the high
spiritual level and relatively complete character it had in the Greek theo-
logians we have mentioned and in Augustine. The stronger the de-
velopment of sacramental realism on the basis of the Christological
dogmas, interested primarily in the true presence and palpability of
God in the sacrament, the greater was the threat to the concept of im-
ages. We find beginnings of this as early as the fifth century. The more
Christian people withdrew from frequent communion because of a radi-
cal sense of reverence, the more elevated was the position of the cele-
brant. When the language of worship was no longer understood, as
among the peoples designated by the collective name ‘‘Germans,”’
there arose a desire for something visible, for a dramatic staging of
the worship service. A process began in which the Eucharist was no
 Eucharist 157

longer seen within the Trinitarian dynamic of praise, memorial, and

petition, but instead was regarded as the principal means of grace,
given ‘‘from above’’ (beginning with Isidore of Seville, d. 636). The
adoption of the Roman liturgy in France, where its theological con-
tent could only be grasped in the grossest form, had serious conse-
quences.*1 ‘‘As the idea of the Mass as a new, even independent
sacrifice in addition to the one, definitive sacrifice of Jesus Christ de-
veloped, something similar happened with regard to the priesthood:
in addition to the one priest and mediator, Jesus Christ, we soon find
other priests who also refer to themselves as mediators.’’5? In the eighth
to ninth centuries the Eucharistic celebration was introduced into the
system of tariff penance (see 9.4 below) as a means of expiation.* In-
stead of the ancient Christian sacrifice, understood in a spiritual sense
as the expression of an attitude of total surrender to God, and there-
fore celebrated primarily as a sacrifice of praise through the power of
the common priesthood,*4 what emerged in the Carolingian period was
a sacrifice of atonement offered only by the priest. This shift in theo-
logical understanding was one of the primary reasons for the rise of
clerics’ daily private Masses.*°
In connection with this critical development, and the inability to
understand the liturgical symbolic actions and the symbolic gifts as real
symbols, the question of a more precise explanation of the true pres-
ence of Jesus Christ in the sacrament, the theme of the “‘real presence,”’
became the principal issue in medieval Eucharistic theology. It led to
two Eucharistic controversies and thus to Church statements to which
later official declarations could refer. The first controversy emerged
from the Abbey at Corbie, headed by the Benedictine abbot Paschasius
Radbertus (d. ca. 859), who is honored by the Church as a saint. In

51. J. A. Jungmann, ‘’Von der ‘Eucharistie’ zur ‘Messe,’ ”’ Zeitschrift fiir katholische
Theologie 89 (1967) 29-40; H. B. Meyer, TRE I (1977) 278-282; A. Angenendt, ‘’The-
ologie und Liturgie der mittelalterlichen Toten-Memoria,’’ in K. Schmid and J. Wol-
lasch, eds., Memoria (Munich: 1984), 79-199, on the Eucharist, 143-148.
52. A. Angenendt, ‘’Missa specialis. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Entstehung der
Privatmessen,’’ in K. Hauck, ed., Friihmittelalterliche Studien 17 (Berlin: 1983)
153-221, at 217, with references.
53. Ibid., 213.
54. This is still the sense in Bede (d. 735); cf. A. Angenendt, ‘“Missa specialis,’’
176, 219.
55. A. Angenendt, ‘’Missa specialis,’’ also discusses the historical background
of the problem of Mass stipends in this connection.
158 Sacramental Theology

the first surviving monograph on the Eucharist, De corpore et sanguine

Domini, he taught a complete identity between the historical body of
Jesus Christ born of Mary, and the Eucharistic Body, and that the suffer-
ing of Jesus Christ was repeated every day in a true ‘‘slaughter’’ (mac-
tatio). In the same abbey, the monk Ratramnus (d. after 868), at the
request of the king, countered with his own writing, De corpore et san-
guine Domini, saying that bread and wine are not changed by the con-
secration and thus are only images (figure) of the flesh and blood of
Jesus Christ; his Body and Blood are thus, together with their divine
power, hidden beneath the veil of these images. Therefore one could
not say that the Body of Jesus Christ is really (in veritate) received; in-
stead, it is received in image, in mystery, and in power. Ratramnus
did not intend to deny a true presence of the Body of Jesus Christ,
but only to oppose a complete identification of the historical body with
the Eucharistic Body; from this point of view, he also denied the no-
tion of a new passion every day: he spoke instead of a repraesentatio,
in mystery, of the unique suffering and death. Thus it is wrong to call
Ratramnus’ position ‘‘symbolism.’’5¢
The second Eucharistic controversy began when the canon Beren-
gar of Tours (d. 1088), citing Augustine and Ratramnus, denied any
real presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, because that
glorified Body cannot be “called down’’ from heaven until the end
of the world. On the basis of the appearances of bread and wine he
attempted to construct a philosophical proof that nothing changes in
the Eucharist, and in doing so he used the concepts of ‘‘substance,’’
the spiritual essence or spiritual reality of a thing, and ‘‘accidents,’’
the external appearance that, in its assorted components (size, weight,
color, taste, etc.) is both ‘‘sustained’’ and held together by the spiri-
tual essence. He referred to the bread and wine of the Eucharist as
images of the Body of Jesus Christ, and their reception as a means of
spiritual union with the exalted Lord in heaven. These views were con-
demned by four synods between the years 1047 and 1054. In 1059, at
a synod in the Lateran in Rome, Berengar had to sign a confessional
statement saying that, after the consecration, bread and wine are not
a mere sacrament, but truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and
that these are sensibly, not only in sacrament but in truth (‘non solum

56. K. Vielhaber, ‘‘Rathramnus,’’ LThK VIII, 1001-1002, including remarks on

unjust assessments of his position.
 Eucharist 159

sacramento, sed in veritate!’’), ‘‘touched and broken by the hands of the

priest and crushed by the teeth of the faithful’ (only in Latin, DS 690).
After returning home, Berengar revoked this confession, with the re-
sult that he had to sign a new confessional formula before another
Roman synod in 1079: ‘’I, Berengar, believe in my heart and confess
with my lips that the bread and wine which are placed on the altar
are, by the mystery of the sacred prayer and the words of the Redeemer
substantially changed into the true and proper and life-giving body
and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord; and that, after consecration, they
are Christ’s true body, which was born of the Virgin and hung on the
cross, being offered for the salvation of the world, and which sits at
the right hand of the Father; and Christ’s true blood, which was poured
forth from his side; not only by way of sign and by the power of the
sacrament, but in their true nature and in the reality of their substance’
(NR 559/DS 700). This text employs the concepts adopted by Beren-
gar’s opponents, Lanfranc of Bec (d. 1089) and Witmund of Aversa
(d. 1085): the earthly substances are transformed (while the external
appearances [species] remain); here we have, in essence, the doctrine
of transubstantiation (the substantive transubstantiatio was first used
around 1140-1142 by Orlando Bandinelli, the later Pope Alexander II).
The contrast between signum and virtus sacramenti, on the one hand,
and proprietas naturae and veritas substantiae, on the other hand, shows
the extent to which the theology of real symbols had been lost. How-
ever, we cannot overlook the fact that, with the reference to the popu-
lar philosophical notion of a final, spiritual reality as the basis for all
things, the crass realism of 1059, which was open to the worst kind
of misunderstandings, had been overcome. If the presence of Jesus
Christ, including his body, was seen in the spiritual dimension—and
the concept of ‘substance’ refers only to the spiritual dimension—
spatial-material conceptions, including that of a ‘“descent’’ of the glori-
fied Body from an otherworldly heaven, were excluded. The possibility
of getting away from the notion of a means of grace and of recovering
the interiority and activity of the divine Spirit in the real symbol was
at least not blocked. The timeless, static concept of substance was not
and is not suitable for expressing the presence of historical events and
of a human person with his relationships, his history, and all that be-
longs to them.
160 Sacramental Theology

8.4.3 Scholastic Theology of the Eucharist

The ‘’objectivizing’’>” of Eucharistic teaching advanced still further

when, in the twelfth century, Scholastic thinkers introduced the con-
cepts of ‘‘matter’’ and ‘‘form’’ in sacramental theology (see 4.2.3
above). Bread and wine were regarded as the matter of the sacrament
of the Eucharist; the words of institution were seen as the formal prin-
ciple that gave the sacrament its essential nature: these were taken to
be the words of Jesus in the first person: ‘This is, . .’’ These words
alone, it was thought, effected the change of substance and thus the
presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Understandably
enough, attention was now concentrated still further on the presiding
priest, his power, and his proper intention. The question of faith in
the Eucharist was discussed in connection with the reception of com-
munion. In Scholasticism, which was a theology of monks and priests,
the community celebration of the Eucharist dissolved into ‘‘the
sacramental action of the clerics and the ‘Mass devotion’ of the laity.’’°*
Two phenomena in this connection led to the development of the
‘‘dogma of concomitance,’’ namely the reservation of communion in
the cup to the priestly celebrant alone, something which became more
and more the rule in the course of the Middle Ages, and the desire
to be able to see and receive the whole Christ, in his divinity and his
humanity. In the twelfth century the “‘parts”’ were listed that, together,
make up the totus Christus: body, blood, soul, divinity. Now the teach-
ing on concomitance or co-presence stated that, by the power of the
words of consecration, at the level of spiritual being or substance, the
bread is changed only into the Body, the wine only into the Blood of
Jesus Christ. But since the other realities are inextricably bound up with
the Body and Blood (the Body belongs with the Blood, the divinity
with the humanity, unmixed but indivisible, as Christological dogma
stated), they are also made present when the words of consecration
are spoken, so that in each ‘‘part’’ the whole Christ is present, and,
it was thought, nothing was being denied to the laity when the cup
was withheld from them.
Official teaching echoed Scholastic opinion. In 1208, in a creed writ-
ten against the Waldensians, Pope Innocent III emphasized the con-
57. Translator’s note: the German is Versachlichung, implying the conversion of
something into a ‘‘thing’’ or ‘‘object.’’
58. H. B. Meyer, TRE I (1977) 281.
 Eucharist 161

ditions for a valid celebration of the Eucharist: the ordained priest

(independently of his moral qualities), the words of consecration, and
the proper intention of the priest (NR 560/DS 794). The Fourth Lat-
eran Council, in 1215, with an eye to the confusions of the time, put
together a confession of faith which also included some statements on
the Eucharist:
There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no
one at all is saved, and in which the priest himself, Jesus Christ, is also
the sacrifice. His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament
of the altar under the appearances of bread and wine, the bread being
transubstantiated into the body by the divine power and the wine into
the blood, to the effect that we receive from what is His in what He has
received from what is ours in order that the mystery of unity may be
accomplished. Indeed, no one can perform (conficere) this sacrament,
except the priest duly ordained according to [the power of] the keys of
the Church, which Jesus Christ himself conceded to the apostles and
their successors. . . . (NR 920/DS 802).5°

Against John Wycliffe and Jan Hus, the Council of Constance, in 1415
(NR 561/DS 1198) and in 1418 (NR 563/DS 1257) defended the doctrine
of concomitance, and in 1418 specifically against Wycliffe also defended
the real presence (NR 562/DS 1256).
The Council of Florence, in its Decree for the Armenians of 1439,
intended to serve as the basis for union with that Church, referred to
the Eucharistic teaching of Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274). The Scholastic
elements are obvious: matter and form, change of substance, con-
comitance. This is the first magisterial text to adopt the formula that
says that at the consecration, the priest acts in persona Christi. This rests
on the false Latin translation of 2 Corinthians 2:10, where Paul says
that he has forgiven ‘‘in the presence of Christ.’’ This council also
speaks for the first time of the grace effected by the Eucharist. The text
(slightly abridged) reads:

The third sacrament is the Eucharist. The matter of this sacrament is

wheat-bread and grape-wine with a small amount of water to be mixed
in before the consecration. Water is mixed in because. . . it is believed
that our Lord Himself instituted this sacrament with wine mixed with

59. This and subsequent translations of the Church’s official texts adapted from
J. Neuner, S.J., and J. Dupuis, $.J., The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents
of the Catholic Church (Westminster, Md.: Christian Classics, Inc., 1975).
162 Sacramental Theology

water. Furthermore, this is a fitting representation of our Lord’s pas-

sion. . . . Finally, this is a fitting way to signify the effect of this sacra-
ment, that is, the union of the Christian people with Christ. . .
The form of this sacrament is the words of the Savior with which He
effected this sacrament; for the priest effects this sacrament by speaking
in the person of Christ. It is by the power of these words that the sub-
stance of bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the substance
of wine into His blood; in such a way, however, that the whole Christ
is contained under the species of bread and the whole Christ under the
species of wine. Further, the whole Christ is present under any part of
the consecrated host or the consecrated wine when separated from the
rest.
The effect which this sacrament produces in the soul of a person who
receives it worthily, is to unite [that person] with Christ. For, since it
is by grace that a person is incorporated into Christ and united to His
members, it follows that those who receive this sacrament worthily re-
ceive an increase of grace. And all the effects which material food and
drink have on the life of the body—maintaining and increasing life, restor-
ing health and giving joy—all these effects this sacrament produces for
the spiritual life. As Pope Urban says, in this sacrament we celebrate
in thanksgiving the memory of our Savior, we are drawn away from evil,
we are strengthened in what is good, and we advance and increase in
virtue and in grace (NR 564-566/DS 1320-1322).

It is clear from this text how far sacramental teaching had already been
separated from the teaching on the sacrifice of the Mass. The latter
is not lacking in Scholastic theology, but in this decree it appears only
in connection with the mixture of water and wine (cf. the Latin text
in DS 1320).
In its teaching about the sacrifice of the Mass, Scholasticism in-
troduced concepts that would prove fruitful in time to come. It retained
the idea of memoria, or memorial, and also spoke repraesentatio, the mak-
ing present of the sacrifice of the cross—see the work of the bishop
of Paris, Peter Lombard (d. 1160)*'—and of the applicatio passionis Christi

60. Ibid., emphasis supplied. The effects of grace in the Eucharist are even more
radically expressed by Thomas Aquinas than in the text cited by the Council of
Florence: ‘‘Effectus proprius eucharistiae est transformatio hominis in Deum’”’ (In
VI Sent. d 12 q. 2a. 1). The council also omits the forgiveness of sins, which Thomas
lists in a very prominent place among the effects of this sacrament (Exp. super Is.
4 in fine; Opusc. 57 c. 24).
61. IV Sentiud #12:¢e65.
 Eucharist 163

ad nos, the application of the passion of Christ to us, in the words of

Thomas Aquinas. Since no one any longer knew what the ideas of
““body”’ and “‘blood’’ had meant in the Hebrew and Aramaic context
in which Jesus lived, they saw the separate making of the Body and
Blood of Jesus Christ as a representation of his violent death on the
cross and singled out this feature as constituting the sacrificial charac-
ter of the Eucharist.® This laid the groundwork for the later theories
of the Mass as sacrifice.
In their schematic and often artificial-looking (general) sacramen-
tal theology, the Scholastics had retained perspectives from the tradi-
tion that could play their part in a later renewal, and this was true also
in the case of their teaching on the Eucharist. Among these perspec-
tives is the language of sacramentum and res (see 4.2.3 above). The
sacramental sign alone, the sacrmentum tantum, is the bread and wine.
The res et sacramentum, the second and middle effect of the sacrament,
is corpus Christi verum, the true presence of the body of Jesus Christ.
The unique and final reality, the res, is twofold: one aspect is indicated
by the sacrament and contained within it, namely Jesus Christ him-
self, and one is indicated by the sacrament but not contained in it,
namely, the corpus Christi mysticum or community of saints. Thus the
connection between Eucharist and Church, so important in antiquity,
was still addressed.® The signum-teaching retains a condensed version
of the historical dimension when the Eucharist, as signum rememora-
tivum, is seen as the sign of God’s saving deed in Jesus Christ that
has happened once for all, and when, as signum prognosticum, it antici-
pates in sign-fashion the fulfillment of salvation in the feast in the reign
of God.® There is a consensus in historical theology regarding the de-
cline of later Scholastic Eucharistic teaching, the ‘‘rack and ruin of prac-
tice regarding the Mass”’ and the necessity of reform. But these negative
developments should not be viewed one-sidedly or blamed on Scholas-
tic theology, which as a whole was more “‘open’’ than late- and
neo-Scholasticism reveal.

62. Post. super Jo. 61. 6.

63. Thomas Aquinas, S. th. III q. 79 a. 7; q. 83 a. 1.
64. Ibid., q. 73 a. 6; q. 80 a. 4.
65. Cf. H. de Lubac, Corpus Mysticum. Kirche und Eucharistie im Mittelalter (Ein-
siedeln: 1969).
66. Thomas Aquinas, S. th. III q. 60 a. 3.
164 Sacramental Theology

8.4.4 Reformation Teaching on the Lord's Supper

Theologians of the Lord’s Supper among the Reformers were di-

rected by a fundamental consciousness of the word of God, faith, and
the forgiveness of sins, which take priority over the sacraments as as-
surances of the divine promises (see 4.2.4 above).® But the attack on
Roman Catholic Eucharistic theology was provoked by individual, par-
tial teachings closely related to practice that, in the view of the Re-
formers, had led to dangerous deviations from true Christian faith.
Among these were the doctrine of transubstantiation, the teaching on
concomitance, and the theology of the sacrifice of the Mass. The last
was the greatest irritant, since it devalued the unique event of the cross
and supported the grossest ideas of personal religious achievement.
The great Reformers were not united in their ideas about the Lord’s
Supper, with the result that new oppositions arose; this had the fur-
ther consequence that even to the present time the Protestant [evange-
lische] Churches are still struggling to achieve a common Eucharist.®
For Martin Luther, the New Testament accounts of the Last Sup-
per and the bread discourse in John 6 gave secure reasons to place the
real presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ at the center of
his statements on this sacrament. He had always understood the words
“This is. . .’’ in the institution accounts as a real identification. He
saw the doctrine of transubstantiation as purely private opinion, which
he personally denied. His own tentative position assumed a continua-
tion of the substances of bread and wine together with the Body and
Blood of Jesus Christ (consubstantiation). The presence of the glori-
fied Body and Blood of Christ meant, for him, the presence of the di-
vinity as well, in whose omnipresence the glorified Body of Christ
participates (doctrine of ubiquity). In the sacrament of the altar, Christ
unites his glorified Body with the bread and wine. From the words,
‘‘take and eat,’’ Luther concluded that the sacrament is a limited event:

67. See the summary treatment by J. Betz in MySal IV/2, 243-247.

68. On the current state of the problem, see Bibliography 2; for initial informa-
tion, see, for example, G. Wainwright, EKL I (1986) 29-82, for events up to the
Lima documents. For the necessarily brief description of the Reformers’ ideas about
the Lord’s Supper, I am dependent on the precise summary of J. Betz in MySal
IV/2, 247-251 (with sources). U. Kiihn, Sakramente, gives more detail. [Translator’s
note: In saying that “the Protestant (i.e., ‘evangelische’) Churches are still strug-
gling to achieve a common Eucharist,’’ the author is thinking primarily of the cur-
rent situation in Germany. ]
 Eucharist 165

the promise of Jesus’ presence is valid only for the usus, i.e., for the
time from the words of interpretation until the consumption of the ele-
ments. He rejected the Eucharistic devotion that arose from the reser-
vation of consecrated hosts for the sick and had led to such usages
as sacramental vigils and Eucharistic processions, because the institu-
tional account says nothing about them. Regarding the sacrificial
character of the Mass, he conceded only that it is a sacrifice of thanks-
giving for that which is memorialized.
Ulrich Zwingli maintained belief in a presence of the triune God
among human beings, but localized the glorified Body of Christ in
heaven, whence he cannot really and essentially enter into the bread.
Nor, according to John 6:63, could the human soul really be nourished
by the flesh of Christ. Thus the bread in the ‘‘night meal’’ is not the
Body of Christ, but, like the wine, is a memorial sign that nourishes
faith. (‘This is. . .’” is the same as “‘this means. . .’’) Faith alone
causes an immediate presence of the whole Christ in the human soul.
The sacrificial character of the Mass is to be rejected, according to
Zwingli, because of the unique sacrificial deed of Jesus, to which human
beings can respond only in memory and thanksgiving.
John Calvin deliberately sought a middle way between Luther and
Zwingli. The sacrament is connected with an action of God through
the Holy Spirit, and it reveals that action with surety, so that it is nei-
ther a mere sign that designates something, nor is it a ‘‘means of
grace.”’ It is true that, by means of this sacrament, the Body and Blood
of Jesus are truly received, but not in the form of something taken with
the mouth. Such a view of the substantial real presence, in which Jesus
Christ would be imprisoned in mutable elements, Calvin called per-
verse and a degradation of Christ. For him, the glorified Body of Christ
is also located in heaven; participation in him, in communion, is
brought about by the Holy Spirit, who lifts those receiving in faith to
Christ, with the result that they do not receive the flesh of Christ, but
life from the substance of his flesh.
The Council of Trent (1545-1563) attempted to answer the attacks
and challenges of the Reformers. From the beginning, they regarded
the Eucharist as one of the most important topics. But on the basis of
medieval and late medieval theology it was not possible for the coun-
cil to speak of the Eucharist in a unified way; instead, they treated
different parts of it. The only thing that remains uniform is the liter-
ary style of the council’s utterances. The teaching, obligatory for Cath-
166 Sacramental Theology

olic Christians, was formulated in brief statements (canons). But in

every canon it is necessary for scholars to determine whether an un-
retractable dogma is being stated, or whether a revered tradition,
though reformable in itself, is being protected against novelties. The
dogmatic chapters (Doctrina) attempt to give more extensive founda-
tion for the canons.

8.4.5 The Real Presence

The Council of Trent, in its thirteenth session (1551) adopted a De-

cree on the Most Holy Eucharist.® Most of the effort was invested in the
formulation of eleven dogmatic statements (canons). These were
preceded by eight dogmatic chapters, which were composed in a hurry
and do not have the same authority as the canons, but are important
in interpreting them. The texts that are still relevant for Eucharistic the-
ology today are cited verbatim:

1: The Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacra-
ment of the Eucharist. To begin with, the holy Council teaches and openly
and straightforwardly professes that in the blessed sacrament of the holy
Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus
Christ, true God and man, is truly, really and substantially contained
under the appearances of those perceptible realities. For, there is no con-
tradiction in the fact that our Savior always sits at the right hand of the
Father in heaven according to His natural way of existing and that,
nevertheless, in His substance He is sacramentally present to us in many
other places. We can hardly find words to express this way of existing;
but our reason, enlightened through faith, can nevertheless recognize
it as possible for God, and we must always believe it unhesitatingly (NR
568/DS 1636).

This is a rejection of Zwingli’s and Calvin’s views of the presence of

Jesus Christ.
After a second chapter on the institution of the Eucharist, there
follows:

69. On its history, H. Jedin, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient, 3 vols. (Freiburg:
1951-1970); A. Duval, Des sacrements au Concile de Trente; on the interpretation of
the Eucharistic teaching: K. Rahner, ‘‘Die Gegenwart Christi im Sakrament des
Herrenmahles,”’ Schriften IV, 357-385; J. Wohlmuth, Realprasenz und Transubstantia-
tion im Konzil von Trient, 2 vols. (Bern and Frankfurt: 1975).
 Eucharist 167

3: The Pre-Eminence of the Most Holy Eucharist over the Other Sacra-
ments. In common with the other sacraments, the most holy Eucharist
is ‘‘a symbol of a sacred thing and a visible form of invisible grace.’’ But
the Eucharist also has this unique mark of distinction that, whereas the
other sacraments have the power of sanctifying only when someone
makes use of them, in the Eucharist the Author of sanctity Himself is
present before the sacrament is used. For the apostles had not yet received
the Eucharist from the hands of the Lord when He Himself told them
that it was truly His body that He was giving them. This has always been
the belief of the Church of God that immediately after the consecration
the true body and blood of our Lord, together with His soul and divinity,
exist under the species of bread and wine. The body exists under the
species of bread and the blood under the species of wine by virtue of
the words. But the body too exists under the species of wine, the blood
under the species of bread, and the soul under both species in virtue
of the natural connection and concomitance by which the parts of Christ
the Lord, who has already risen from the dead to die no more, are united
together. Moreover, the divinity is present because of its admirable
hypostatic union with the body and the soul. It is, therefore, perfectly
true that just as much is present under either of the two species as is
present under both. For Christ, whole and entire, exists under the spe-
cies of bread and under any part of that species, and similarly the whole
Christ exists under the species of wine and under its parts (NR 571/DS
1639-1641).
This chapter is an exposition of the doctrine of concomitance.
The next chapter concerns transubstantiation:
4: Transubstantiation. Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly
His body that He was offering under the species of bread, it has always
been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now
again declares that, by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes
place a change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of
the body of Christ our Lord and of the the whole substance of wine into
the substance of His blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has
fittingly and properly named transubstantiation [transubstantiation]’’ (NR
572/DS 1642).
In the fifth chapter, devoted to the veneration of the sacrament, we
find the remarkable statement: ‘’A Christo Domino, ut sumatur, institu-
tum’’: ‘‘it was instituted, by Christ the Lord, to be eaten’’ (NR 573/DS
1643). Chapter 6 speaks of the reservation of the sacrament, chapter
7 of preparation for worthy reception, chapter 8 of the ‘‘use’’ of the
168 Sacramental Theology

sacrament, where there is mention of the important connection be-

tween ‘‘spiritual communion” alone and ‘‘spiritual and sacramental
communion”’ (only Latin, DS 1648; see 8.4.9 below).
The canons that are of greatest theological relevance state:
1. If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist the
body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus
Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ, is truly, really and substantially
contained, but says that He is in it only as in a sign or figure by His power,
anathema sit (NR 577/DS 1651). ;
2. If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist the sub-
stance of bread and wine remains together with the body and blood of
our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and unique change
of the whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole sub-
stance of the wine into His blood while only the species of bread and
wine remain, a change which the Catholic Church very fittingly calls tran-
substantiation [transubstantiatio], anathema sit (NR 578/DS 1652).
3. If anyone denies that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist
the whole Christ is contained under each species and under each part
of either species when separated, anathema sit (NR 579/DS 1653).

Other statements on the theme of concomitance are found in the teach-

ing on communion under both forms, adopted by the council at its
twenty-first session in 1562 (NR 592-595/DS 1731-1734 contain the
canons). ,

4. If anyone says that after the consecration the body and blood of our
Lord Jesus Christ are not in the marvellous sacrament of the Eucharist
but that they are there only in the use of the sacrament [in usu], while
it is being received, and not before or after, and that in the consecrated
hosts or particles which are preserved or are left over after communion
the true body of the Lord does not remain, anathema sit (NR 580/DS 1654).

This canon was intended to reject Luther’s opinion that the real pres-
ence ends with the reception of communion during the worship service.
Canon 5 says that the Eucharist has many effects, and denies that
its principal fruit is forgiveness of sins. Canons 6 and 7 deal with the
forms of Eucharistic devotion.

8. If anyone says that Christ presented in the Eucharist is only spiritu-

ally eaten and not sacramentally and really as well, anathema sit (NR
584/DS 1658).
 Eucharist 169

Canon 9 requires an annual communion during the Easter season as

a minimum, and canon 10 concerns the communion of the priest.
11. If anyone says that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving
the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, anathema sit. And, lest so great
a sacrament be received unworthily and hence unto death and condem-
nation, this holy Council determines and decrees that those whose con-
science is burdened with mortal sin, no matter how contrite they may
think they are, must necessarily make first a sacramental confession if
a confessor is available. If anyone presumes to teach, or preach, or ob-
stinately maintain, or defend in public disputation the opposite of this,
he shall by the very fact be excommunicated (NR 587/DS 1661).

This canon is to be understood in connection with the teaching about

the sacrament of reconciliation (see 9.2 below).
The positive and beautiful things the sixteenth-century bishops and
theologians said here are evident from an attentive reading of the texts
themselves. But these conciliar statements also have their theological
and linguistic limits, which have been pointed out in light of a new
consciousness in the twentieth century.” These limitations are evident,
for one thing, in this council’s treatment of biblical and ancient Church
tradition, certainly with the best will and according to their best knowl-
edge, but revealing a considerable one-sidedness and narrowness in
contrast to earlier perspectives (though the same may be said of the
Reformers’ opinions as well!). In addition, the council uses categories
of interpretation and verbal expressions that, four hundred years later,
are scarcely, if at all, appropriate either for advancing an understand-
ing of the truths of faith within the Church, or for promoting commu-
nication with others. Thus, as in the case of many other statements
of faith, we are faced with the task of seeking what was ‘‘really’’ in-
tended at the time and of reformulating it (incorporating the still older
traditions as well) in such a way that the Church does not lose its iden-
tity in the process.

70. See the condensed overview of J. Betz in MySal IV/2, 256-262, with bibliog-
raphy; A. Gerken, Theologie der Eucharistie, 173-199; J. A. Sayes, Presencia real de
Cristo y Transubstanciacién (Burgos: 1974); B. J. Hilberath and T. Schneider, NHthG
I (1984) 313-314. Also very good for information on newer models of thought since
the 1930s are J. Wohlmuth, ‘’Nochmals: Transsubstantiation oder Transsignifika-
tion?’’ Zeitschrift fiir katholische Theologie 97 (1975) 430-440; G. Hintzen, Die neuere
Diskussion tiber die eucharistische Wandlung (Bern and Frankfurt: 1976); H.-J. Schulz,
‘“‘Wandlung”’ (see Bibliography 6).
170 Sacramental Theology

The core of the statement on the real presence acknowledges the

true and genuine presence of Jesus Christ in the celebration and in
the sacrament of the Eucharist. It contains as well the Christological
confession that the Crucified lives and remains forever the human be-
ing who is united in a unique way with God. This statement rejects
any ‘‘merely’’ symbolic interpretation, but that in turn points to a
historical process of impoverishment: a symbolic interpretation can also
be couched in terms of ‘real symbols,’’ and thereby it can express real
presence in symbol. ,
The conciliar statements on the real presence are not embedded in
fundamental considerations about the presence of the triune God
among human beings, or about the way in which people can be brought
into the presence of the triune God. This would have to include reflec-
tion on the way in which Jesus Christ, human being and Son of God,
is made present through the Holy Spirit. The presence of his humanity,
too, can be “‘only’” pneumatic, when “‘pneumatic” refers to the highest
form of perfection of human bodiliness. The absence of these fun-
damental considerations on the part of the Council left room for the
idea that the triune God ‘‘in Godself’’ is somewhere distant, in an
otherworldly heaven, so that inevitably the humanity of Jesus is located
outside the world, and the sacrament of the Eucharist is the opportu-
nity to turn spatial distance into spatial nearness. But even when spa-
tial ideas are avoided, theologians are always tempted to play off a
presence of God in Jesus against other manners of presence, for ex-
ample when, using comparative language, someone says that the Eu-
charistic presence means an increase in the intensity and scope of other
ways of being present.7! Even newer attempts at interpretation reach
their verbal limits here: when Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist is called
‘“‘somatic,’’ that is, bodily real presence, we have not yet said what
has to be said, namely, that the soma of Jesus exists, now and forever,
pneumatically. The doctrine of change of substances, with its limited
means of expression, pointed to this when it said that a spiritual reality
is changed into another spiritual reality. Thus all conceptions of a bodily
or somatic real presence have to be thought of within the framework
of a pneumatic and spiritual-substantial real presence.
The Council of Trent, together with the Scholastic tradition, no
longer understood the fullness of the Jewish concepts of ‘“body’’ and

71. Thus, in summary form, F. Eisenbach, Systematische Studien, 446.

 Eucharist 171

““blood.”’ It took these concepts simply by representing the ‘‘parts’’

of a human being. Only chapter 1 (NR 568/DS 1636) speaks of a pres-
ence of the humanness of Jesus Christ, rather than the presence of parts
of him. Beyond that, the separation of the teaching about the sacrifice
of the Mass from this teaching on the real presence shows that they
thought only of the presence of particular persons in their enduring
state of completeness, and not of the presence of their whole lives and
histories. That had unfortunate consequences for the concept of the
Eucharist as a liturgical celebration. The concentration on the making
present of the person of Jesus, with divinity and humanity, promoted
the notion that the purpose of the Eucharistic celebration was to make
the divinity and humanity of Jesus present so that they could be adored
and received in communion. This narrows the full content of the
‘“memorial.’’ Veneration of the Eucharist, in the sense in which it has
been used, therefore lacked an essential element of any liturgy, namely
glorifying God for God’s mighty works.
It is part of the core of the faith statement of Trent that what hap-
pens in the Eucharist is effected by God, and not by the liturgist or
anyone else. Only God can fulfill the promise of this sacrament con-
tained in the ‘‘Thisis. . . .’’ Human beings can only produce pointers,
indications that would be mere signals without the reality present
within them. The ancient Church shaped its firm faith in the action
of the Spirit in the form of the epiclesis, the prayer for the transform-
ing act of the divine Spirit. The Council of Trent tried to preserve this
idea by speaking of an event on the ontological level: only God can
change a reality at the level of being; human beings can change the
meaning of things at will, but they cannot touch the underlying reality.
The truth contained in this statement is, however, difficult to con-
vey at a time when it is commonly believed that a philosophy of being
or essence is no longer possible. Above all, the expressions drawn from
natural philosophy about ‘’substance’’ and ‘‘accidents’’ have become
unintelligible. Of course, neither that type of natural philosophy nor
the concept of transubstantiation is dogmatically prescribed for Catholic
Christians. The Council of Trent only says that this concept is well
suited to express the inner, spiritual change in the gifts. That does not
forbid us to look for a better concept.
The search for a new formulation of the dogma of the real presence
has brought the categories of personal encounter and a relational on-
172 Sacramental Theology

tology into the discussion.” In this context, it has been observed that
the ‘‘essence”’ of a cultural product—and bread and wine are cultural
products—can really change with the meaning assigned to it, or, as
Bernhard Welte says, the relational context of things and people es-
sentially co-determines the being of what is.” A change in purpose
or meaning” would therefore be the change in being or essence to
which the Council of Trent referred. Pope Paul VI felt it necessary to
emphasize, in his encyclical Mysterium Fidei of 1965, that ‘’as a result
of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take
on a new meaning and a new finality, for they no longer remain ordi-
nary bread and ordinary wine, but become the sign of something sa-
cred, the sign of a spiritual food. However, the reason why they take
on this new significance and this new finality is because they contain
a new ‘reality’ which we may justly term ontological’’ (DS 1580). The
context shows that Paul VI wanted to warn against contenting oneself
with a subjective change of meaning or function. This warning will
be taken to heart, if the new meaning that is bestowed is traced not
to human subjectivity, but to the action of God: ‘The gifts of bread
and wine are placed in a completely new relationship to us by Jesus
Christ himself, the crucified and risen one, in the power of his Holy
Spirit; they receive thereby a new meaning, and acquire a new sym-
bolic function that is given and effected (!) [not by us, but] by him,
and is recognized and accepted in faith by us. By being thus taken into
the service of the divine, the gifts lose their superficial reference to
themselves and experience a definitive change of meaning, bringing
with it a change in the ‘thing’ itself.’’7

8.4.6 The Sacrifice of the Mass

At its twenty-second session, in 1562, the Council of Trent adopted

a Doctrine on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, consisting of eight chap-
ters and nine doctrinal statements (canons). Those with the greatest
theological relevance read as follows:

72. For the former, see J. Betz’s note, MySal IV/2, 260, on Piet Schoonenberg;
for the latter, see A. Gerken, Theologie der Eucharistie, 199-210.
73. Cf. J. Betz, MySal IV/2, 259.
74. In the newer formulations: transfinalization or transignification.
75. B. J. Hilberath and T. Schneider, NHthG I (1984) 314. For a formulation of
the real presence in recent Protestant thought, see U. Kithn, Sakramente, 278-286.
 Eucharist 173

Chapter 1: The Institution of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. As

the apostle testifies, there was no perfection under the former Covenant
because of the insufficiency of the levitical priesthood. It was, therefore,
necessary (according to the merciful ordination of God the Father) that
another priest arise after the order of Melchizedek, our Lord Jesus Christ
who could make perfect all who were to be sanctified and bring them
to fulfilment.
He, then, our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer Himself
to God the Father by His death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish
for them an everlasting redemption. But, because His priesthood was
not to end with His death (cf. Heb 7:24, 27), at the Last Supper, ‘‘on
the night when He was betrayed,”’ in order to leave to His beloved
Spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of humanity demands)
—by which the bloody sacrifice which He was once for all to accomplish
on the cross would be represented, its memory perpetuated until the
end of the world and its salutary power applied for the forgiveness of
the sins which we daily commit—; declaring Himself constituted ‘‘a priest
for ever after the order of Melchizedek’’ (Ps 109 [110], 4), He offered
His body and blood under the species of bread and wine to God the
Father, and, under the same signs [sub earundem rerum symbolis] gave them
to partake of to the disciples (whom He then established as priests of
the New Covenant), and ordered them and their successors in the priest-
hood to offer, saying: ‘‘Do this as a memorial of Me,’’ etc. (Lk 22:19;
1 Cor 11:24), as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught.
For, after He celebrated the old Pasch, which the multitude of the chil-
dren of Israel offered [immolabat] to celebrate the memory of the depar-
ture from Egypt, Christ instituted a new Pasch, namely, Himself to be
offered by the Church through her priests under visible signs in order
to celebrate the memory of His passage from this world to the Father
when by the shedding of His blood He redeemed us, ‘‘delivered us from
the dominion of darkness and transferred us to His Kingdom” (cf. Col
1:13).
This is the clean oblation which cannot be defiled by any unworthi-
ness or malice on the part of those who offer it, and which the Lord fore-
told through Malachi would be offered in all places as a clean oblation
to His name (cf. Mal 1:11). The apostle Paul also refers clearly to it when,
writing to the Corinthians, he says that those who have been defiled
by partaking of the table of devils cannot be partakers of the table of
the Lord. By ‘‘table’’ he understands ‘‘altar’’ in both cases (cf. 1 Cor
10:21). Finally, this is the oblation which was prefigured by various types
of sacrifices under the regime of nature and of the Law. For it includes
174 Sacramental Theology

all the good that was signified by those former sacrifices; it is their fulfil-
ment and perfection (NR 597-598/DS 1739-1742).
Chapter 2: The Visible Sacrifice is Propitiatory for the Living and the
Dead. In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same
Christ who offered Himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the
cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. Therefore, the
holy Council teaches that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory so that, if we
draw near to God with an upright heart and true faith, with fear and
reverence, with sorrow and repentance, through it ‘“we may receive
mercy and find grace to help in time of need’’ (cf. Heb 4:16). For the
Lord, appeased by this oblation, grants grace and the gift of repentance,
and He pardons wrongdoings and sins, even grave ones. For, the vic-
tim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of
priests, who then offered Himself on the cross; only the manner of offer-
ing is different. The fruits of this oblation (the bloody one, that is) are
received in abundance through this unbloody oblation. By no means,
then, does the latter detract from the former. Therefore, it is rightly
offered according to apostolic tradition, not only for the sins, punish-
ments, satisfaction and other necessities of the faithful who are alive,
but also for those who have died in Christ but are not yet wholly puri-
fied (NR 599/DS 1743).

The succeeding chapters treat liturgical and practical questions: Masses

in honor of the saints (ch. 3), the canon of the Mass (ch. 4), solemn
ceremonies for the celebration of Mass (ch. 5), Masses in which the
priest alone communicates (ch. 6), the mixing of water and wine (ch.
7), celebration of Mass in the vernacular and explanation of the Mass
for the people (ch. 8).
The first four canons are aimed at the teachings of some of the
Reformers:

1. If anyone says that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered
to God or that the offering consists merely in the fact that Christ is given
to us to eat, anathema sit (NR 606/DS 1751).
2. If anyone says that by the words ‘’Do this as a memorial of Me’’
Christ did not establish the apostles as priests or that He did not order
that they and other priests should offer His body and blood, anathema
sit (NR 607/DS 1752).
3. If anyone says that the sacrifice of the Mass is merely an offering
of praise and thanksgiving, or that it is a simple commemoration of the
sacrifice accomplished on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice, or
that it benefits only those who communicate; and that it should not be
 Eucharist 175

offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfaction
and other necessities, anathema sit (NR 608/DS 1753).
4. If anyone says that the sacrifice of the Mass constitutes a blasphemy
against the most holy sacrifice which Christ accomplished on the cross,
or that it detracts from that sacrifice, anathema sit (NR 609/DS 1754).

The remaining five canons are for the protection of the liturgical and
practical customs previously mentioned.
With this teaching on the sacrifice of the Mass, the council made
some very desirable clarifications and rejected a number of late me-
dieval opinions that had been the source of scandal. It emphasized the
unity of the sacrifice of the cross and that of the Mass, secured by the
identity of the sacrificing priest and the sacrificial gift, and it made clear
that the sacrifice of the Mass is a representation or making present,
a memorial and an application of the sacrifice of the cross, and thus
is neither a repetition of the unique deed of Jesus Christ nor a new
sacrificial action of Jesus taking place at each Mass, an opinion that
had been repeatedly asserted in the course of history. The statement
that the Mass itself is a true sacrifice in its own right, of course, neces-
sarily sounded objectionable to adherents of the Reformation, espe-
cially in the expanded formulation that calls it a propitiatory sacrifice
for living and dead. The matter-of-fact use of the concept of ‘‘sacri-
fice’’ for the event of the cross and the comparison drawn with the
sacrificial cult in Judaism, a usage that gives the impression of having
disposed all too swiftly of the Old Testament, appeared less offensive
in the eyes of the Reformers than it really is. On the other hand, it
was not acceptable, within the Reformers’ historicizing view of the
Bible, to consider Jesus’ command at the supper, to remember him
in repeating these actions, as proof of the ordained priesthood of the
apostles and ‘’their successors in the priesthood” of the Church. Al-
though we have to skip over the developments between Trent and our
own century, in order to keep this discussion within limits,” and turn
to the present state of theological discussion, we begin to see in those
developments some important steps toward new formulations, deci-
sive ecumenical approaches of the Churches to one another, but also
some difficult problems that still remain.

76. On this process of development, and especially on so-called theories of the

Mass as sacrifice, cf. J. Betz, MySal IV/2, 254-256 (with bibliography); on new ideas
in the twentieth century, idem pp. 256-262 (with bibliography). A clear example
of the difficulties involved in this concept, including questions like the distribu-
176 Sacramental Theology

Expressions like ‘‘sacrifice of the cross,”’ or ‘sacrificial act’’ of Jesus

on Golgotha, and similar phrases; have often been regarded as too tech-
nical, too narrow a reference to the Passion alone, and too inappropri-
ate to Jesus’ own way of speaking. Many theologians, for example
Theodor Schneider, prefer more dynamic expressions that describe
Jesus’ whole life-process, such as Jesus’ “surrender of his life’’ or ‘’self-
surrender”’ or ‘‘self-abandonment.’’’” At any rate, there is a growing
awareness that the way we talk about this topic decisively affects our
image of God, or rather, this or any other way of speaking arises out
of a particular image of God. Where there is a strongly Christological
consciousness that refuses to see a dramatic division between God the
Father and Jesus,’ his life and destiny to suffer may be seen first of
all as an expression of God’s love, and the death of Jesus as God’s
own self-abandonment.”? The interpretation of Jesus’ willingness to
bear the consequences of his mission that were imposed by human
wickedness, and even to consent to his approaching violent death, in
terms of sacrifice and expiation, an interpretation found even in the
New Testament, may in this perspective be regarded as secondary.
But the discussion of concepts of expiation and representation is still
in progress and far from being resolved.*°
Jesus’ whole destiny, in life and death, can be viewed as a twofold
movement and thus—though not in ritual terms—as liturgy: from God
to human beings and from the human being Jesus to his Father. When

tion of the ‘‘fruits of the sacrifice of the Mass,’’ Mass stipends, concelebration,
etc., and the limits placed on it, may be found in K. Rahner and A. HauBling,
Die vielen Messen und das eine Opfer (Freiburg: 1966).
77. Cf. B. J. Hilberath and T. Schneider, NHthG III (1985) 288-289, resting on
T. Schneider’s sacramental theology. In German, the expressions are tainted with
an overly pathetic and masochistic flavor.
78. As in the theo-drama of J. Moltmann and H. U. von Balthasar; cf. the over-
view and bibliography in H. Vorgrimler, Theologische Gotteslehre (Diisseldorf: 1985)
160-170.
79. B. J. Hilberath and T. Schneider, NHthG III, 290-291. Cf. also 2 Corinthians
5:19; here God is the one who reconciles!
80. See the remarks above in 8.2.1 on the New Testament accounts of the Last
Supper. On a theology of expiation in the work of H. U. von Balthasar and his
circle, see N. Hoffmann, Siihne. Zur Theologie der Stellvertretung (Einsiedeln: 1981);
idem, Kreuz und Trinitat. Zur Theologie der Siihne (Einsiedeln: 1982), where a fright-
ful construction of God is evident. Cf. R. Schwager’s review in Zeitschrift fiir
katholische Theologie 105 (1983) 341-342.
 Eucharist 177

this second movement is expressed in terms of sacrifice, as it is in the

Letter to the Hebrews, at least the technical cultic notions of sacrifice
that were common in the universal history of religions are abandoned;
the sacrificial gift that is identical with the sacrificing priest, Jesus, has
a personal character.
The Church’s Eucharistic celebration is also called a ‘‘sacrifice’’ by
the Council of Trent, under a twofold aspect: first with regard to its
intimate connection with Jesus Christ’s ‘‘sacrifice of the cross,’’ and
second with regard to the action of the Church itself.
1. The clarification supplied by Trent, in which concepts like ‘‘re-
newal”’ or “‘repetition’’ of the sacrifice of the cross are deliberately
avoided and the Eucharist is understood as a making present (represen-
tation), a memorial and an application (or allocation) of the sacrifice
of the cross, does not detract from the uniqueness of the event of the
cross (Heb 9-10). The new theological movements of the twentieth cen-
tury have promoted a better understanding of the way in which a
unique, past event can be really present without being repeated.
Representation (making present)*! and memorial (memoria, anamnesis)*
here overlap in their essential content, so that either one of these two
concepts can stand for the whole. Thus the sacrificial character of the
Eucharist can also be re-described, from this initial point of view, as
‘‘an anamnesis (memorial) of Jesus Christ’s surrrender of his life that
causes reality.’’®? The statement that the unique event of the cross can
be applied to human beings or is allocated to them, and that this hap-
pens in the Eucharist—a statement that obviously does not mean “‘in
the Eucharist exclusively’’—is accepted by all those who agree that the
sacraments bring human beings into the presence of God and open
them up to divine grace. The subject of this representation or making
present, and of this application, is, of course, Jesus Christ himself,
through the Holy Spirit.
2. But to what extent is the Eucharistic celebration also a real and
separate sacrifice of the Church? This question leads us to the center
of the theology of grace and of ecumenical discussions on that sub-

81. Cf. H. Hofmann, Repriisentation. Studien zur Wort- und Begriffsgeschichte von
der Antike bis ins 19. Jahrhundert (Berlin: 1974).
82. Cf. 4.2.6 above: the results of the fruitful discussion of Odo Casel’s theol-
ogy of mystery as well as the coincidence of Hebrew memorial and real symbols.
83. B. J. Hilberath and T. Schneider, NHthG III (1985) 288.
178 Sacramental Theology

ject. It was the great concern of the Reformers that the idea of a sacrifice
of the Church, especially of an expiatory sacrifice offered by the priest
for the sake of the living and dead, detracted from the unique impor-
tance of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for the justification of sin-
ners, the one expiatory sacrifice whose ‘’fruit’’ is extended to us in
the sacrament.*4 Thus they wished to see the Mass celebration as, at
most, a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, not endowed with the
power to sanctify. On the Catholic side, no one would disagree today
with the statement that sanctification comes from God alone and that
no ecclesial action can claim to justify sinners. Nor would any Catho-
lic claim that human beings, before receiving justification, were capable
of offering their own achievements or gifts of their own to God in the
hope of thereby attaining sanctification and divine favor. The fun-
damental question,*®° which is open for discussion among Catholics,
is rather: does God’s justifying grace in a human being effect only an
attitude of passive, grateful receptiveness, or does it empower that per-
son to an activity that is made possible and supported by God alone?
The Catholic response affirms this kind of ability to act. Thus, as every
prayer is made possible and supported only by God’s Spirit, the
Church’s petition for living and dead is made possible and supported
in the same way by Godself, and in that very way it is the Church’s
own prayer brought before God. If we speak of ‘‘co-action,’’ we refer
to a cooperation that is posterior and not simultaneous. With regard
to the subject of sacrifice, this ability to act is described as an admis-
sion to participation in the existential act of Jesus Christ (in his ‘‘lov-
ing self-surrender’’).°° Enabled and supported by God, this ‘‘gift’’ of
the Church’s sacrifice would not consist in an additional service ‘‘be-
sides’’ that of Jesus, and certainly not in a material gift. Nor would

84. U. Kiithn, Sakramente, 286-289.

85. Cf. K. Lehmann and E. Schlink, eds., Das Opfer Jesu Christi und seine Gegen-
wart in der Kirche (Freiburg and Gottingen: 1983); M. Thurian, ed., Okumenische
Perspektiven von Taufe, Eucharistie und Amt (Paderborn and Frankfurt: 1983); on the
Eucharist, see especially the essays by M. Thurian (pp. 110-123) and J.-M. R. Tillard
(pp. 124-137); H. Meyer, H. J. Urban, and L. Vischer, eds., Dokumente wachsender
Ubereinstimmung. Samtliche Berichte und Konsenstexte interkonfessioneller Gespriche auf
Weltebene 1931-1982 (Paderborn and Frankfurt: 1983); S. N. Bosshard, ‘‘Zur
Bedeutung der Anamneselehre fiir ein 6kumenisches Eucharistieverstandnis,’’ Zeit-
schrift fiir katholische Theologie 108 (1986) 155-163 (with bibliography).
86. B. J. Hilberath and T. Schneider, NHthG III, 297.
 Eucharist 179

it be only the giving of thanks, but ‘’the state of acceptance, requested

of and made possible by God, of the individual person and the whole
celebrating community into Jesus’ surrender to the Father, which glori-
fies God and saves the world, participation in his Pasch on which the
new covenant is founded.’’8? Among Protestants, Ulrich Kuhn thinks
he can agree with this kind of theology of sacrifice: ‘‘The replacement
of the ‘technical cultic’ concept of sacrifice by that of personal surrender
to God and human beings, as Catholic theology now uses it, there-
fore appears appropriate. But this surrender (in a twofold sense) that
comprehends not only death but the whole of life is the substance of
the reign of God that appears in Jesus. In the supper, Jesus gives us
a share in this surrender as well as in his whole life process. Thus those
who celebrate the supper are taken up into this total surrender to God
(cultic moment) and into his surrender to human beings (explosion of
the cult). Here we can see the legitimate meaning of the Catholic teach-
ing about ‘‘the Church sacrificing with Christ.’’®
This entry of human persons—made possible by the Spirit of God—
with Jesus into his way of life and death is, of course, not accomplished
only in the liturgy. But neither does the liturgy itself ‘‘revolve”’ primar-
ily around the Church. Hans Urs von Balthasar, in a pointed expres-
sion, directed attention to the real heart of the matter: Jesus did not
die for the Church, but for the world, and therefore the Church does
not pray primarily for itself when it celebrates the Eucharist, but for
those who are far away and for the dead.® If this solidarity can be la-

87. H. B. Meyer in Zeitschrift fiir katholische Theologie 108 (1986) 172. In a series
of publications on the sacrifice of the Church, H. U. von Balthasar opposed this
idea about the entry of the Church into Jesus Christ’s self-surrender as charac-
terizing the Church’s sacrifice. He sees this, instead, in Christ’s acceptance of his
dismissal on the cross. In this, Mary’s ‘‘yes’’ has an important representative role:
this ‘‘yes’’ does not seek to accomplish her own justification and thus an inde-
pendent, redemptive sacrifice. Instead, it is a ‘’yes’’ to the fact that the most ““be-
loved,” Jesus, takes upon himself this sacrifice in place of humanity, a sacrifice
that is at the same time the expression of divine love and divine wrath. The essen-
tial element in the Church’s sacrifice consists in imitating this Marian attitude of
total resignation. Cf. the description of this theory, which is not covered by bibli-
cal revelation, in G. Batzing, Die Eucharistie als Opfer der Kirche nach Hans Urs von
Balthasar (Einsiedeln: 1986).
88. U. Kihn, TRE I (1977) 201.
89. H. U. von Balthasar, ‘Das eucharistische Opfer,’’ Internationale katholische
Zeitschrift 14 (1985) 193-195, at 195.
180 Sacramental Theology

beled ‘‘expiation,’’ since its intention lies in reconciliation and forgive-

ness, then the ‘‘expiatory sacrifice’’ would consist in the (subsequent)
accompaniment of Jesus in his intercession for those who are far from
God, and for the world.

8.4.7 The Eucharist and the Office of Priesthood

It follows from what has been said in the general theology of the
sacraments and, thus far, about the Eucharist, that'the primary agent
of any sacrament is Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit of God. This
was especially emphasized by the Council of Trent, with respect to
the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, when it said that he is and
remains the sacrificing priest in every Eucharistic celebration. In the
derivative and subject form just described, the Church can then be
described as the wholly secondary subject of the Eucharistic celebra-
tion. The Council of Trent expresses this in sacrificial language when
it says that Jesus Christ is ‘‘offered by the Church through her priests
under visible signs’’ (NR 597). But such a description of human par-
ticipation remains very abstract: where and how does ‘‘the Church’’
exist? If we start with the two basic components of the Eucharistic
prayer, the memorial giving praise and glory to God and the petition
for the action of the Spirit, this means that concrete human subjects
perform these actions of remembering and petitioning. Thus the con-
crete community assembled for Eucharist would be the secondary sub-
ject of that celebration. That is also the view of the Catholic Church,
but we must add that there must be a guarantee that the concrete com-
munity acknowledges (1) that it is part of the tradition of faith coming
from the apostles as the eyewitnesses and hearers of Jesus, and (2)
that it is in communion with all the other communities that live within
that tradition. This duty of maintaining a twofold membership in the
community of faith is only fulfilled, according to the Catholic point
of view, if it is not limited to good will in the hearts of individual com-
munity members, but, in addition to that, is also institutionally secured.
The institution that, for Catholic believers, maintains this solidarity and
thus preserves the identity of the Church throughout history is the
college of bishops as successors to the ‘‘college’’ of apostles.
In connection with the Eucharist, this understanding of faith is ap-
parent, at the latest, from the end of the first and beginning of the sec-
ond century, though at first without the concepts of “‘sacrifice’’ or
 Eucharist 181

““priesthood.”’ The first witness is Ignatius of Antioch (d. 117 at the

latest): ‘‘All of you, follow the bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Fa-
ther, and the presbyters as the apostles; and respect the deacons as
you would God’s commandment! No one should do anything pertain-
ing to the Church apart from the bishop. Let that be held a valid eu-
charist which is under the bishop or one to whom he shall have
entrusted it. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; just
as where Jesus is, there is the universal Church. It is not lawful apart
from the bishop either to baptize or to hold a love-feast; but whatever
he shall approve is well-pleasing also to God; that everything you do
may be sure and valid.’’® Ignatius’ ideas about the bishop do not rep-
resent any devaluation of ‘‘ordinary’’ Christians or their dignity in
offering worship. Ignatius calls them ‘companions on the way, carry-
ing your God and your shrine, your Christ and your holy things.’’%!
His statements about the bishop are intended entirely to serve the unity
of the Church.” It is true that this pointed the way for a certain kind
of development, but in the case of the bishop as understood here, too
much still depended on subjective qualities; the office of bishop was
not yet ‘‘objectively’’ established. Developments in the second and
third centuries moved toward that establishment, on the one hand
through the demand that bishops be within the apostolic succession—
that is, that they stand within a line of tradition that was thought to
go back to the apostles—and on the other hand through reliance on
the grace of office acquired through consecration (ordination). Both
these ideas were first expressly formulated by Irenaeus of Lyons (d.
ca. 202).%
According to Hippolytus of Rome’s Church order, reflecting the
Roman situation at the beginning of the third century, the bishop’s
ordination conveyed both the “‘spirit of leadership’’ (pneuma hegemoni-
kon) and high-priestly powers; here there is an explicit reference to the
Old Testament.% In the process of very clear and thorough division
90. Ign. Smyrn. 8. See further documentation along these lines in J. Martin, Der
priesterliche Dienst III. Die Genese des Amtspriestertums (Freiburg: 1972) 89.
91. Ign. Eph. 9, 2. Cf. J. Martin, Der priesterliche Dienst, 93.
92. J. Martin, Der priesterliche Dienst, 94.
93. Ibid., 95-98, with sources. We are leaving the Pastoral Letters out of con-
sideration because of the difficulty of locating them historically. Cf. 11.2.1.
94. Ibid., 98-103; for Hippolytus leadership and priesthood, belonging to the
tribes of Juda and Levi, converged in Jesus Christ and descended from him to the
apostles and bishops.
182 Sacramental Theology

of believers into clerics and laity the idea emerged that those who are
ordained are able to do things that the non-ordained cannot do. Among
the ordained or consecrated it is the bishop who always comes first
to mind, since the bishop is regarded as the ‘‘high priest’’ also in the
North African theology of Tertullian and Cyprian of Carthage in the
third century. As appears even in the writings of Ignatius, the bishop
had a subordinate college of lesser officials, to whose members cer-
tain duties and powers could be delegated as practical necessity dic-
tated. In earlier days—at the time of Ignatius, for example—they were
called ‘‘presbyters,’’ but in Hippolytus’ Church order they are or-
dained, like the bishop, for the sacerdotium (priesthood), and ‘rule’
the people of God; by the middle of the third century they are clearly
designated sacerdotes (priests). It is also clear by this point that the offer-
ing of the sacrificium (sacrifice) is reserved to the sacerdotes, the bishops
and priests. Their action was in no way understood as in competi-
tion with or instead of the sacrifice of the cross; instead, it referred
to Jesus’ Last Supper and consciously intended to ‘‘imitate’’ Jesus
Christ.% But this imitation depended on the power bestowed in ordi-
nation. In this sense, the first ecumenical council at Nicaea (ca. 325),
in its eighteenth canon, speaks of the power to offer the sacrifice (Greek
exousia and prospherein; Latin potestas offerendi). The conflicts with here-
tics and the question of Donatist baptism, and the confrontation with
ideas of autonomous power, recalled once more the sense of second-
ary authority accepted in service, because it is really Jesus Christ who
is and remains the true agent in the sacraments.
Scholastic theology introduced a remarkable shift: all the discus-
sions on the “‘powers’’ required for the Eucharist centered on the priest,
not the bishop. By that time, and for many centuries before, it had
been priests and not bishops who were experienced as the normal litur-
gists at the Eucharist. The concrete reason for theology, and then
Church councils, to put so much emphasis on the priest’s power was
the attack of Cathari, and also of the Waldensians, against the clerics
of their time. Criticism of the miserable state of the clergy led to a re-
95. This is absolutely clear in Cyprian. The “offering of the gifts’’ by presbyter-
episcopoi in the 90s of the first century, as found in 1 Clement (44,4) is not so defi-
nite. Cf. also A. Cunningham’s collection of texts, The Bishop in the Church (Wil-
mington: 1985).
96. J. D. Laurance, ‘The Eucharist as the Imitation of Christ,”’ Theological Studies
47 (1986) 286-296 (with patristic texts on the theme of priests/bishops and sacrifice).
 Eucharist 183

vival of the question whether an unworthy minister could perform a

valid sacrament, and the denial of that possibility in turn resulted in
a rejection of the ordained priesthood, and even, among the Cathari
in the twelfth century, in a denial of any change through the consecra-
tion of the Eucharist.” But theological reaction was not restricted to
insistence on a power that guaranteed the completion of the sacrament
independently of the worthiness or unworthiness of the minister, or
to the establishment of conditions, such as the speaking of the words
of consecration, for the reliability of the sacrament’s being effected.
Even in this narrow view, it was still said that Jesus Christ accomplishes
the change that takes place in the Eucharist. A saying attributed to
Augustine was frequently cited, whereby the change takes place not
through the service of the one consecrating, but through the word of
the Creator and the power of the Holy Spirit.”
When, in this context, Scholastic theology (on the basis of the false
Latin translation of 2 Cor 2:10) said that the priest’s liturgical action
was done in persona Christi, and when it combined this with the teach-
ing about the indelible mark (character indelibilis) imprinted by priestly
ordination as an ‘‘assimilation’’ to Jesus Christ and empowerment to
cultic action, it was pursuing the same object: it wished to indicate that
the qualification of the priest conveyed by ordination unites him so
closely with Jesus Christ that it is the latter, and not the priest, who
is the primary subject of the Eucharistic liturgy.” Thus the priest does
not have the capacity to cause Jesus Christ, the Exalted One, to con-
tinually perform new actions: he himself repeatedly accomplishes ‘‘in
the person of Christ’ the actualization of that which the theology of
sacrifice calls the one ‘‘sacrificial action’’ of Jesus Christ.
From the perspective of Scholastic theology the priest, through this
‘‘quasi-identity’’!° with Jesus Christ, has a place in the Eucharistic
celebration that fundamentally differentiates him from all other par-
ticipants. Beyond that, because of his ordination and his being en-
trusted with care of a community, he is that community’s representa-
tive. Thomas Aquinas was the first to say that, to the extent that the

97. K. J. Becker, Der priesterliche Dienst II. Wesen und Vollmachten des Priestertums
nach dem Lehramt (Freiburg: 1970) 18-43.
98. Ibid., 23 (with sources).
99. On this, see P. J. Cordes, Sendung zum Dienst (Frankfurt: 1972); F. Eisenbach,
Systematische Studien, 405-441.
100. P. J. Cordes, Sendung zum Dienst, 185.
184 Sacramental Theology

cult is a human accomplishment, a confession of faith, and a prayer,

the priest acts in persona ecclesiae.! This Catholic conception of the priest
does not really put him in a middle position between God and hu-
manity, which on the basis of the New Testament is not possible, but
it does see him as the representative of the one mediator and priest,
Jesus Christ, and of his community, that is, of the totus Christus. But
in the concrete celebration of the Eucharist this demands a shift in roles
that is difficult to accomplish and is not entirely free of an unanticipated
comedy: ‘‘Here priest represents the body, to the extent that he
represents the head, and his liturgical action depicts the complex rela-
tionship between Jesus Christ and his Church, since at one point, in
the name of the Lord, he stands over against the congregation, and
then, in the name of the congregation, he turns to the Lord, and then
again, in the role of the Lord who unites his body with himself, he
offers the prayer and sacrifice of the whole mystical body to the
Father.//202
A theological extension of the state of knowledge achieved thus far,
to cover the relationship between Eucharist and ordained priesthood,
will maintain the historical conclusion: that Jesus Christ, in the Holy
Spirit, is the primary subject of the Eucharistic celebration; that there
is a legitimate place for an office of service ‘‘representing’’ (but not
replacing) him; that this service is part of that office in the Church that,
as a whole, stands in service of unity in the faith; that this service is
not dependent on the subjective and moral qualities of the ones who
serve. This view of things will be careful, not least in ecumenical dia-
logue, to see that the place of Jesus Christ as the unique head of the
Church and thus also of the Eucharistic celebration is not reduced, so
that the one who “‘represents’’ Jesus Christ in the liturgy (but does
not take his place as if he were absent) is theologically located in, not
over the community, as is proper for one whose duty is to hear, to be-
lieve, to give thanks in praise and memorial, and to receive.

8.4.8 Vatican Council II

The Second Vatican Council dealt with the Eucharist in different

contexts and spoke of it in a variety of ways, in an effort to do full
101. F. Eisenbach, Systematische Studien, 421, n. 286, with references. ‘In the
name of the Church”’ is the identical expression.
102. Ibid., 440.
 Eucharist 185

justice to what had been said about the Eucharist in the past. How-
ever, in doing so it gave a number of impulses to further theological
investigation. 1°
The statements on the subject of sacrifice followed tradition and
cited the Council of Trent: ‘‘He [Jesus Christ] is present in the sacri-
fice of the Mass, not only in the person of His minister, ‘the same one
now Offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered
himself on the cross,’ but especially under the Eucharistic species’ (SC
7). In the discussion of the ‘‘continuation’’ of the sacrifice of the cross,
the concept of memorial is emphasized: ‘At the Last Supper, on the
night when He was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sac-
rifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the
sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until He should come
again, and so to entrust to His beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial
of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a
bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the
mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us’’
(SC 47). The theology of the sacrifice of the Mass is clarified by the
inclusion of the Christian people: ‘’. . . they should give thanks to
God; by offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands
of the priest, but also with him, they should learn to offer themselves
too’’ (SC 48; cf. PO 2; a summary is also found in LG 28).
In one text containing a very impressive Jesus-mysticism, the Eu-
charist is presented within the context of the theology of the body of
Christ (LG 7). The essential difference that, according to this council,
exists between the common priesthood of all believers and the hierar-
chical priesthood, means that at the Eucharist they act together, but
also in different ways: ‘‘The ministerial priest, by the sacred power
he enjoys, molds and rules the priestly people. Acting in the person
of Christ, he brings about the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and offers it to God
in the name of all the people. For their part, the faithful join in the
offering of the Eucharist by virtue of their royal priesthood. They like-

103. We can only mention the most important statements here. Others can easily
be located by using a conciliar index (e.g., Kleines Konzilskompendium 696-697). The
Roman Congregation for Rites attempted, in an instruction on the celebration and
veneration of the mystery of the Eucharist (1967), to draw together the essential
magisterial teachings: NR 621-625 (German). Let me emphasize the importance
of the commentaries on the council, supplementary to LThK, which make clear
the context and range of the statements.
186 Sacramental Theology

wise exercise that priesthood by receiving the sacraments, by prayer

and thanksgiving, by the witness of a holy life, and by self-denial and
active charity’’ (LG 10; cf. also 11).
In its theology of the bishop’s office, the council attempted a new
beginning, with an effort to overcome Scholastic concentration on the
priest and to recover the patristic point of view. Representation and
conferral of the sacraments are now predicated primarily of the bishop:
“In the bishops, therefore, for whom priests are assistants, our Lord
Jesus Christ, the supreme High Priest, is present in the midst of those
who believe. For sitting at the right hand of God the Father, He is not
absent from the gathering of His high priests, but above all through
their excellent service He is preaching the Word of God to all nations,
and constantly administering the sacraments of faith to those who be-
lieve’’ (LG 21, first paragraph). The statements on the subject of bishop,
Eucharist, and sacrificial community achieve the level of a Eucharistic
ecclesiology:1%
A bishop, marked with the fullness of the sacrament of orders, is ‘the
steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood,’’ especially in the Eu-
charist, which he offers or causes to be offered, and by which the Church
constantly lives and grows. This Church of Christ is truly present in all
legitimate local congregations of the faithful which, united with their
pastors, are themselves called churches in the New Testament. For in
their own locality these are the new people called by God, in the Holy

104. Ecumenical efforts, especially the dialogue with the Orthodox Churches,
made essential contributions to this text (cf. also UR 15). In its thinking on commu-
nio and collegiality, the council attempted to avoid the disadvantages of the ec-
clesiology of the Eastern Churches, especially the endangering of the unity of the
whole Church by emphasis on autocephaly. A union of all the autocephalic
Churches would not be identical with the universal Church as communio of local
Churches in the Roman Catholic sense. On the consequences of Eastern ecclesiol-
ogy, see (in addition to R. Hotz, Sakramente), P. Plank, Die Eucharistieversammlung
als Kirche (Wiirzburg: 1980), especially 145. On this conciliar teaching: K. Rahner,
‘Uber die Gegenwart Christi in der Diasporagemeinde nach der Lehre des Zweiten
Vatikanischen Konzils,’’ Schriften VIII, 409-425; O. Saier, Communio in der Lehre
des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils (Munich: 1973). We cannot deal here with the prac-
tical reforms that also have theological relevance, e.g., the concession of the “‘chalice
for the laity’’ or the use of concelebration to clarify the collegiality of the presbytery.
On concelebration, in addition to the trailblazing work of K. Rahner and A.
HauBling, Die vielen Messen, compare the new work of E. Mazza, Le odierne preghiere
eucharistiche I, 46-54.
 Eucharist 187

Spirit and in much fullness (cf. 1 Thess 1:5). In them the faithful are
gathered together by the preaching of the gospel of Christ, and the mys-
tery of the Lord’s Supper is celebrated, ‘‘that by the flesh and blood of
the Lord’s body the whole brotherhood may be joined together.’’
In any community existing around an altar, under the sacred ministry
of the bishop, there is manifested a symbol of that charity and ‘‘unity
of the Mystical Body, without which there can be no salvation.’’ In these
communities, though frequently small and poor, or living far from any
other, Christ is present. By virtue of Him the one, holy, catholic and
apostolic Church gathers together. For ‘’the partaking of the Body and
Blood of Christ does nothing other than transform us into that which
we consume.”
Every legitimate celebration of the Eucharist is regulated by the bishop,
to whom is committed the office of offering the worship of Christian re-
ligion to the divine Majesty and of administering it in accordance with
the Lord’s commandments and with the Church’s laws, as further de-
fined by his particular judgment for his diocese (LG 26).

8.4.9 Communion

Communio (koinonia) with Jesus is, according to current understand-

ing, the second high point, the goal and consummation of the Eucharis-
tic celebration. The external form of this communio is eating and drinking
the sacramental gifts, but it is not to be understood simply as a meal,
since even in the New Testament it was already liturgically stylized
and clearly demarcated from ordinary festival meals. Since Jesus is the
real and primary agent in communio also, the event can be so described
in the first instance: Jesus here gives us a share in himself as a con-
crete, living person with his whole life’s destiny, and in the power
of the Holy Spirit he accomplishes that being-in-one-another (he in us
and we in him) that is the most intimate imaginable form of being to-
gether, the greatest possible closeness. This personal sharing occurs,
according to the New Testament, primarily through eating his body.
We must give careful attention to the manner of his presence and that
of the glorified body that exists now in the divine dimension (see 8.4.5
above). It is a real, pneumatic presence, in which Jesus is ‘‘otherwise’’
also present to his own, but that is sacramentally mediated in the com-
munio. Christian faith excludes any kind of corporal-material under-
standing from the start, but it has clung unshakeably to the fact of a
188 Sacramental Theology

sacramental mediation that is perceptible to human senses, in opposi-

tion to all interpretations that are inimical to the body or the senses.
The communio as internal process of union occurs in that part of the
relationship between God and the human person in which human be-
ings have no further mediating function and are not ‘‘in charge.” It
is obvious that it can only happen where people are prepared for it,
in faith, hope, and love, but this disposition is, in the last analysis,
only made possible and supported by God’s grace. Thus also the de-
cision whether the faith that, from the human side, must be present
to support the union of human persons with Jesus in communio is not
the province of human agents. Theologically, we can only say that
where, through the grace of God, the preconditions for this communio
exist, where the Spirit of God brings them to fulfillment, there the gra-
cious effects of this communio, as given in revelation and the tradition
of faith, are perceived to be present. The effect of this sacramental com-
munion that is already mentioned in 1 Corinthians 10:17 and from that
point on was always most strongly emphasized in our tradition con-
sists in a union with Jesus Christ that creates community with those
who are communicating in faith and love, and thus constantly nour-
ishes the body of Christ which is the Church. The next effect of this
sacrament of the Eucharist in those who receive it, according to the
Church’s traditional teaching, is the increase of grace. This can easily
be misunderstood in a quantitative sense. A theology of grace puri-
fied of such notions, one that understands ‘’grace’’ to be God’s own
self, self-communicated in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit, will
perceive this ‘‘increase’’ as the opportunity given by God to achieve
an ever more intensive experience of God’s real presence within the
human person. There are emotional dimensions to this intensifica-
tion—the Council of Florence spoke of ‘‘rejoicing’’—as well as ethical
results—the Council of Trent spoke of a “‘return gift’’ in exchange for
sin—but without doubt it includes also the dissolution of any purely
individualistic point of view. ‘‘Increase’’ of grace always means an ever
more intensive union with Jesus: in seeking to do the will of God in
this world, in the practical unity of love of God and humanity, in fol-
lowing Jesus by beginning to bring about the reign of God, in the serv-
ice of peace and reconciliation, in standing up against injustice, in
attention to the weak, the ostracized, and the strangers. Finally, in con-
nection with the promise of life in John 6 it is said to be an effect of
this communion that it is a pledge of our future glory and eternal hap-
 Eucharist 189

piness. Those who receive Jesus are taken into that dimension of God
in which the works of God and those who are perfected in God exist
in a pure, enduring presence, and into which believers hope someday
to be accepted and to abide. Since people often find themselves op-
pressed and threatened, in a life filled with flaws and contradictions,
these mystical and grace-filled effects of the Eucharist cannot endure.
That is why the sacrament of the Eucharist, as a memorial celebration
that represents and makes present, and as communio, must be fre-
quently and continually repeated.
If we now consider this Church teaching about the grace-giving ef-
fects of Eucharistic communio in terms of the theology of grace and pneu-
matology, we find that these effects can also be given by God apart
from the sacrament (something that, among human beings, can never
mean in a purely spiritual manner)—with the exception of the ‘‘eccle-
sial’’ effect, the visible building up and holding together of the body
of Christ that is the Church by the common eating of the one bread.
We thus return to a basic insight of general sacramental theology, that
is, that the sacraments may not be understood as exclusive (or
‘‘monopolistic’’) means to the grace of God. Here we are also in ac-
cord with Augustine’s concept of the Eucharist, according to which
this sacrament exists precisely because of the ecclesial body of Christ,
and not because otherwise it would not be possible for Jesus Christ
to be present in his glorified body.
The conception of Eucharist presented here is confirmed by the
Church’s teaching about ‘spiritual communion.”’ This could be taken
to refer to a form of Eucharistic piety that has existed since the four-
teenth century and was popularized especially by French and Span-
ish mysticism.?% That is not what I am referring to here. What I mean,
instead, is the Church teaching that was developed especially by
Thomas Aquinas and adopted by the Council of Trent (Latin only: DS
1648).1° According to this teaching it is possible to acquire the “‘fruits’’
or res of the sacrament of Eucharist even without receiving it. This com-
munion is called “‘spiritual’’ only in distinction to the communion that
is both ‘‘spiritual’’ and ‘‘sacramental.’’!° It is that union with Jesus
105. Cf. H. R. Schlette, Kommunikation und Sakrament. Theologische Deutung der
geistlichen Kommunion (Freiburg: 1959)—an unsurpassed treatment.
106. Cf. Thomas Aquinas, S. th. III q. 73 a. 3; q. 80 a. 1 ad 3.
107. This ‘‘spiritual’’ is completely real, and therefore different from the ‘‘only
spiritual’’ mentioned by the Council of Trent in contrast to ‘‘real’’ (NR 584/DS 1658).
190 Sacramental Theology

in faith and love that ‘‘normally’’ (as a disposition created by grace)

precedes sacramental communion for those who live in the Church,
and at the same time is the sacrament’s supreme fruit. This union is
‘‘spiritual’’ in the same sense as the divine Pneuma, who effects it,
is ‘‘spirit’’: something absolutely real that may not be confused with
pure human intention or communion in thought. According to the
Church’s teaching, it cannot exist without a sincere longing for
sacramental communion, if such is possible. In Catholic circles this is
the only official teaching that can be offered in response to situations
in which the sacrament cannot exist:

—in priestless parishes (in which, according to Catholic teach-

ing, the community cannot empower the “‘non-ordained”’ to
preside);
—for those who are prevented from attending Eucharistic
celebrations;
—for those married in the Church who have been civilly divorced
and remarried (who are not excommunicated, but are excluded
from receiving the sacraments);
—the Protestant Lord’s Supper (which, according to Catholic
teaching, lacks the original and complete reality of the Eucharis-
tic sacrament, primarily because of the absence of the sacrament
of orders, though it is certainly not an ineffective sign).

For people in such situations, the Catholic Church teaches that

‘when, deeply moved by desire for the sacrament, and united in prayer
with the whole Church, they call on the Lord and lift their hearts to
him, they commune, through the power of the Holy Spirit, with the
Church which is the living body of Christ, and with the Lord himself.
United with the Church by their desire for the sacrament, they are,
even though externally separated from it, internally and really united
with the Church, and thus receive the fruits of the sacrament.’’°° Thus,
according to this teaching, it is possible to receive all the effects of the
sacrament, even the specifically ecclesial effect, ‘“extra-sacramentally.’’

108. Document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘‘On some Ques-
tions regarding the Service of the Eucharist,’’ 6 August 1983, AAS 49 (Bonn: 1983)
Ill 4, p. 10.
 Eucharist 191

8.5 The Renewal of Eucharistic Theology

The most urgent efforts in Eucharistic theology are directed toward

achieving a unified view by which the divisions in this teaching can
be reversed. This is connected with the hope that the separated
Churches might be able to agree on some such fundamental concep-
tion. Two theologians will be highlighted in our overview of these
efforts.
Among Protestants, Max Thurian has emphasized the central cate-
gory of memorial (memoria) and attempted to interpret the ideas of sac-
rifice and of presence within that category. He pointed to the
connection with Jewish liturgy, which Jesus incorporated in the Eu-
charist without destroying its ritual. Thus the Eucharist should be un-
derstood as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in memory of all
God’s mighty deeds; in the course of this event there occurs, through
the action of the Holy Spirit, the sacramental presence of the unique
and single sacrifice of Jesus Christ and thus the person of Jesus Christ
himself. The Church’s task is, in this view, to place this sacrifice of
the Son liturgically before the Father, in order that he may remember
his people and give the blessing won by the Son through this sacri-
fice. Thus the Church unites itself, as a participant, with the Son’s
prayer for all humanity, praying that the Father grant them salvation
so that his kingdom may come. The three elements belonging to the
ancient fundamental form of the Eucharist are to be found here:
anamnesis and epiclesis, with the ‘‘somatic’’ real presence embedded
in them; the ‘‘katabatic’’ or ‘‘descending’’ movement of the blessing
implored of God; and the ‘‘anabatic’’ or ‘‘ascending’’ movement of
the sacrifice of praise. Max Thurian’s ideas were very influential in re-
cent ecumenical discussions of the Eucharist, and in the preparation
of the ‘“Lima document.’’ From a Catholic perspective, there remain
some questions about the expiatory character of the sacrifice. (Could
it not be understood as God’s deed of reconciliation?) Catholics are
also concerned about the sacramentality of the ordination of priests
in Thurian’s system.?°

109. On M. Thurian see, for example, L. Lies’ article in Zeitschrift fiir katholische
Theologie 100 (1978) 79-82; S. N. Bosshard in Zeitschrift fiir katholische Theologie 108
(1986) 159-161; M. Thurian, ‘“Das Eucharistische Gedachtnis: Lob- und Bittopfer,”’
in M. Thurian, ed., Okumenische Perspektiven von Taufe, Eucharistie und Amt (Pader-
born and Frankfurt: 1983) 110-123. Cf. the Lima documents, especially the one
192 Sacramental Theology

Among Catholics, Johannes Betz has made an effort to bring the

manifold results of biblical research, liturgical theology, patristics, and
the ecumenical discussions of the present century within a unified, cur-
rent system. The most important impulses came from the renewal of
the theology of the word of God, whose proclamation brings about
the presence of what is proclaimed, and from the intuitions of Odo
Casel. In spite of the weaknesses revealed in the discussion of histori-
cal conclusions and theological arguments,1!° it seemed to many, in-
cluding Betz, that it is correct to understand the Eucharist as a
real-symbolic representation (making present) of the saving act of God
that happened once for all in Jesus Christ. Betz attempted to formu-
late this basic insight of Casel with theological precision, in order to
show how both the sacrifice and the real, personal presence of Jesus
are ‘‘contained’”’ in the whole event. To achieve this, he distinguished
three manners of presence, all contained within one another, each of
them constituting a real and pneumatic presence: (1) The personal,
pneumatic presence in effect of the exalted Christ Jesus, who acts in
the Eucharistic. sacrament as the principal agent (principalis agens)
through his Spirit, and making use of the priest as his (secondary)
agent. This presence of the Risen One, with its immediate effects with-
out which neither prayer, nor memorial, nor liturgy of any kind would
be possible, Betz calls ‘principal actual presence.’’ (2) The celebrating
community, thanks to the One who acts among them, enters into the
memorial of the work of redemption, which becomes really present
through Jesus Christ, not through subjective memory; the community
ratifies the completed sacrifice of Jesus, which was accomplished with-
out its contribution, acknowledges it as a sacrifice done for the benefit
of the community and in its place, and in the symbol of the meal makes
it its own and renders it fruitful. This Betz calls the ‘‘anamnetic memo-
on Eucharist, 3-4 (sacrifice of praise), 5-7 (memorial, anamnesis), 8 (thanksgiving
and petition), 13 (real presence), 14 (epiclesis of the Holy Spirit), and on office,
14 (the ordained ministry and the Eucharist). On Catholic critiques of Lima, see
M. Seybold and A. GlaBer, Das ‘‘Lima-Papier’’ ; L. Lies, ‘“‘Okumenische Erwagun-
gen zu Abendmahl, Priesterweihe und Me8opfer,’’ Zeitschrift fiir katholische The-
ologie 104 (1982) 385-410. For Protestant critiques of newer concepts of the Lord’s
supper, see E. Volk, ‘Mahl des Herrn oder Mahl der Kirche?’’ Kerygma und Dogma
31 (1985) 33-64 (Lutheran reservations about Calvinist and Orthodox influences).
On ecumenical discussion, see further G. Hintzen, ‘Das reformatorische Abend-
mahl aus katholischer Sicht,’’ Catholica 40 (1986) 203-288 (with bibliography).
110. See the standard work of A. Schilson, Theologie als Sakramententheologie.
 Eucharist 193

rial actual presence.’’ (3) In this actual presence of the sacrificial act
of Jesus, God, in making present the whole act of sacrifice, makes Jesus
present as a corporeal person; in the change wrought by the consecra-
tion he becomes present in such a way that the deepest personal en-
counter with him is made possible. This Betz calls the ‘‘somatic,
personal real presence.’’1
Thus in the celebration of the Eucharist the presence of the Risen
One in his Holy Spirit causes the presence of his saving act, and with
it the corporeal presence of his person, surrendered to death and glori-
fied, for the purpose of achieving the greatest possible community:
the person is made present in the making present of the events. In
more recent developments in Eucharistic theology since Betz, pneuma-
tology is even more strongly emphasized. This brings unmistakably
to expression something that Betz always tried to stress: that the Eu-
charistic celebration does not arise out of human initiative, is not a
human achievement or autonomous action, and adds nothing of value
to Jesus’ saving action. A grounding of Eucharist in pneumatology can
also remove the misunderstanding that in this sacrament human beings
have God at their disposal and can move Jesus to come to them. It
also gives assurance for faith in the real presence of Jesus in the Holy
Spirit. That presence is not brought about by subjective consciousness
and memory, nor by the prayer for the Spirit’s coming, since wher-
ever there is prayer, and wherever God’s mighty deeds are praised,
God is already present.
In the sacrament of the Eucharist, everything that Christian faith
means by “‘salvation’’ is sacramentally present and united.” In this
sacrament, the assembled community brings its praise and thanksgiv-
ing before God the Father for everything that comes from him: crea-
tion and salvation history. In this sacrament, the community is changed
into the body of Jesus Christ, the Crucified and Risen One, and thus
becomes a place of reconciliation, confession of faith, and festal joy,
as well as a place of lament over unfinished salvation, of suffering with
those who suffer. In this sacrament individual believers are given the

111. See the summary in Sacramentum Mundi I, 1226-1232. Betz met with wide-
spread acceptance, from A. Gerken, Theologie der Eucharistie (1973) to W. Kasper,
“Einheit und Vielfalt der Aspekte der Eucharistie,’’ 202-203 (1985).
112. ‘In hoc sacramento comprehenditur totum mysterium nostrae salutis,”’
Thomas Aquinas, S. th. III q. 83 a. 4c. On what follows, cf. U. Kithn, Sakramente,
293-297: The meaning of the Lord’s Supper.
194 Sacramental Theology

most intimate closeness with Jesus, so that human persons are assured
in ever new ways of God’s self-communication. In the assembled
people and the gifts that are prepared, the hopes, joys, and problems
of creation, of all the world, are present, imploring God’s blessing,
looking forward to the perfection of redemption, and thus occur thanks-
giving, memorial, and petition: made possible, supported, and made
fruitful by the presence of the Holy Spirit of God.
 Bibliography 6

Eucharist

a) Books
Averbeck, W. Der Opfercharakter des Abendmahls in der neueren evangelischen Theo-
logie. Paderborn: 1966.
Batzing, G. Die Eucharistie als Opfer der Kirche nach Hans Urs von Balthasar. Ein-
siedeln: 1986.
Betz, J. Eucharistie. In der Schrift und Patristik. (Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte
IV/4A.) Freiburg: 1979.
Bistumskommission fiir bkumenische Fragen Miinster, ed. Die Eucharistie im
Gesprich der Konfessionen. Kevelaer: 1986.
Bode, F.-J. Gemeinschaft mit dem lebendigen Gott. Die Lehre von der Eucharistie
bei Matthias Joseph Scheeben. Paderborn: 1986.
Bosshard, S. N. Zwingli—Erasmus—Cajetan. Die Eucharistie als Zeichen der Ein-
heit. Wiesbaden: 1978.
Burki, B. Céne du Seigneur—Eucharistie de l’Eglise. 2 vols. Fribourg: 1985 (reformed
texts).
De Lubac, H. Corpus Mysticum. Eucharistie und Kirche im Mittelalter. Einsiedeln:
1969.
Die Eucharistie als Feier der Gegenwart des Herrn: Concilium 4/12 (1968).
Eucharist. International Bibliography 1975-1984. Strasbourg: 1985.
Feld, H. Das Verstandnis des Abendmahls. Darmstadt: 1976.

195
196 Sacramental Theology

Felmy, K. C. Die Deutung der géttlichen in der russischen Theologie. Berlin: 1984.
Feneberg, R. Christliche Paschafeier und Abendmahl. Munich: 1971.
Gamber, K. Sacrificium Missae. Zum Opferverstiindnis und zur Liturgie der Friih-
kirche. Regensburg: 1980.
. Beracha: Eucharistiegebet und Eucharistiefeier in der Urkirche. Regens-
burg: 1986.
Gemeinsame rém-kath./ev.-luth. Kommission. Das Herrenmahl. Paderborn and
Frankfurt: 1978.
Gerken, A. Theologie der Eucharistie. Munich: 1973.
Gesteira Garcia, M. La Eucharistia, misterio de comunién. Madrid: 1983.
Gesii e la sua morte (Atti della XXVII Settimana Biblica). Brescia: 1984, esp. G.
Ghiberti, ‘‘Gesi e la sua morte secondo i raconti della cena. Alcune in-
terpretazioni del XX secolo,’’ 129-153.
Giraudo, C. La struttura letteraria della preghiera eucaristica, Rome: 1981.
Grétzinger, E. Luther und Zwingli. Die Kritik an der mittelalterlichen Lehre von
der Messe als Wurzel des Abendmahlsstreites. Cologne and Giitersloh: 1980.
Heron, A. I. C. Table and tradition. Toward an ecumenical understanding of the Eu-
charist. Philadelphia: 1983.
Hintzen, G. Die neuere Diskussion tiber die eucharistische Wandlung. Frankfurt
and Berne: 1976.
Holeton, D. R. Les Hussites et la communion des petits enfants. Ressourcement patris-
tique et mouvement de piété populaire (1380-1421). Paris: 1983.
Interkommunion. Hoffnungen—zu bedenken. Fribourg: 1971 (bibliography).
Kann man in jedem Fall die Eucharistie feiern?: Concilium 18/2 (1983).
Klauck, H.-J. Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult. Miinster: 1982.
Léon-Dufour, X. Le partage du pain eucharistique solon le Nouveau Testament. Paris:
1982.
___!|___. Abendmahl und Abschiedsrede im Neuen Testament. Stuttgart: 1983.
Lies, L. Wort und Eucharistie bei Origenes. Innsbruck: 1978.
Maas-Ewerd, T., and K. Richter, eds. Gemeinde im Herrenmahl. Freiburg: 1976.
Macy, G. The Theologies of the Eucharist in the early scholastic Period (ca. 1080-ca.
1220). Oxford: 1984.
Martimort, A. G., ed. L’Eglise en priere. Ed. nouvelle II: R. Cabié. L’Eucharistie,
Tournai-Paris: 1983. English: The Church at Prayer. New ed. II: Robert
Cabié. The Eucharist. Collegeville: 1986.
Mazza, E. Le odierne preghiere eucaristiche. 2 vols. Bologna: 1984.
Meyer, H. B. Luther und die Messe. Paderborn: 1965.
Moll, H. Die Lehre von der Eucharistie als Opfer. Eine dogmengeschichtliche Unter-
suchung vom Neuen Testament bis Irendus von Lyon. Cologne: 1975.
Nélis, J. Histoire de la pratique et de la doctrine eucharistiques de l’Eglise Occiden-
tale. Paris and Brussels: 1984.
Pesch, R. Das Abendmahl und Jesu Todesverstindnis. Freiburg: 1978.
 Bibliography 6 197

Piolanti, A. Il eucaristico. 3d ed. Rome: 1983.

Plank, P. Die Eucharistieversammlung als Kirche. Zur Entstehung und Entfaltung
der eucharistischen Ekklesiologie Nikolaj Afanas’evs (1893-1966). Wiirzburg:
1980.
Pratzner, F. Messe und Kreuzesopfer. Die Krise der sakramentalen Idee bei Luther
und in der mittelalterlichen Scholastik. Vienna: 1970.
Pruisken, J. Interkommunion im ProzeB. Essen: 1974.
Rahner, K., and A. HauBling. Die vielen Messen und das eine Opfer. Freiburg: 1966.
Reumann, J. The Supper of the Lord. Philadelphia: 1984 (New Testament, ecu-
menical dialogue).
Sanchez Caro, J. M. Eucaristia y historia de la Salvacién. Madrid: 1983 (theology
of the Eastern Churches).
Sayes, J. A. Presencia real de Cristo y Transubstanciacién. Burgos: 1974.
Schafer, P. Lebensquelle Eucharistie. Regensburg: 1985.
Schillebeeckx, E. Die eucharistische Gegenwart. Diisseldorf: 1967.
Schneider, T. Deinen Tod verkiinden wir. Gesammelte Studien zum erneuerten Eu-
charistieverstandnis. Diisseldorf: 1980.
Schulte, R. Die Messe als Opfer der Kirche. Die Lehre friihmittelalterlicher Autoren
liber das Opfer. Miinster: 1959.
Verheul, A. La priére eucharistique dans la primitive église. Louvain: 1983.
Walter, E. Eucharistie. Bleibende Wahrheit und heutige Fragen. Freiburg: 1974.
Wiederkehr, D. Das Sakrament der Eucharistie. Fribourg: 1976.
Wohlmuth, J. Realprisenz und Transsubstantiation im Konzil von Trient. 2 vols.
Berne and Frankfurt: 1975.
Zizioulas, J. D. Being in Communion. Crestwood, N.Y.: 1985 (Eucharistic ec-
clesiology).

b) Articles and Essays

Angenendt, A. ‘‘Missa specialis. Zugleich ein Beitrag Entstehung der Privat-
messen.”’ Friihmittelalterliche Studien 17 (1983) 153-221.
Beinert, W. ‘‘Eucharistie als Sakrament der Einheit.’’ Catholica 36 (1982) 234-256.
Betz, J. ‘‘Die Eucharistie als Gottes Milch in friihchristlicher Sicht.’’ Zeitschrift
fiir katholische Theologie 106 (1984) 1-26, 167-185.
Callam, D. ‘The frequency of mass in the Latin Church ca 400.’ Theological
Studies 45 (1984) 613-650.
Congar, Y. ‘‘Lutherana. Théologie de l’Eucharistie et christologie chez Luther.”’
Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 66 (1982) 169-197.
. ‘Doctrine christologique et théologie de l’Eucharistie.’’ Revue des
sciences philosophiques et théologiques 66 (1982) 233-244.
Dekkers, E. ‘’L’Eucharistie, imitation ou anamnése de la Derniére Céne.”’
Recherches de science religieuse 68 (1984) 15-23.
198 Sacramental Theology

Delling, G., and others. ‘“Abendmahl.’’ TRE I (1977) 47-229.

Feuillet, A. ‘“L’Eucharistie, le Sacrifice du Calvaire et le Sacerdoce du Christ.’”’
Divinitas 29 (1985) 103-149 (Synoptics and Hebrews).
Fiedler, P. ‘Probleme der Abendmahlsforschung.”’ Archiv fir Liturgiewissen-
schaft 24 (1982) 190-223.
Frankenmille, H., B. J. Hilberath, and T. Schneider. ‘‘Eucharistie.’’ NHthG
I (1984) 297-317.
Giraudo, C. ‘Le récit de l’institution dans la priére eucharistique a-t-il des précé-
dents?’’ Nouvelle Revue Théologique 106 (1984) 513-526.
Greshake, G. ‘‘Konzelebration der Priester.’’ In E. Klinger and K. Wittstadt,
eds. Glaube im ProzeB. Freiburg: 1984, 258-288 (bibliography).
Hauschild, W.-D. ‘‘Agapen. I: In der alten Kirche.’’ TRE I (1977) 748-753.
Hilberath, B. J., and T. Schneider. ‘’Opfer.’’ NHthG III (1985) 287-298.
Kandler, K.-H. ‘‘Abendmahl und Heiliger Geist.’’ Kerygma und Dogma 28 (1982)
215-227.
Kilmartin, E. J. ‘“The active role of Christ and the Holy Spirit in the sanctifica-
tion of the eucharistic elements.’’ Theological Studies 45 (1984) 225-253.
Klauck, H.-J. ‘‘Eucharistie und Kirchengemeinschaft bei Paulus.’’ Wissenschaft
und Weisheit 49 (1986) 1-14.
Kithn, U. ‘‘“Abendmahl.”’ In Sakramente (see Bibliography 1) 259-304.
Kunz, E. ‘‘Eucharistie. Ursprung von Kommunikation und Gemeinschaft.’’
Theologie und Philosophie 58 (1983) 321-345.
Legrand, H.-M. ‘‘La présidence de l’Eucharistie selon la tradition ancienne.”’
Spiritus 18 (1977) 409-431 (evidence before Nicea).
Lessing, E. ‘‘Kirchengemeinschaft und Abendmahlsgemeinschaft.’’ Wissenschaft
und Praxis in Kirche und Gesellschaft 69 (1980) 450-462.
Lies, L. ‘‘Okumenische Erwagungen zu Abendmahl, Priesterweihe und
MeBopfer.’’ Zeitschrift fiir katholische Theologie 104 (1982) 385-410.
. ‘‘Verbalprasenz—Aktualprasenz.”’ In Praesentia Christi, FS J. Betz.
Dusseldorf: 1984, 790-100.
Madeja, S. ‘’Analisi del concetto di concelebrazione eucaristica nel Concilio
Vaticano II e nella riforma liturgica postconciliare.’’ Ephemerides Liturgi-
cae 96 (1982) 3-56. 1
Mayer, A. “‘Die Eucharistie.’’ HKR 676-691.
Medisch, R. ‘‘Kirchliches Amt und Eucharistie.’’ Theologie der Gegenwart 28
(1985) 182-188 (bibliography).
Nocke, F.-J. ‘‘Wort und Geste’’ (see Bibliography 1) 59-83.
Rahner, K. ‘‘Wort und Eucharistie.’’ In Schriften TV (1960) 313-356.
Ramis, G. ‘’El memorial eucaristico (anaphora).’’ Ephemerides Liturgicae 96 (1982)
189-208.
Roux, J.-M. ‘‘Corporéité et symbole eucharistique.’’ Bulletin de littérature ec-
clésiastique 86 (1985) 101-126; 87 (1986) 29-56.
 Bibliography 6 199

Salado, Martinez, D. ‘’La interrelacién simbdlica Eucaristia-Penitencia en el

Organismo Sacramental.’’ Escritos del Vedat 16 (1986) 179-215.
Sanchez Caro, J. M. ‘’ ‘Probet autem seipsum homo’ (1 Cor XI, 28). Influjo
de la praxis penitencial eclesidstica en la interpretaci6n de un texto
biblico.’’ Salmanticensis 32 (1985) 293-334.
Schulz, H.-J. ‘’ ‘Wandlung’ im ostkirchlich-liturgischen Verstandnis. Eine
Orientierung im Disput um Transsubstantiation und Transsignifikation.”’
Catholica 49 (1986) 270-286 (bibliography, esp. B. J. Hilberath and G.
Hintzen).
Schwager, R. ‘’Der Tod Christi und die Opferkritik.’’ Theologie der Gegenwart
29 (1986) 11-20 (bibliography).
Thunberg, L. ‘“Symbol and Mystery in St. Maximus the Confessor.’’ In F.
Heinzer and C. Schénborn, eds. Maximus Confessor. Fribourg: 1981,
285-308.
Tilliette, X. ‘‘Problémes de philosophie eucharistique.’’ Gregorianum 64 (1983)
273-305.
Triitsch, J. ‘“Taufe, Sakrament der Einheit—Eucharistie, Sakrament der Tren-
nung?’ Theologische Berichte (Ztirich) 9 (1980) 67-95.
Volk., E. ‘‘Evangelische Akzente im Verstandnis der Eucharistie.’’ Kerygma
und Dogma 32 (1986) 188-206.
Wenz, G. “Die Lehre vom Opfer Christi im Herrenmahl als Problem
dkumenischer Theologie.’” Kerygma und Dogma 28 (1982) 7-41.
 9
The Sacrament of Reconciliation

9.1 Preliminary Theological Questions

Certain basics of divine revelation in the Bible and of the Church’s

faith tradition are in the present context taken for granted: that God
has revealed God’s concrete will regarding a divine standard for human
behavior; that people in general—with numerous exceptions—are able
to recognize God’s will (Rom 1:18-3:20); that God has not predestined
any human being to evil, that is, God offers everyone the opportunity
to carry out the divine will; that people in general nonetheless —again
with numerous exceptions—have enough freedom to be able to refuse
to do God’s will. In biblical-ecclesial language, this refusal is called
‘““sin.’’ When the refusal to do God’s will is a free, conscious, and radi-
cal decision, it is called ‘‘serious’”’ or ‘‘grave sin’’ and, if it remains
final and unretracted until death, it would lead to eternal separation
from God. When God’s will is only imperfectly known, or when
human freedom is restricted or the thing refused is not an essential
value willed by God, Christian tradition speaks of ‘’venial sin.’’ In in-
dividual instances, both kinds of sin can take very different forms, rang-
ing from a frontal denial of God, once and for all, to a conglomerate
200
 The Sacrament of Reconciliation 201

of many small, scarcely noticeable refusals; in both kinds, it is always

necessary to decide whether they stem more from the ‘‘center’’ or from
the ‘‘periphery”’ of a human person. They need not always be expressly
directed against God, since there is a close connection between the
relationship of a human person to God and to fellow human beings,
so that essential resistance to God is enacted in the realm of human
society, the very realm in which, both in the Old and New Testaments,
God has made his concrete will known.
The conviction that no one but God can forgive sin is part of the
Jewish and Christian faith tradition. It is true that in both testaments
we read of God’s continually renewed demands for repentance, that
is, that people turn away from their false behavior and turn toward
God in a new life-orientation. But even this repentance is God’s gift
to human beings, since it is from God’s initiative alone that the will,
the ability, and the accomplishment of a new life arises. It is part of
the sacramental structure of their relationship to God (see 1.2 above)
that human beings, in this instance also, depend on a mediation
through the senses, meaning that God must open for them a place
or space for forgiveness. For Christian believers this tangible place of
divine forgiveness and reconciliation is called Jesus Christ. In his soli-
darity with sinners, witnessed by his whole life, in his acceptance of
John’s baptism of repentance, in eating with sinners, in his work of
healing and pardoning, in his self-donation to those who are estranged
from God, even unto death, the unconditional and anticipatory love
of God is made visible in an unsurpassable way. All those who, con-
scious of their guilt, in full confidence seek refuge in Jesus, are already
in the grip of a dynamic initiated and borne by the Holy Spirit of God
that assures them of pardon from ‘‘the Father of mercies and the God
of all consolation’’ (2 Cor 1:3). This is the common faith of all Chris-
tians. But division starts with the question of exactly what is forgiven.
Is sin a corruption common to all humanity that is not really removed
by divine forgiveness, but in view of the cross of Jesus is simply not

1. On theological, psychological, social-psychological, and other insights con-

cerning sin, see the specialized literature. Cf. also H. Vorgrimler, ‘‘Der Kampf des
Christen mit der Siinde,’’ MySal V (1976) 349-448, here especially at 365 n. 34 (bib-
liography) and 375 n. 60 (bibliography); P. Hoffmann and V. Eid, Jesus von Nazareth
und eine christliche Moral 3d ed. (Freiburg: 1979); J. Werbick, Schulderfahrung und
Bufsakrament (Mainz: 1985); J. Blank and J. Werbick, eds., Siihne und Versohnung,
Theologie zur Zeit 1 (Diisseldorf: 1986).
 202 Sacramental Theology

attributed to us, so that after being pardoned a human being is simul-

taneously just and sinful?? Or is sin a concrete attitude growing out
of a false basic decision, both of which are forgiven by God in the sense
that afterward both are really removed, so that after being pardoned
a human being is marked by an evil inclination and certain conse-
quences of sin, but not by the corruption itself?
Christians agree in the belief that when human persons recognize
what is false in their way of life and orient themselves anew toward
God, this is only possible because of the prior grace of God that takes
hold of the human person. This repentance that is granted to a human
being expresses itself concretely in that person’s spiritual life in the
form of contrition, which is at the same time an active will to adopt
a new attitude and to turn decisively away from one’s former life. This
remorse, as reflected in Catholic teaching, is also always a trust in a
forgiving God; thus it cannot be interpreted as self-justification. Ac-
cording to the experience reflected in Catholic teaching, a person who
conscientiously reflects on his or her conversion may have different
motives for contrition, i.e., for condemning his or her sin. In ‘‘per-
fect’’ contrition this motive is a God-given love of the God who deliber-
ately makes a human person his own possession. In ““imperfect’”
contrition the motive is less than love, but still of ethical value; a crass
fear of divine punishment would not be a worthy motive in this sense.
In the Catholic view, repentance is expressed in all the levels or
dimensions of the human person, which have been affected by the false
orientation, and thus may well have an emotional character (‘‘tears
of remorse’). In the same way, and corresponding to the sacramental
structure of the relationship between God and humanity, God’s for-
giveness has a tendency toward a sensibly-evident, perceptible event
that takes place in the framework of human community. Here again
we must realize that relevant rejection of God’s will takes place in the
realm of one’s environment and social milieu, and therefore it is there
that reconciliation with God must find its practical expression. It is also
in this dimension of the palpable and the social that prayer for one
another finds its place. When forgiveness is seen as happening only
in grace-given faith in the gospel, that is, in the internal milieu of an

2. For a more nuanced view, see H. Wulf, ‘‘Simul iustus et peccator,’’

LThK
IX 778-780 (bibliography).
 The Sacrament of Reconciliation 203

encounter between God and an individual human being, the palpable-

social dimension of the divine-human relationship slips from view.

9.2. Forms of Forgiveness

God’s pardoning of guilt may be considered theologically as a

unique gift of God’s creative power, mediated through Jesus in the
Holy Spirit. This gift can be rejected throughout the course of a long
life; it can be made unfruitful; but, within the manifold dimensions
of a human life, it can also revive. Correspondingly, the tradition of
Christian faith recognizes many forms of forgiveness in which the one
divine pardon takes concrete shape.? As human actions they are sup-
ported by the constant petition of the whole Church for the forgive-
ness of sins. From among these many forms, we may emphasize the
following as of primary importance:
1. Reconciliation through hearing the word of God. Because of God’s
own unique initiative, the divine word encounters us as a word of
reconciliation in the form of an offer to everyone who hears, and in
the form of real pardon of those who, in a repentance wrought by grace,
become aware of their need for forgiveness. The encounter with the
forgiving word of God (in preaching, reading, discussion, or the dia-
logue of prayer) is no less effective or certain than the encounter that
takes place, for example, in a sacramental action.
2. Reconciliation through restitution. Reconciliation with the people
we have wronged or injured is a precondition for God’s effective for-
giveness (Matt 5:23-24; 6:12).
3. Reconciliation through productive love. Wherever a person turns
away from fixation on himself or herself and the sterility that results
from that, wherever such a person undertakes a commitment, individu-
ally or socially, on behalf of others, that person’s sins are forgiven in
this God-given practice of love, even if he or she does not think di-
rectly of God and God’s forgiving word.
4. Reconciliation through conversational encounter. The New Testa-
ment admonitions to speak to one another and to listen to one another

3. Cf. H. Vorgrimler in MySal V, 349-448, and the same author’s article in NHthG
I (1984) 154-157.
204 Sacramental Theology

make it clear that conversation, critique, and self-criticism can be of

decisive importance in the reception of the effective word of for-
giveness.
5. Reconciliation through dying with Jesus. Concrete practices of
penance can often arise out of mistaken or sick ideas. If notions of earn-
ing forgiveness and masochistic ideas of reparation are avoided, ascetic
forms of life, the acceptance of situations that have no human solu-
tion (loneliness, old age) and the endurance of meaningless but un-
avoidable suffering can be understood as the death of the self and its
guilt, a dying with Jesus and an occasion of the forgiveness won for
us by Jesus.

6. Reconciliation through the Church. From the beginning, the

Church recognized itself as a community of those called by God to be
a place of reconciliation and peace in the midst of a godless world. Since
there were early signs of a discrepancy between the task of being God’s
sinless possession, and therefore ‘‘holy,’’ and the reality, which was
marked by manifold faults and failings, the Church sought for what
was “‘objectively’’ holy, something that could not be damaged by
human sin, and found it primarily in the realm of the sacraments. In
more recent times the ideas of Jesus as the primary sacrament and the
Church as the fundamental sacrament have been seamlessly integrated
into this scheme. The sacraments, as expressions of the Church’s life,
are symbolic actions perceptible to the senses in which the gift of di-
vine forgiveness is also effective. From the early days of the Church,
this was predicated in a special way of certain sacraments:
(a) According to common Christian teaching, the primary sacrament
for the forgiveness of sins is baptism. Its uniqueness corresponds to
the uniqueness of radical conversion effected by the grace of God,
which is ‘‘embodied”’ in this sacrament, placed within the context of
Church, and thus comes to a socially perceptible and fruitful conclu-
sion. In the Church’s tradition, baptism was regarded as the “lighter’’
penance in comparison with the arduous penances endured after later
misdeeds or in the wake of a baptized person’s fall from faith and sub-
sequent repentance.
(b) Among the sacraments of reconciliation for those who are bap-
tized, the Eucharist has first place. Its fundamental ideas—the recollec-
tion of the life and death of Jesus in union with the forgiveness
expressed in his preaching, the joyful anticipation of reconciled life in
 The Sacrament of Reconciliation 205

the reign of God and the realization of the body of Jesus Christ in a
human community—include the reconciliation of all participants with
one another and with God. Of course, even before Paul’s demand (1
Cor 11:28-29) for a ‘“worthy’’ reception of the Eucharist, the Eucharist
was regarded more as a feast of those who were already reconciled
and not so much as a way and means to reconciliation. This Pauline
idea was adopted in the Church’s discipline: there is an obligation to
confess serious sins before receiving communion (NR 587/DS 1661).
There is a tension between this discipline and the Church’s teaching
that the Eucharist bestows gifts of repentance and removes even the
most serious sins (NR 599/DS 1743).
(c) The sacrament of reconciliation, to which this chapter is devoted,
stands in the foreground of the Church’s teaching and practice on sacra-
ments that forgive sins.‘ In this sacrament, the repentant sinner returns
to ‘‘peace with the Church’’; the real symbol of the sacrament makes
effectively present the truth that God is judge of sins and sinners, that
in the death of Jesus sin has been destroyed, and that before the tri-
bunal of grace the sinner is freed from all guilt.
(d) In the sacrament of anointing of the sick the symbolic action
unites the petition of the Church community that the sick person be
strengthened in face of serious illness with a petition that his or her
sins may be forgiven.

9.3 Biblical Foundations

The New Testament, like the Old, witnesses that the community
of faith stands under the sign of the forgiving love of God; that this
indicative is at the same time an imperative to preserve what has been
bestowed; but that the community of believers constantly falls short
of this demand and is threatened by failure. This failure takes such
a serious form in the case of many members that the Christian identity
of the community is concretely endangered. In such cases a process
is begun which has as its purpose the preservation of the community
from evil by distancing it from the sinner: the means to that end is
a declaration to the sinful person that he or she has distanced himself
or herself from the community by an attitude that reveals a lack of judg-

4. See the brief summary of the reasons for the present critical situation of the
sacrament of reconciliation in ibid.
 206 Sacramental Theology

ment. A truly theological understanding of the Church will regard such

a procedure as having a deeper effect than some merely legalistic ‘‘ec-
clesiastical punishment.’’ In the Pauline letters we encounter a process
carried out in stages: first there are warnings and reprimands; in ‘‘or-
dinary”’ cases the exclusion is not regarded as final; there is evidence
that the separation is removed when the sinners repent. This practice
of exclusion was consciously modeled on Jewish practice: 1 Corinthians
5:9ff. bases it on Deuteronomy 19:5. In extraordinary cases the vocabu-
lary (exclusion with a curse) reveals that the community or its leaders
had no hope for the repentance of the sinner.> This resignation ap-
plies only to human judgment; according to the New Testament there
are no unforgiveable sins. Even for those guilty of ‘‘serious’’ sin God
remains the Father who will deny love to no one and has already ex-
tended joyful forgiveness to the one who repents (Luke 15:1-32).
The later sacrament of reconciliation developed against this back-
ground. Since the beginning of the third century (penitential conflicts
in North Africa) we find, as classical texts for the ‘‘institution’’ of the
sacrament of reconciliation by Jesus, the ‘binding and loosing’’ in
Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, as well as the ‘‘forgiving and retaining”’ of
sins in John 20:23. A closer examination of ‘binding and loosing’ in
its ancient context indicates the following meanings: rabbinic parallels
to “binding and loosing’’ comprehend the power of the rabbis to
declare something forbidden or permissible, and their power to ban
sinners or to remove the ban from them. Applied to the Church, that
indicates the distancing of the Christian community from sinners and
the reincorporation of those who repent. According to Matthew, this
process is also effective ‘‘in heaven,’’ with God. The expression had
a ‘“demonological’’ background in antiquity: ‘‘loosing’’ indicated the
liberation of a human being from the influence of evil; ‘“binding”’ is
the consigning of a person to the evil power, since that person, through
obduracy, has already surrendered to evil. Exegetes doubt that the say-
ings about ‘‘binding and loosing’’ in Matthew 16 and 18 are genuine
words of Jesus. What Jesus himself expected of his disciples is clear
in Matthew 18: the community rule in 18:15-18, which already reveals
5. This is particularly the case when the person has fallen away from faith or
into “sins against the Holy Spirit’’; cf. H. Vorgrimler, BuBe und Krankensalbung
(Freiburg: 1978) 21ff.
6. For exegetical literature to 1978, see H. Vorgrimler, ibid., 12-19; also A. Vogtle,
Offenbarungsgeschehen.
 The Sacrament of Reconciliation 207

a considerable degree of institutionalization, is placed in a broader con-

text which strongly emphasizes God’s forgiveness of sin and at the
same time impresses on the disciples their obligation to forgive with-
out limit (cf. Matt 18:23-34). The ‘‘forgiving and retaining”’ in John 20:23
is regarded by recent New Testament exegesis as a variant tradition
of the “binding and loosing” in Matthew 18. Here again, those ad-
dressed are not officials of the Church, but the disciples of the Risen
One. Human ‘‘forgiving’’ of sins is impossible apart from the Holy
Spirit of God who is given by Jesus (John 20:22).

9.4 The History of the Sacrament of Reconciliation

In the complicated history of this sacrament, which we cannot begin

to detail here,” we may distinguish two watershed decisions: the in-
troduction of private, repeatable, individual confession, and the teach-
ing on the effects of priestly absolution.
Around the end of the first century, and throughout the second,
we find evidence of the Church’s penitential practice (Clement of
Rome, Shepherd of Hermas). There are no theological reflections on this
practice in the early period. In connection with the tendency to reserve
not only the teaching function but also the essential liturgical actions
to the Church’s official ministers, we find at the beginning of the third
century (according to the evidence of Hippolytus, d. 236) that the power
to forgive sins is reserved to the bishops. But as long as the ancient
Church’s penitential practice was preserved, the active participation
of the whole community assembled for liturgy also continued. The ec-
clesiology of the several authors reveals that the process was not re-
garded as a purely legalistic ‘‘Church punishment’’: exclusion from
the Church’s life meant damnation for a human person, and peace with
the Church was relevant for that person’s salvation before God. Up
to the year 589 (Third Synod of Toledo) the Latin Church witnesses
indicate that penance was possible only once after baptism. From the
third century onward, however, in conflicts with rigorous ideas of pen-
ance (Montanism, Novatianism), a milder view of penance gradually
prevailed. In this view, all serious sins, including the capital sins of
7. See H. Vorgrimler, ibid., based on the extensive works of B. Poschmann and
K. Rahner. For some theologians the investigation of the history of penitential prac-
tice and the development of the sacrament of reconciliation has been the key to
understanding the history of dogma.
208 Sacramental Theology

apostasy, murder, and adultery, could be forgiven; but all sins, even
‘‘secret’’ ones, must be removed through public ecclesial penance. Be-
ginning in the fourth century, penitential practice received greater and
greater liturgical development and was provided with regulations for
individual cases (which is the reason why the ancient Church’s peniten-
tial practice is called ‘‘canonical penance’’). It always began with the
establishing of an official separation from the sinner (‘‘penance by ex-
communication’’). The Church’s practice was not regarded as a theo-
logical problem, since it was anchored in Christology or pneumatology:
Jesus Christ forgives sins through the Church, with which he is united,
the totus Christus in which he alone is the controlling head; the Spirit
of God penetrates and rules the Church in such a way that the Church
united with the Spirit can be described by the one symbolic word
columba, dove. Thus it was regarded as a matter of course that in the
reconciliation of penitent sinners with the Church, which had been
seriously wounded by their sin, peace was also created between sin-
ners and God. In the Latin Church it was the rule that, after the offi-
cial reconciliation during Holy Week, penitents were subjected for the
rest of their lives to gruesome consequences as proof of their genuine
repentance (lifelong prohibition of the marriage act, exclusion from cer-
tain occupations, etc.). The consequence was that penitential practice,
which could only be undergone once, was delayed until late in life or
to one’s deathbed. Such a postponement was even prescribed by syn-
odal regulations.’ In the Eastern Churches after 391 we can observe
a relaxation of the procedures of this strict public penance. It was in-
creasingly replaced by individual confession to a spiritual guide (often
a monk, who need not necessarily be a priest or bishop, if he enjoyed
great respect as a spiritual person: ‘‘monk’s confession’’). Then as now,
the Eastern Churches attributed the power to forgive sins to liturgical
elements apart from the sacrament of reconciliation, e. 8 the ascend-
ing smoke of incense.
The first notable change took place in a process witnessed from the
sixth century onward. The Irish and Anglo-Saxon region, in which in-
fluences from the Eastern Church have been demonstrated, consciously
changed their previous practice of public penance. Now a repeated ab-
solution by the priest, not only the bishop, following a confession which

8. See, in addition to the literature in n. 7, the works of A. Angenendt (Bibliog-

raphies 3, 4, 6 and 7).
 The Sacrament of Reconciliation 209

might include less serious sins, was possible on any day of the year.
At first the severe penances as assurance of repentance were retained,
but it became possible very soon to commute them: to contributions
of money, repeated prayers, flagellation, etc. This system of commu-
tation necessitated detailed books of penances, and the practice was
consequently dubbed ‘‘tariff penance.’’ This new form of penitential
practice came to the continent with the Irish and Scottish missionaries,
and the penitential books of the eighth century show that it had spread
everywhere.’ Church officials tried vainly to resist this new practice,
but by the year 1000 it had triumphed. On the whole, however, it does
not appear to have made confession a popular practice, since at the
time of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 it was regarded as neces-
sary to establish official rules for a minimum frequency of confession:
every believer who had reached the ‘‘age of decision,’’ that is, the age
when she or he could understand what sin is, must confess all sins
at least once a year (only in Latin, DS 812). The principal motive for
this rigorous rule was probably the desire to ‘‘net’’ as many believers
as possible through pastoral care.
As Augustinian sacramental theology was transmitted to the Church
of the early Middle Ages, ecclesial penitential practice was referred to
as the ‘sacrament of reconciliation’’ or ‘sacrament of confession.’
Since the rise of Scholastic concepts of sacrament and the development
of the idea of seven sacraments in the middle of the twelfth century,
the sacramentum paenitentiae (sacrament of penance) has been counted
among the seven sacraments in the narrower sense. The most serious
discussion was devoted to the question: whether the priest’s absolu-
tion acts as a cause of God’s removal of sin. Until the middle of the
thirteenth century this question was answered in the negative, but then
came the second decisive shift in the understanding of this sacrament.
From William of Auvergne, Hugh of St. Cher, and William of Middle-
ton onward, we find the theory that the effect of the priest’s absolu-
tion is God’s forgiveness of sins. Bonaventure (d. 1274) and Thomas
Aquinas adopted this teaching, and it was subsequently adopted by
the Catholic Church. Thomas Aquinas developed a subtle, logically
consistent theory to maintain the teaching that God alone forgives sins.
According to his idea, the sacrament—the absolution—does not effect

9. On this subject also, see the research of A. Angenendt on pious practices in

the early Middle Ages.
210 Sacramental Theology

the ‘‘pouring forth”’ or production of divine grace; rather, it affects

the internal process in the human person in which he or she opens
himself or herself to God’s grace in such a way that it can really re-
move the guilt that is within.1° But there always remains the possibili-
ty that a person, through a lack of faith or love, may close himself or
herself inwardly against God; thus even in Scholastic theory the sacra-
ment does not work ‘‘automatically’’ or have control over God's grace.
Earlier theological insights into the power of contrition to forgive
sins were combined with this teaching on absolution in this way: true
contrition accomplishes the removal of sins in the same way as does
the sacrament, as just described, since, if it is true repentance, it also
involves an inward longing for the sacrament. If a sinner comes to con-
fession with only “‘imperfect’’ contrition, it is transformed by the power
of the sacrament into ‘’perfect’’ contrition. The Franciscan theologian
John Duns Scotus (d. 1308) simplified this idea in a formula that was
acceptable to the Church: ‘‘imperfect’’ contrition is sufficient, since
sin is forgiven not by contrition but only by the communication of grace
in absolution. According to Thomas, the sacramental sign of the sacra-
ment of reconciliation consists in the ‘‘acts of the penitent,’’ that is,
in what the repentant sinner does, and in the priestly absolution. The
penitent’s actions (contrition, confession, satisfaction) are the ‘‘mat-
ter’’ of the sacrament, and the absolution is its ‘‘form.’’ For Duns
Scotus, the acts of the penitent are only an indispensable precondi-
tion for the sacramental sign; the sacrament consists only in the judi-
cial words of the priest. In the first millennium, petitionary prayers
dominated the liturgy of the sacrament of reconciliation. Afterward,
they shrank to a brief optative formula combined with an indicative
formula of absolution spoken by the priest: ‘‘I absolve you from your
sins.’’ With the shift in the theology of penance in the thirteenth cen-
tury, the indicative formula of absolution was declared to be the only
“‘form’’ of this sacrament. This entailed the loss of any recognition that
the sacrament of reconciliation is a community liturgy, in which the
congregation’s prayer for and with the sinner is essential.

10. H. Vorgrimler, Buje und Krankensalbung, especially 131-138.

 The Sacrament of Reconciliation 211

9.5 Ecclesial Decisions

Questioning of the sacrament of reconciliation began with a critique

of unworthy ministers; justified demands for reforms often ended in
an attempt to challenge the right of a sacrament or an institution to
exist.? In the midst of the confusion created by the conflicts with the
Cathari and the Waldensians, the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215
reaffirmed the possibility of doing penance: ‘If, after receiving bap-
tism, anyone shall have lapsed into sin, he can always be restored
through true penance’ (NR 920/DS 802; see the familiar passage NR
926/DS 855).
The Council of Constance in 1415, against John Wycliffe, extended
its protection to the confession of sins (NR 626/DS 1157), and in 1418
affirmed the Church’s penitential practice and priestly power against
Wycliffe and Jan Hus (NR 627-629/DS 1260, 1261, 1265). In the decree
of 1439, which, in the context of the Council of Florence’s efforts at
reunion of the Churches, attempted to impose Roman Catholic teach-
ing on the separated Armenians, the Council followed Thomas Aquinas
in writing:
The fourth sacrament is penance. Its quasi-matter consists in the actions
of the penitent which are divided into three parts. The first of these is
contrition of the heart, which requires that he be sorry for the sin com-
mitted with the resolve not to sin in the future. The second is oral con-
fession which requires that the sinner confess to his priest in their integrity
all the sins he remembers. The third is satisfaction for the sins according
to the judgment of the priest, which is mainly achieved by prayer, fast-
ing and almsgiving. The form of this sacrament is the words of absolu-
tion spoken by the priest when he says: I absolve you. The minister of
this sacrament is the priest who has authority to absolve, either ordi-
nary or by commission from his superior. The effect of this sacrament
is absolution from sins (NR 630/DS 1323).

The Reformers’ teachings on penance cannot be adequately de-

scribed in a short space.!? Martin Luther’s concentration on the justifi-
cation of sinners by faith alone led him to emphasize the internal
penitential disposition that should mark the whole life of believers,
since God's grace accomplishes nothing for those who do not acknowl-
11. On conflicts concerning penance and Church reactions, see ibid., 154-159.
12. Ibid., 159-166 (bibliography); J. Lell in NHthG I (1984) 165-170; K.-H. zur
Miihlen in EKL I (1986) 602-603.
212 Sacramental Theology

edge their sins. Closely united with this is believers’ mutual forgive-
ness. Luther found that the Church teachings and practices concerning
complete contrition, satisfaction, absolution (and purgatory) conflicted
with the gospel’s teaching on sinners’ being forgiven by God alone;
consequently, he rejected them from the start. In Matthew 16:19 and
18:18 he saw the beginnings of external penance and a word of abso-
lution that furnished sufficient grounds for private confession, which
he favored, but without an effort to confess all sins individually. After
a certain hesitation, however, he denied the dignity of a sacrament
to this procedure, since the New Testament gives no evidence of di-
vine institution of a sacramental sign. He regarded baptism as the sacra-
ment for forgiveness of sins, and he saw all legitimate Christian efforts
to do penance as a return to baptism. Philip Melanchthon shared
Luther’s doubts about the sacramentality of penitential practice, but,
while prescribing only a general confession of sins, he gave this prac-
tice a higher value than Luther did. Individual absolution was very
important to him as a certification of divine forgiveness. The Confessio
Augustana included absolution among the sacraments and spoke in fa-
vor of retaining private confession (though this is only human law).
Although for Melanchthon penance and ‘‘mortification’’ were in-
dispensable, he could not accept the Church’s ideas of contrition and
the distinctions it drew, since he saw here an emphasis on works of
human achievement and not on the effects of the Holy Spirit. Zwingli
and Calvin demanded a public ecclesial penitential discipline, but they
did not recognize the sacrament. Calvin saw baptism as the only sacra-
ment of reconciliation, but permitted private confession as a form of
counseling. Of course, all the Reformers agreed in rejecting an official
priesthood with judicial powers; they attributed to every Christian the
power to absolve, that is, to strengthen others in faith. They regarded
as unjust the practices of the Roman Catholic Church in reserving the
absolution of some sins to higher authority and in conveying jurisdic-
tional authority to give absolution.
After Leo X had already condemned some of Luther’s theses in 1520,
including several relating to penitential practice (NR 631-640/DS
1445-1454), the Council of Trent dealt with the sacrament of reconcilia-
tion for the first time at its sixth session in 1547, in connection with
the teaching on justification:
Chapter 14: Those who Sin after Justification and their Restoration to
Grace. Those who through sin have forfeited the grace of justification
 The Sacrament of Reconciliation 213

they had received, can be justified again when, awakened by God, they
make the effort to regain through the sacrament of penance and by the
merits of Christ the grace they have lost. This manner of justification
is the restoration of the sinner which the holy Fathers aptly called ‘‘the
second plank after the shipwreck of the loss of grace.’’ For Christ Jesus
instituted the sacrament of penance for those who fall into sin after bap-
tism, when He said: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins
of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained”’
(Jn 20:22-23).
Hence it must be taught that the repentance of a Christian after his
fall into sin differs vastly from repentance at the time of baptism. It in-
cludes not only giving up sins and detesting them, or ‘‘a broken and
contrite heart’ (Ps 51:17), but also their sacramental confession or at least
the desire to confess them when a suitable occasion will be found, and
the absolution of a priest; it also includes satisfaction by fasts, almsgiv-
ing, prayer and other pious exercises of the spiritual life, not indeed for
the eternal punishment which, together with the guilt, is remitted by
the reception or the desire of the sacrament, but for the temporal punish-
ment which, as sacred Scripture teaches, is not always entirely remitted,
as is done in baptism, to those who, ungrateful to the grace of God they
have received, have grieved the Holy Spirit (cf. Eph 4:30) and have not
feared to violate the temple of God (cf. 1 Cor 3:17). Of this form of repen-
tance it is written: ‘Remember from what you have fallen, repent and
do the works you did at first’’ (Rev 2:5); and again: ‘“Godly grief produces
a repentance that leads to salvation’’ (2 Cor 7:10); and again: ‘‘Repent’’
(Mt 3:2; 4:17); and: ‘Bear fruit that befits repentance’’ (Mt 3:8) (NR
812-813/DS 1542-1543).

This teaching is echoed in canons 29 and 30:

29. If anyone says that the one who has fallen after baptism cannot rise
again through God’s grace; or that he can indeed recover the justice lost,
but by faith alone without the sacrament of penance, contrary to what
the holy Roman and universal Church, instructed by Christ the Lord
and His apostles, has always professed, observed and taught, anathema
sit.

30. If anyone says that after the grace of justification has been received
the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted
out for any repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment re-
mains to be paid, either in this world or in the other, in purgatory, be-
fore access can be opened to the kingdom of heaven, anathema sit (NR
847-848/DS 1579-1580).
214 Sacramental Theology

The whole context is very important, since here the council empha-
sized the absolute initiative of God’s grace in the justification of sin-
ners, but also stressed the opportunity for human beings to act
positively on the basis of the justification received and to struggle ac-
tively against sin.
At the fourteenth session in 1551, the council adopted a Doctrine
on the Sacrament of Penance in nine chapters (NR 641-659/DS 1667-1693)
and fifteen canons. The teaching defends the existence of the sacra-
ment, instituted ‘’principally’’ in the words of Jesus in John 20:22-23
(chapter 1). It should be recalled that in the language of Scholastic the-
ology the ‘‘institution’’ can be effected by the exalted Lord acting
through the Holy Spirit. The teaching deals with the difference between
baptism and penance (chapter 2). It describes the sacrament’s ‘‘form’’
and ‘‘quasi-matter’’ (the acts of the penitent), and calls ‘‘reconcilia-
tion with God”’ the ‘‘reality (res) and effect’’ of the sacrament (chap-
ter 3). It presents the Catholic view of contrition, distinguishing clearly
between ‘perfect’ and ‘‘imperfect’’ types. Whenever contrition is
genuine, according to the council, it is ‘a gift of God and a prompting
of the Holy Spirit’’ (chapter 4). Emphasizing the judicial authority of
the priests, the council demands the confession of all mortal sins ‘of
which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious’’ (chap-
ter 5). It stresses that only priests—but all priests, including bad ones—
can absolve, and this absolution is not a declaration of a pardon that
has already taken place, but is a genuine remission of sins; this is es-
tablished by the ‘’power of the keys,’’ which in Matthew 18:18 and
John 20:23 is bestowed only on bishops and priests, and not on all the
faithful (chapter 6). Jurisdiction and the reservation of absolution of
particularly serious sins for pedagogical reasons are defended in chapter
7. Chapters 8 and 9 distinguish guilt and punishment and present the
meaning of expiating the punishment due to sin by works of penance.
The canons read: .
1. If anyone says that in the Catholic Church penance is not truly and
properly a sacrament, instituted by Christ our Lord to reconcile the faith-
ful with God Himself as often as they fall into sin after baptism, anathema
sit.
2. If anyone confuses the sacraments and says that baptism itself is
the sacrament of penance, as though these two sacraments were not dis-
tinct, and that, therefore, penance is not correctly called ‘‘the second
plank after shipwreck,’’ anathema sit.
 The Sacrament of Reconciliation 215

3. If anyone says that these words of the Lord Savior: ‘‘Receive the
Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you re-
tain the sins of any, they are retained”’ (Jn 20:22-23), are not to be un-
derstood as referring to the power of forgiving and retaining sins in the
sacrament of penance, as the Catholic Church has always understood
them from the beginning; but if he distorts them, in contradiction with
the institution of this sacrament, to make them refer to the authority of
preaching the Gospel, anathema sit.
4. If anyone denies that for the full and perfect remission of sins three
acts are required of the penitent, constituting as it were the matter of
the sacrament of penance, namely, contrition, confession and satisfac-
tion, which are called the three parts of penance; or says that there are
only two parts of penance, namely the terrors of a conscience stricken
by the realization of sin, and the faith derived from the Gospel or from
absolution, by which one believes that his sins are forgiven him through
Christ, anathema sit.
5. If anyone says that the contrition which is evoked by examination,
consideration and hatred of sins, whereby one recounts his years in the
bitterness of his soul (cf. Is 38:15), reflecting on the grievousness, the
multitude and baseness of his sins, the loss of eternal happiness and
the incurring of eternal damnation, along with the resolve of amend-
ment, is not a true and beneficial sorrow and does not prepare for grace,
but makes a man a hypocrite and a greater sinner; or finally that this
sorrow is forced and not free and voluntary, anathema sit.
6. If anyone denies that sacramental confession was instituted, and
is necessary for salvation, by divine Law; or says that the manner of con-
fessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always
observed from the beginning and still observes, is at variance with the
institution and command of Christ and is a human invention, anathema sit.
7. If anyone says that for the remission of sins in the sacrament of
penance it is not necessary by divine Law to confess each and all mortal
sins which one remembers after a due and diligent examination, also
secret ones, and those against the last two precepts of the decalogue,
as also the circumstances that change the species of a sin; but says that
such a confession is useful only to instruct and console the penitent, and
that in olden times it was observed only in order to impose a canonical
penance; or says that those who endeavor to confess all sins want to
leave nothing to the divine mercy to pardon; or finally that it is not
allowed to confess venial sins, anathema sit.
8. If anyone says that confession of all sins as it is observed in the
Church is impossible and is a human tradition which pious people must
abolish; or that it is not binding on each and all of the faithful of Christ
216 Sacramental Theology

of either sex once a year in accordance with the Constitution of the great
Lateran Council, and that for this reason the faithful of Christ are to be
persuaded not to confess during Lent, anathema sit.
9. If anyone says that the sacramental absolution of the priest is not
a judicial act but a mere ministry of pronouncing and declaring to him
who confesses that his sins are forgiven, provided only he believes him-
self absolved, even if the priest does not absolve seriously but in jest;
or says that the confession of the penitent is not required in order that
the priest be able to absolve him, anathema sit.
10. If anyone says that priests who are in mortal sin do not have the
power of binding and loosing, or that priests are not the only ministers
of absolution, but that to each and all of the faithful it was said: ‘“whatever
you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose
on earth shall be loosed in heaven’’ (Mt 18:18) and ‘‘if you forgive the
sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are re-
tained”’ (Jn 20:23), so that by virtue of these words everyone could ab-
solve from sins, from public ones merely by correction, if the sinner
complies, and from secret ones by voluntary confession, anathema sit.
11. If anyone says that bishops do not have the right to reserve cases
to themselves, except such as pertain to external government, and that
therefore, the reservation of cases does not prevent a priest from truly
absolving from such reserved sins, anathema sit.
12. If anyone says that the whole punishment is always remitted by
God together with the guilt and that the satisfaction of penitents is noth-
ing else but the faith by which they realize that Christ has satisfied for
them, anathema sit.
13. If anyone says, concerning temporal punishments, that no satis-
faction is made to God through the merits of Christ by means of the
punishments inflicted by Him and patiently borne, or of those imposed
by the priest, or finally of those voluntarily undertaken, as fasts, prayers,
almsgiving or other works of piety; and that, therefore, the best penance
is merely a new life, anathema sit.
14. If anyone says that the satisfactions by which penitents atone for
their sins through Jesus Christ are not a worship of God but traditions
of men which obscure the doctrine of grace, the true worship of God
and the benefit of Christ’s death itself, anathema sit.
15. If anyone says that the keys have been given to the Church only
to loose and not also to bind and that, therefore, the priests, when im-
posing penances on those who confess, act contrary to the purpose of
the keys, and to the institution of Christ; and that it is a fiction that,
after the eternal punishment has been removed by virtue of the keys,
there often remains a temporal punishment to be expiated, anathema sit
(NR 660-674/DS 1701-1715).
 The Sacrament of Reconciliation 217

It is a subject for theological discussion to what extent the council

here desired to make binding dogmatic definitions, and to what ex-
tent the threats of excommunication in the canons are only legal
prescriptions that appeared indispensable at the time." This is true
particularly of canons 6, 7, and 8. (The historical statement in canon
6, which was outside the council’s competence, is not at issue.) The
fact that a confession of sins is required by ‘divine law” follows from
the existence of sacramental confession: human beings must ac-
knowledge their sins before God. The demand that they do so by in-
dividual confession to a priest is not equally necessary to the sacrament
of penance. This demand advanced by the Church is not a contradic-
tion to what Jesus Christ revealed and set in motion. But in principle
it is compatible with other forms of confession of sins—an important
insight for ecumenism. Canon 7 should be interpreted on the basis of
this fundamental standpoint in canon 6. Here the Church places spe-
cial emphasis on obedience. If sacramental absolution is described in
Scotist terms as a judicial act (canon 9), this is not meant to compare
the sacrament of penance to a secular judicial process. To describe the
sacrament as making present the gracious judgment of God does not
contradict the Council of Trent.
Trent’s teaching on penance determined both thought and prac-
tice in the Catholic Church well into the twentieth century. Repeated
efforts at restoration of individual confession within Protestantism in-
dicate that ecumenical dialogue on this sacrament is not a hopeless
undertaking.'*
The most fundamental yield of extensive research into the history
of penance was the rediscovery of the ecclesial dimension of peniten-
tial practice. In the language of Scholastic theology the res et sacramen-
tum, the second effect of the sacrament of penance, was recognized
to be the reconciliation of the repentant sinner with the Church, while
the final effect (in the realm of grace) is reconciliation with God. This
opened the possibility of a clearer recognition of the visible sign of this
sacrament and of renewing its presence in the liturgy. The absolute

13. For more detail, see H. Vorgrimler, BuBe und Krankensalbung, 177-182.
14. Ibid., 166-168 (bibliography); in addition, see E. Bezzel, Frei zum Eingestand-
nis. Geschichte und Praxis der evangelischen Einzelbeichte (Stuttgart: 1982).
15. This thesis is explained in more detail in K. Rahner, Schriften VIII, 469; cf.
H. Vorgrimler, BuBe und Krakensalbung, 195-196.
218 Sacramental Theology

priority of divine grace that moves sinners to repentance and recon-

ciliation is not thereby diminished.
The Second Vatican Council‘called for a reform of the sacrament
of penance (SC 72), referring in this context to the Church’s role in
penitential practice (SC 109). The renewed view of the sacrament is
expressed in a theological statement: ‘“Those who approach the sacra-
ment of penance obtain pardon from the mercy of God for offenses
committed against [God]. They are at the same time reconciled with
the Church, which they have wounded by their sins, and which by
charity, example, and prayer seeks their conversion’’ (LG 11). There
is also a special reference to the bishops’ responsibility for penitential
discipline (LG 26; on priests’ role in penance LG 28, PO 5).
The crisis of the sacrament of reconciliation in the Catholic Church
did not begin with Vatican Council II. Resistance to a morality that
has been one-sidedly developed as a morality of guilt and places Chris-
tians constantly under indictment is in harmony with the liberating,
forward-looking message of Jesus. The statements found in the New
Testament and the tradition about sin that leads to eternal death make
it doubtful that such deadly sins occur frequently in the life of an aver-
age Christian. Christians’ value systems and consciousness of guilt
have not changed without reason. Rather, attention has shifted from
the microstructure of individual faults to the macrostructure, in which
we encounter the truly burdensome facts of dehumanization, oppres-
sion, seduction, and exploitation, and the destruction of the human
and natural world. It is not true that divine revelation refers only to
the destructive acts that are produced by (serious) sin in the heart of
the individual sinner; it points instead, in many concrete examples,
to the evil that is done to fellow human beings and is not eliminated
by a merely symbolic reconciliation. The decline of individualistic nar-
rowness does not indicate less willingness to engage in dialogue; rather,
what people are looking for is a genuine situation of exchange of views
and a real ability to engage in dialogue. Many of those who are in
despair or seek counsel have need of persons with therapeutic skills.
On the other hand, despite the urgency of rendering help in desper-
ate situations, we must not forget that the sacrament of penance is part
of the Church’s liturgy.1* A number of social and therapeutic desiderata

16. Is it really too much to ask that canon law recognize the fact that a sacra-
ment is liturgy? In describing the various liturgical forms of the sacrament of pen-
 The Sacrament of Reconciliation 219

were fulfilled by the penitential services that have developed since 1947.
When, in line with the wishes of Vatican Council II, the sacrament of
penance received a renewed form, community services of reconcilia-
tion were given a fixed place in the Church’s penitential practice. At
the same time, an effort was made to preserve Trent’s prescription of
individual confession of serious sins, while doing justice to the request
for ‘general absolution’’ following a general, communal confession
of sins. In the Pastoral Norms of the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith (1972)” and in a new Ordo Paenitentiae from the Congrega-
tion for Divine Worship (1973)"* the Church leadership in Rome in-
sisted that, after a general absolution, penitents must make an
individual sacramental confession of any mortal sins, if there is op-
portunity (cf. CIC 1983, canon 961). If there is substantial doubt whether
a sin was serious or mortal, of course, the obligation of confession does
not exist. The reform of the liturgy expanded the prayer-form of the
sacrament even in the case of individual confession: after a confession
of God’s reconciliation with the world through his Son and the send-
ing of the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins there follows a peti-
tion: ‘Through the Church’s assistance may God grant you pardon
and peace.’’ Only then does the priest extend his hands and pronounce
absolution: ‘‘I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’’

9.6 Summary

The sacrament of reconciliation is the liturgy that, in the form of

petition, confession, and absolution, makes present the gracious judg-
ment of God on repentant sinners. Within the Church it is a sensible
sign of human conversion from a situation of having gone astray, some-
thing that does not simply happen to us, but in which we ourselves

ance, R. Weigand, ‘Das BuBsakrament,’’ HKR 692-707, pursues a thoroughly

restrictive, legalistic trend; see 695-698. This reaches its ultimate at the point when
it is said that a confession by telephone (with telephone absolution) is to be recog-
nized as valid (698-699). Such an action may make therapeutic sense, in reassur-
ing scrupulous people, but it certainly has nothing to do with the Church’s
penitential tradition and liturgy.
17. The text is in AAS 64 (1972) 510-514.
18. R. Kaczynski, Enchiridion Documentorum Instaurationis liturgicae I (1963-1973)
(Turin: 1976) 981-997.
220 Sacramental Theology

actively cooperate. The individual’s desire for sacramental and non-

sacramental penance is a share in the penance of the penitential
Church, supported by the constant memory of the suffering and death
of Jesus and its connection with the sin of humanity. In the sacrament
of reconciliation there is still an element of the ancient Church’s proce-
dure for setting itself apart, but the Church can really distance itself
only from sin, and not from sinners, since their guilt is the guilt of
the Church itself. When the Church accepts the confession of sins and
speaks God’s word of reconciliation, it is not exercising a judicial au-
thority over human actions. The sacrament of reconciliation is the ef-
fective memory of God’s gracious judgment, in which the love of the
Father through the Son and for the Son’s sake, in the Holy Spirit, re-
moves all human guilt.

9.7 Indulgences

The theological background of the Catholic concept of indulgences!”

is the doctrine of ‘‘punishment for sins,’’ or better, the ‘‘ painful con-
sequences of siri.’’ It is rooted in early Christian penitential practice,
in which the Church indicated its conviction that God’s removal of
the guilt of sin from a human life did not automatically cause the con-
sequences of that sin (both the suffering caused by the sin and the sin-
ner’s evil inclinations, etc.) to disappear. These consequences had to
be obliterated gradually and with considerable effort, through peniten-
tial works, while the Church stood by the penitent in solidarity and
prayer.
Historically, indulgences meant the release from works of penance,
which were replaced by the promise of the Church’s prayer and the
imposition of a substitute action. In this sense, it was first in eleventh-
century France that bishops and confessors permitted a substitution
of the work to be done. At the end of the eleventh and in the course
of the twelfth century the popes took up this new practice, giving in-
dulgences to those who took part in or donated money for a crusade.
Even in the twelfth century this custom encountered strong theologi-
cal opposition. Beginning with Hugo of St. Cher (d. 1263), Scholastic

19. For basic information see G. A. Benrath in TRE I (1977) 347-364; H. Vor-
grimler, Bufe und Krankensalbung, 203-214 (with bibliography); R. Henseler, ‘‘Der
AblaB,’’ HKR 707-712.
 The Sacrament of Reconciliation 221

theology developed a teaching on ‘‘the treasury of the Church,’’ the

store of superfluous graces won by Jesus Christ and the saints, from
which the Pope could grant indulgences. Theologians like Albert,
Bonaventure, and Thomas adopted this view and provided it with fur-
ther theological underpinning; Clement VI adopted it in 1343 (NR
677-679/DS 1025-1027). The requirement of confession before gaining
the indulgence gives a glimpse of the remnant of the connection with
ancient penitential practice. But it soon began to be taught that indul-
gences could also be applied to the dead. In the late Middle Ages, in
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, indulgences became a commer-
cial source of funds controlled by popes and bishops, and for the peo-
ple in general it was the occasion of a richly developed set of
superstitions. Sharp theological criticism arose repeatedly.
Popes defended the doctrine of indulgences against John Wycliffe
and Jan Hus (NR 680-681/DS 1266-1267) and against Martin Luther’s
attack on the Church ‘‘treasury’’ and condemnation of indulgences
as a ‘pious fraud’’ (NR 682-687/DS 1647-1652). The Council of Trent,
in an honest effort at reform, warned against abuses and against too
many indulgences, but it defended the doctrine and taught that it was
“most salutary and. . . to be retained’’ (NR 688-689/DS 1835). The
council did not take a position on Leo X’s teaching of 1518 that indul-
gences are the remission of a temporal punishment in the sight of God
for sins whose guilt has already been removed, and that indulgences
are granted by the authority of the Church from its treasury of merits,
for the living through absolution, and for the dead through prayers
of petition (only in Latin, DS 1447-1449).
In light of the research on the origin of indulgences within the his-
tory of dogma, Bernhard Poschmann (d. 1955) and Karl Rahner sought
to correct the legal and jurisdictional perspective on indulgences and
to understand them as a particular type of Church petition on behalf
of a penitent sinner in the working off of the unhappy temporal con-
sequences of his or her sins. This approach was also intended to
eliminate the idea that indulgences are easier actions substituting for
necessary penances. In his reform of indulgences in 1967, Paul VI par-
tially accepted this view of the matter. He dealt with the working off
of the consequences of sin and with Christians’ mutual aid to one
another in overcoming sin. He also referred to the teaching on the
“treasury of the Church,”’ but said that ‘’it is Christ the Redeemer Him-
self in whom the satisfaction and merits of His redemption still exist
222 Sacramental Theology

and retain their efficacy.’’ He preferred not to regard indulgences as

prayers of petition, but rather as an authoritative distribution from the
Church’s treasury (NR 690-692). In this text the Pope also declared
that it belongs to the freedom of the children of God to decide whether
they wish to gain indulgences or not.
Current canon law views indulgences as ‘‘remission before God of
the temporal punishment for sin the guilt of which is already forgiven,
which a properly disposed member of the Christian faithful obtains
under certain and definite conditions with the help of the Church
which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies authorita-
tively the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints’’ (CIC
1983, canon 992). Indulgences can be applied to the dead by way of
suffrage (canon 994); the Apostolic See alone can give to others the
power to grant indulgences (canon 995). The handbook of indulgences
was edited and reissued as Enchiridion indulgentiarum (Rome 1986).
The worldwide crisis regarding indulgences may signal mistrust in
the Church’s claim to have at its disposal the ‘‘redemptive merits’ of
Jesus Christ, which in principle are not within our dimension at all.
This need not mean, however, that interpersonal compassion and
mutual petition have ceased within the Church.
 Bibliography 7

Sacrament of Penance
Amato, A. Il sacramento della penitenza nella teologia greco-ortodossa. Studi storico-
dogmatici (sec. XVI-XX). Saloniki: 1982.
Angenendt, A. ‘‘Missa specialis. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Entstehung der Privat-
messen.’’ In K. Hauck, ed. Friihmittelalterliche Studien 17 (Berlin: 1983)
153-221 (also on penitential manuals).
. ‘‘Theologie und Liturgie der mittelalterlichen Toten-Memoria.”’ In
K. Schmid and J. Wollasch, eds. Memoria (Munich: 1984) 79-199, at
131-156: ‘’Die BuBe im Friih-Mittelalter,’’ and at 164-168 ‘‘SterbebuBe.”’
Baumler, C., and W. Neidhart, eds. ‘‘Seelsorge, Schuld und Vergebung.”’ Theo-
logia Practica 19 (1984) 267-354.
Bernhard, J. ‘‘Le Sacrement de pénitence au Concile de Trente.’’ Revue de droit
canonique 34 (1984) 249-273.
Calvo Espiga, A. ‘’Algunas orientaciones actuales de la teologia de las indul-
gencias.’’ Burgense 21 (1980) 417-450.
Catholicisme X (1985) 1007-1061 (Péché), 1125-1168 (Pénitence).
De Clerck, P. ‘‘Célébrer la pénitence, ou la réconciliation?’’ Revue de théologie
de Louvain 13 (1982) 387-424.
Delumeau, J. Le péché et la peur. La culpabilisation en Occident (XIIIe-XVIle sie-
cles). Paris: 1983.
De Margerie, B. ‘La mission sacerdotale de retenir les péchés en liant les
pécheurs.’’ Recherches de science religieuse 34 (1984) 300-317, with continua-
tion up to Trent.

223
224 Sacramental Theology

De Martel, G. ‘’Les textes pénitentiels du ms Lisbonne 232.”’ Sacris Erudiri 27

(1984) 443-460.
Der sakramentale Dienst der Versohnung. Concilium 8:1 (1971).
Dooley, C. Devotional Confession. An Historical and Theological Study. Louvain:
1982.
Dooley, K. ‘‘From penance to confession.’’ The Celtic Contribution: Bijdragen
43 (1982) 390-411.
Fleming, T. L. The Second Vatican Council's teaching on the sacrament of penance
and the communal nature of the sacrament. Rome: 1981.
Frend, W. H. C. Saints and sinners in the early church. London: 1985 (history
of penance in the first six centuries).
Gaudemet, J., ‘‘Le débat sur la confession dans la Distinction I du de peniten-
tia (Décret de Gratian, c. 33, q. 3).’’ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fiir
Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonist. Abt. 102 (1985) 52-75.
Groupe de la Bussiére. Pratiques de la Confession. Des Péres du désert a Vatican
II, Quinze études d'histoire. Paris: 1983.
Guilluy, P. ‘’Pardon et péché dans la nouvelle alliance.’ Initiation a la pratique
de la théologie IV. 2d ed. Paris: 1984, 268-294.
Hagele, G. Das Paenitentiale Vallicellianum I. Ein oberitalienischer Zweig der friih-
mittelalterlichen BuBbiicher. Sigmaringen: 1984.
Hallonsten, G. Satisfactio bei Tertullian. Malm6: 1984, 120-151.
Henseler, R. ‘Der AblaB.’” HKR 707-712.
Jorissen, H. ‘‘Die BuBtheologie der Confessio Augustana.’’ Catholica 35 (1981)
58-59.
Kerff, F. ‘‘Das Paenitentiale Pseudo-Gregorii III]. Ein Zeugnis karolingischer
Reformbestrebungen.”’ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fiir Rechtsgeschichte.
Kanonist. Abt. 100 (1983) 46-63.
Lendi, R. Die Wandelbarkeit der BuBe. Frankfurt und Berne: 1983.
Lozano Sebastian, F.-J. La penitencia canénica en la Espana Romano-Visigéda.
Burgos: 1980.
Marliangéas, B. M. ‘‘Bulletin de théologie sacramentaire. Pénitence et récon-
ciliation.’’ Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 66 (1982) 441-461.
Meélia, E. ‘’L’acte ecclésial de la réconciliation dans l’Eglise orthodoxe.’’ Revue
de droit canonique 34 (1984) 336-348.
Merle, R. Le pénitence et la peine. Paris: 1985.
Metzger, M. ‘’La pénitence dans les ‘Constitutions Apostoliques.’ ’’ Revue de
droit canonique 34 (1984) 224-234.
Miuhlsteiger, J. ‘‘Exomologese.”’ Zeitschrift fiir katholische Theologie 103 (1981)
1-32, 129-155, 257-288 (traces the confession of sins through the history
of penance).
Munier, C. ‘’La pastorale pénitentielle de St. Césaire d’ Arles (503-543).’’ Revue
de droit canonique 34 (1984) 235-244.
 Bibliography 7 225

Nocke, F.-J. Wort und Geste (see Bibliography 1) 84-132.

Payer, P. J. ‘The humanism of the penitentials and the continuity of the peni-
tential tradition.’’ Mediaeval Studies 46 (1984) 340-354.
Penance and Reconciliation. International Bibliography 1975-1983. Strasbourg: 1984.
Peters, A. ‘“BuBe, Beichte, Schuldvergebung in evangelischer Theologie und
Praxis.’ Kerygma und Dogma 28 (1982) 42-72.
Platelle, H. ‘’Pratiques penitentielles et mentalités religieuses au Moyen
Age.’’Mélanges de science religieuse 40 (1983) 129-155.
Sancho, J., and others. Reconciliacién y penitencia. Pamplona: 1983.
Schiitzeichel, H. Katholische Calvin-Studien. Trier: 1980, 29-48 (Calvin's attitude
to the sacrament of penance).
Tillard, J.-M. R., and others. ‘’Le sacrement de la reconciliation.’’ Studie Moralia
21 (1983) 3-202.
Vergebung in einer universohnten Welt: Concilium 22:2 (1986).
Vogtle, A. Offenbarungsgeschehen und Wirkungsgeschichte. Freiburg: 1985,
109-140: ‘“Das Problem der Herkunft von ‘Mt 16,17-19’ ”’ (bibliography).
Vorgrimler, H. BuBe und Krankensalbung. Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte
IV/3. Freiburg: 1978 (bibliography).
Vorgrimler, H., and J. Lell. ‘‘BuBe/Vergebung.’’ NHthG I (1984) 150-170 (bib-
liography).
Weigand, R. ‘Das BuBsakrament.’’ HKR 692-707.
Zalba, M. ‘’La doctrina catdlica sobre la integridad de la confesién.’’ Gregorianum
64 (1983) 95-138.
 10

Anointing of the Sick

10.1 Biblical Foundations

The biblical texts on which the practice of anointing the sick has
rested since the early days of the Church, Mark 6:12-13 and James
5:14-15, should be seen in connection with Jesus’ and the early Church
communities’ attitude toward the sick. Both the Old and New Testa-
ments traced sickness, at least in large part, to the destructive effects
of sin, and saw both sickness and sin also as results of the action of
evil forces on human beings. A naive, demythologizing theology pre-
sumed to be able to set aside biblical statements about evil powers and
forces as something that passed away along with the ancient view of
the world. But the recognition that spiritual energies beyond the indi-
vidual level can influence human beings, and that the negative deci-
sions and attitudes that have collected within humanity over time can
“poison’”’ people and make them sick, has revived the older view of
things—of course, with the elimination of the notion that demons are
some sort of ghostly entities. Jesus’ activity was totally directed to dis-
rupting the context of evil and making it possible for new attitudes
and relationships to enter: that new set of attitudes and relationships
is called “‘the reign of God.”’ In the beginning stage of the reign of
226
 Anointing of the Sick 227

God that means an attack on all the elements in human life that alien-
ate people and make them ill, with the promise that in the perfected
reign of God sickness and death will be destroyed. The designation
of the ‘reign of God’’ as the central theme of Jesus’ activity means
also that Jesus was primarily concerned to fulfill the will of God, which
certainly included attention to those in need of help and healing of
human relationships, but which also inescapably required the recog-
nition, praise, and glorification of God as the creator and Father. Jesus
did not focus his activity on healing, as did many great figures in an-
tiquity. His work among the sick was always a practical announcement
of the rule of God, and was often expressly connected with the driv-
ing out of evil and the forgiveness of sins. To put it another way: these
were not medical and therapeutic, but more properly real-symbolic,
charismatic actions.! In them Jesus made it evident to the senses how
the merciful God accepts human beings—both sinners and the sick—
in their need.
According to Mark 6:7-13, Jesus included the Twelve, as his com-
panions and messengers, in his mission in such a way that they also
preached, healed, and exorcised. In doing so, they anointed with oil,
the healing aid generally recognized in the time of Jesus. Of course,
in antiquity bodily contact in itself was an important part of the heal-
ing process. Jesus practiced it in various ways (including the use of
saliva: John 9:6). The tradition gives special notice to his imposition
of hands in healing (Luke 4:40). The attention of the earliest Christian
communities to the sick, not only in a charitable and therapeutic sense,
but also in word and symbolic action, is also very close in time to Jesus
himself. In the instructional work of the late first century circulated
under the name of James, ‘‘the brother of the Lord,”’ the author speaks
of the illness of fellow Christians in connection with the subject of
prayer: ‘‘Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of
the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil
in the name of the Lord. The prayer of faith will save the sick, and
the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will
be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for
1. R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (Freiburg: 1976) I, 127. Cf. also H. Vorgrim-
ler, BuBe und Krankensalbung (Freiburg: 1978) 216-218 (bibliography); W. Kirchsch-
lager, Jesu exorzistisches Wirken aus der Sicht des Lukas (Klosterneuburg: 1981); O.
Betz and others, ‘“Heilung/Heilungen,’’ TRE XIV (1985) 763-774; W. Schrage, ‘Heil
und Heilung im Neuen Testament,’’ Evangelische Theologie 46 (1986) 197-214.
228 Sacramental Theology

one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous
is powerful and effective’ (Jas 5:14-16). The words used for sickness
here seem to refer to a serious illness, but are not restricted to the death
agony. The elders, given the Jewish-Christian tone of the writing,
would be the presiding officers of the community; their primary duty
on behalf of the sick is prayer. Prayers offered in faith are promised
a response consisting of salvation, raising up and (if necessary) the
forgiveness of sins. If anointing with oil is done ‘‘in the name of the
Lord,”’ i.e., by calling on his name which brings salvation, what is be-
ing done is more accurately characterized as a symbolic action than
as a medicinal practice. The hoped-for effect touches the health and
salvation of the human person in a holistic sense, in which one aspect
cannot be elevated above another. Sins, in the meaning of this letter,
are not mere ordinary failings, but those that bring death (cf. Jas 1:15;
5:20). The initiative to healing and forgiving activity lies with God alone;
the text gives no ground for seeing the actions it recommends as mi-
raculous healings.

10.2 The History of Anointing of the Sick

Anointing of the sick was not recorded among liturgical actions in

the first centuries of the Church; we find neither canonical regulations
for its celebration nor theological reflections on it. The oldest texts in
which there is mention of it are prayers for the blessing of the oils with
which sick persons were anointed. These are found from the begin-
ning of the third century onward:? the oil is to receive a new power
in order that it may become a means of healing for soul and body. It
could also be taken as a drink. The first non-liturgical text on anoint-
ing the sick isa letter from Innocent I in the year 416, in which for
the first time the text of the Letter of James is cited in connection with
anointing (NR 693-694/DS 216). The Pope here speaks about the cor-
rect way of handling the consecrated oil; there is no intention of
presenting a comprehensive teaching on anointing of the sick. Accord-
ing to this letter, anointing with blessed oil is permitted for all Chris-
tians in their affliction and that of their families. But the oil can only
be consecrated by the bishop. Bishops have the power to anoint; the
text of James speaks of ‘’presbyters’’ because the bishops, with their
2. H. Vorgrimler, Bue und Krankensalbung, 218-220: the oldest witnesses, with
notes on sources.
 Anointing of the Sick 229
numerous duties, cannot go to all those who are sick. The blessed oil
(chrisma) is one of the sacraments (genus est sacramenti), and therefore
penitents may not be anointed with it because (before reconciliation)
they are prohibited from receiving the sacraments. This part of the letter
was often cited in the Western Church and was included in the most
important collections of ecclesial law. However, the very influential
Decretum Gratiani (first half of the twelfth century) omitted just those
passages that referred to the sick as recipients and to the faithful, i.e.,
the laity, as ministers of the sacrament.
According to sixth-century witnesses, Christians could still anoint
themselves and their families with blessed oil in time of sickness (and
not merely when in danger of death); magicians seem to have offered
a certain degree of competition at the time. The findings up to this time
are confirmed by Bede in the eighth century (d. 735). On the basis of
James 5:16, Bede saw confession and reconciliation as the completion
of anointing.
Beginning in the eighth century, and especially from the ninth cen-
tury onward, the theology and practice of anointing the sick changed.
It became, together with confession and Eucharist, the sacrament of
the dying. The reasons for this were, in the first place, the serious life-
long obligations that had to be accepted as a consequence of being
anointed, comparable to penitential obligations; secondly, anointing
was seen as a part of reconciliation. The order of the three sacraments
was still in flux. Until the thirteenth century, anointing of the sick was
carried out after confession and reconciliation and before the Eucharistic
“viaticum.’’ From that point onward until Vatican II it was universally
given as the last of the three sacraments of the sick. It was reserved
to the priest after the ninth century. The rite was not uniform. In some
places the priest blessed the oil immediately before anointing the sick,
and in other places the bishop blessed a special oil for the sick. Fre-
quently, the five senses of the sick person were anointed, but there
is attestation of more than twenty anointings, each with its own prayer.
Sometimes the anointing was supposed to take place on seven suc-
cessive days, and in some regions, as is still the case in the Byzantine
rite today, and as Thomas Aquinas knew the rite, several priests were
required for anointing. For various reasons, the practice was frighten-
ing, a circumstance that repeatedly put this sacrament in crisis.3

3. Ibid., 221-222, with examples and sources.

230 Sacramental Theology

In Scholastic theology the anointing of the sick, which until the

twelfth century was usually called oleum infirmorum after the conse-
crated oil, received the name extrema unctio, the last anointing, since
it was now the sacramentum exeuntium, the sacrament of the dying.
Anointing of the sick has been counted among the seven sacraments
since that number gained acceptance in the first half of the twelfth cen-
tury. Important high-Scholastic theologians ascribed its institution to
the apostles, while others taught that Jesus Christ had instituted it,
although, like confirmation, it had first been officially proclaimed by
the apostles. The greatest theological problem regarding anointing of
the sick was, for Scholastic theology, how to accurately account for
its effect(s). Increasingly, the holistic view, and with it the aspect of
bodily healing, receded into the background. Finally, the common view
came to be that this sacrament eliminates the (last) obstacles to a per-
son’s entry into heavenly glory and perfects the Church’s efforts for
the salvation of the soul. For some seven hundred years thereafter,
the ‘‘eschatologizing”’ and ‘‘spiritualizing’’ of this sacrament held the
field.

10.3 Ecclesial Decisions

Before the Council of Trent, the anointing of the sick was treated
with extreme brevity in official Church statements. In the thirteenth
century it was mentioned three times among the other sacraments: in
1208 it was still ‘anointing of the sick,’’ in 1254 it was called ‘extreme
unction”’ (only Latin, DS 794, 833, 860). Martin V’s catalogue of ques-
tions for followers of John Wycliffe and Jan Hus, in 1418, contains the
statement that.a Christian commits mortal sin if she or he shows con-
tempt for the reception of the sacraments of confirmation, extreme unc-
tion, and marriage (only Latin, DS 1259). The sacramental doctrine of
the Decree for the Armenians, taken from Thomas Aquinas, states:
The fifth sacrament is extreme unction. Its matter is olive oil blessed by
the bishop. This sacrament may not be given except to a sick person
whose life is feared for. He is to be anointed on these parts: on the eyes
on account of sight, on the ears on account of hearing, on the nostrils
on account of smelling, on the mouth on account of taste and speech,
on the hands on account of touch, on the feet on account of movement,
on the loins on account of the lust seated there. The form of this sacra-
 Anointing of the Sick 231

ment is as follows: through the holy anointing and through his benevo-
lent mercy may the Lord forgive you your sins committed through sight,
etc. Similarly with the other members. The minister of this sacrament
is the priest. The effect is the healing of the mind and, as far as it is good
for the soul, of the body as well. Of this sacrament blessed James the
apostle says: ‘‘Is any among you sick? . . .” (Jas 5:14-15) (NR 695/DS
1324-1325).
While the Eastern Churches separated from Rome generally recog-
nize anointing with oil with prayer as one of the seven sacraments in-
stituted by Jesus Christ (though practice and opinion are quite different
in the various Churches), the Reformers denied the sacramentality of
anointing of the sick. Martin Luther and John Calvin saw the biblical
witnesses as accounts of miraculous healing; the corresponding gift
was not given to the later Church. They vigorously attacked the prac-
tice of anointing the dying. Luther opposed the sacramentality of
anointing the sick with the observation that it was not instituted by
Jesus Christ and had not been promised grace by him. But he included
it among those aids, such as the use of holy water, through which a
believer can achieve peace and forgiveness of sins.
The Council of Trent considered the defense of the sacramentality
of anointing of the sick an urgent duty. In its fourteenth session in
1551 it adopted a Doctrine on the Sacrament of Extreme Unction in three
chapters and four canons. The canons, with their special claim to obli-
gation, read:

1. If anyone says that extreme unction is not truly and properly a sacra-
ment instituted by Christ our Lord (cf. Mt 6:13) and promulgated by the
blessed apostle James (Jas 5:14), but only a rite received from the Fathers
or a human invention, anathema sit.

2. If anyone says that the sacred anointing of the sick neither con-
fers grace, nor remits sins, nor comforts the sick; but that it does no longer
exist as if it consisted only in the grace of healing of olden days, anathema
sit.
3. If anyone says that the rite and usage of extreme unction which
the holy Roman Church observes is contrary to the doctrine of the blessed
apostle James and, therefore, must be changed; and that it can without
sin be held in contempt by Christians, anathema sit.
4. If anyone says that the presbyters of the Church who, as blessed
James exhorts, should be brought to anoint the sick are not priests or-
232 Sacramental Theology

dained by a bishop but the senior members of each community, and that,
for this reason, the proper minister of extreme unction is not only the
priest, anathema sit (NR 700-703/DS 1716-1719).

Canon 1 contains no new dogma, since the sacramentality of anoint-

ing of the sick had already been dogmatically proclaimed in the sev-
enth session of 1547 (NR 506/DS 1601); the biblical attestation is not
part of the intent of the statement. Canon 2 rejects the Reformers’ opin-
ion, mentioned above, that the biblical witnesses refer to a gift of heal-
ing, which is a thing of the past. Canon 3 is consciously formulated
with extreme care as regards historical fact; it indicates the manner in
which the Church has sought and still seeks to reconcile rites of later
origin with the New Testament: what comes later cannot contradict
what is found in the Bible. Canon 4 protects the sacramental order.
According to this canon, the priest is the proper, ordinary minister of
anointing. That does not exclude the possibility that other, ‘“extraor-
dinary’’ ministers of anointing—for example, deacons—could be called.
The ‘‘doctrine’’ lays great stress on the place of extreme unction
at the end of one’s life. The sacrament is said to be ‘alluded to’’ in
Mark 6:13, recommended to the faithful and promulgated by James;
James also establishes the matter, form, minister, and effect of the sacra-
ment. On this point, the council remarks that ‘the anointing very aptly
represents the grace of the Holy Spirit with which the soul of the sick
is invisibly anointed”’ (ch. 1: NR 697/DS 1695). This is further explained
as removal of sins and their lingering effects, strengthening the soul
of the sick person so that she or he may more easily bear the incon-
veniences and trials of illness and resist the temptations of the evil one,
and ‘‘at times . . . when it is expedient for the salvation of the soul’
the restorationof bodily health (ch. 2: NR 698/DS 1696). In this ‘’doc-
trine’’ the bishops are mentioned before the priests as the proper
ministers of anointing; the recipients are sick persons, ‘‘especially’’
those who are near death. This ‘‘especially’’ played an important role
in the reorientation of the sacrament in the twentieth century, since
Trent did not limit it exclusively to the dying (in ch. 3: only Latin, DS
1698). The teaching further states that the sacrament can be received
more than once, in case the sick should recover after being anointed,
and then again fall into a critical condition. On the historical question,
the council’s statements are similar to those in canon 3. It calls con-
tempt for this sacrament a great sin and an offense to the Holy Spirit.
 Anointing of the Sick 233

The Council of Trent thus succeeded in avoiding a one-sided the-

ology. Its primary intent was to defend the sacramental institutionali-
zation of anointing of the sick beyond the mere status of a charism,
to show that Catholic practice was, in fact, not contrary to Scripture,
and to teach the salvific importance of this sacrament for the sick. The
opinion that anointing of the sick primarily represents a spiritual aid
at the end of life was dominant, but the council did not insist dogmat-
ically that this was a ‘sacrament of the dying.’’ In subsequent centu-
ries there were tendencies to expand the ‘‘eschatologizing’’ of this
sacrament so as to make it a ‘‘consecration at death,’’ or a ‘‘consecra-
tion of the resurrection body,’’ but since the middle of the twentieth
century there have also been efforts toward a renewal of ‘anointing
of the sick.’’
These reform efforts‘ affected the Constitution on the Liturgy of the
Second Vatican Council to the extent that the name ‘‘anointing of the
sick’’ was chosen as more fitting, and the moment at which a Chris-
tian begins, because of sickness or the weakness of old age, to be in
danger of death is described (SC 73). The order of the sacraments of
the sick is said to be confession, anointing, and Eucharist (SC 74), and
a revision of the anointings and prayers is proposed (SC 75). The coun-
cil then taught, as a consequence of this new orientation, that ‘‘by the
sacred anointing of the sick and the prayer of her priests, the whole
Church commends those who are ill to the suffering and glorified Lord,
asking that He may lighten their suffering and save them (cf. Jas
5:14-16). She exhorts them, moreover, to contribute to the welfare of
the whole People of God by associating themselves freely with the pas-
sion and death of Christ (cf. Rom 8:17; Col 1:24; 2 Tim 2:11-12; 1 Pet
4:13)’’ (LG 11).
The requested revision brought the following result: the new Order
for the Consecration of Chrism, the Oil of Catechumens, and the Oil of the
Sick of 1970 reserves the blessing of oil to the bishop only as a general
rule; in case of real need it can also be blessed by a priest. In the prayer
of blessing, the effects of anointing are named: it is ‘‘a sacred sign of
thy mercy that drives out sickness, pain and distress, a protection for
body, soul and spirit.’’ The revision of anointing of the sick itself® in

4. For an overview of both movements: ibid., 231-232, with source references.

5. R. Kaczynski, Enchiridion Documentorum Instaurationis liturgicae I (1963-1973)
(Turin: 1976) 905-914.
234 Sacramental Theology

1972, which is expressly stated to be only for the Latin rite (for that
of the Eastern Churches, cf. OE 12, 27) restores to the sacrament its
liturgical form. An introductory rite and service of the Word is followed
by a silent imposition of hands by the ‘minister’; then comes a praise
of the blessed oil (or, if necessary, the blessing of the oil). The simpli-
fied anointing is given on the forehead and hands, with the prayer:
“Through this holy anointing may the Lord in the richness of his mercy
help you; may he stand by you in the power of the Holy Spirit. May
the Lord who frees you from sin save you, and in his grace may he
raise you up.’’ The anointing of the sick is to be given when anyone
is seriously ill (also before an operation, or in the weakness of old age
even when no illness is present). It can be given to a number of people
at the same time, in the church or in another appropriate place. It can
be repeated for a different illness, or if the original condition grows
worse. It is intended not only to strengthen the faith of the sick per-
son, but also to give expression to that faith.
The reform of this sacrament, with the radical changes in the ‘’for-
mula of administration’’ shows how much freedom the Catholic
Church permits ‘itself in the shaping of the sacraments.® It expresses
in a very fortunate manner the fact that the sacrament is a liturgy, and
that the sacramental ‘‘formula’’ is essentially a prayer of petition, an
epiclesis of the Holy Spirit.”

10.4 Summary

The sacramental locus of anointing of the sick is clearly illness, and

not the end of life. But when the Church recognizes sickness as the
place for a sacrament, it is taken seriously as a threat to human life.
Whenever it is serious, it is a sign of our mortality. It confronts the
sick person inescapably with the question of faith in the face of suffer-
6. This recognition was first clearly expressed in the reform of the sacrament
of orders by Pius XII in 1947 (see 11.3.2 below). The reforms connected with Vati-
can II show to what a small extent earlier ideas and regulations must be regarded
as untouchable. Thus it was possible to regard the Decree for the Armenians, which,
as a conciliar statement from 1439 had previously been so influential, as simply
describing the factual state of things at that time.
7. On this, see E. J. Lengeling, ‘’ ‘Per istam sanctam unctionem . . . adiuvet
te Dominus gratia Spiritus Sancti.’ Der Heilige Geist und die Krankensalbung,’’
in G. J. Békes and G. Farnedi, eds., Lex orandi lex credendi (Rome: 1980) 235-294.
 Anointing of the Sick 235

ing, of that person’s relationship with God in a situation in which the

presence of God ‘‘now already’’ should be practiced and clung to, as
something that at some point is intended for the human person for-
ever without interruption— that is, it always poses the question of the
end of life. For fellow Christians, for the Church, it means not only
the duty to abandon false consolations in combating suffering wher-
ever it can be confronted. It also calls for mutual sympathy in human
(i.e., physical) and religious forms. The symbolic action of anointing
the sick can express an endurance of this situation in faith and hope
in God, and at the same time, through physical touch, it can indicate
the human presence that, if it is not only symbolic, effects healing.®
It is the confession of the community and of the sick within it that we
may hope for decisive salvation from God the Father through the Son
in that divine Spirit whose intervention is requested in this symbolic
action. But for those for whom the anointing with oil is alienating, and
to whom it cannot easily be communicated, it is consoling to consider
that the Eucharist is and remains the appropriate sacrament for the
dying.’ This sacrament, like the anointing of the sick, presupposes that
the situation is not concealed, but rather is brought to consciousness
and thus placed in the presence of the loving and merciful God.

8. This aspect has led to a rediscovery of anointing of the sick, for example in
the Anglican communion. Cf. the bibliography in H. Vorgrimler, Bue und Kranken-
salbung, 227, n. 60.
9. On this, see especially R. Kaczynski, ‘“Die Feier der Krankensakramente,”’
Internationale kath. Zeitschrift 12 (1983) 423-436. Kaczynski here also rejects G.
Greshake’s suggestion that the anointing of the sick should be reinterpreted as
a “‘sacrament of renewal of baptism in the face of death.’ Kaczynski correctly points
out (p. 435) that Eucharistic communion already is that sacrament.
 Bibliography 8

Alvarez Gutiérrez, C. G. El sentido teolégico de la Uncién de los enfermos en la

teologta contempordnea (1940-1980). Rome: 1981.
Jorissen, I., and H. B. Meyer. Pastorale Hilfen in Krankheit und Alter. Uber Krank-
heit, Alter und das Sakrament der Krankensalbung. Innsbruck: 1974.
Kaczynski, R. ‘“Die Feier der Krankensalbung.’’ Internationale katholische Zeit-
schrift 12 (1983) 423-436.
Kirchschlager, W. Jesu exorzistisches Wirken aus der Sicht des Lukas. Kloster-
neuburg: 1981.
Lengeling, E. J. ‘’ ‘Per istam sanctam unctionem. . . adiuvet te Dominus gratia
Spiritus Sancti.’ Der Hl. Geist und die Krankensalbung.”’ In G. J. Békes
and G. Farnedi, eds. Lex orandi lex credendi. Rome: 1980, 235-294.
Probst, M., and K. Richter, eds. Heilssorge fiir die Kranken. Freiburg: 1975.
Schiitzeichel, H. Katholische Calvin-Studien. Trier: 1980, 75-98 (Calvin on anoint-
ing of the sick).
Stefanski J. ‘’Von der letzten Olung zur Krankensalbung.”’ In P. Jounel, R.
Kaczynski, and G. Pasqualetti, eds. Liturgia (FS A. Bugnini). Rome: 1982,
429-452.
Vorgrimler, H. Bufse und Krankensalbung. Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte
IV/3. Freiburg: 1978, 215-234 (with bibliography).
Ziegenaus, A. ‘Die Krankensalbung.’’ In H. Luthe (see Bibliography 1)
421-480.

236
 11

The Sacrament of Orders

11.1 Introduction

The sacrament of orders is very closely connected with office, or

more precisely with the offices of service in the Church; it is thus im-
possible to discuss the one apart from the other. It is just this topic
of office in the Church that incorporates the problems that in turn have
influenced the understanding of the sacrament of orders. The most
important of them should be mentioned in this introduction.
Basic to the whole thematic complex is ecclesiology, the theologi-
cal understanding of the Church,! which needs a solid historical basis.
Catholic theology is always in danger of tracing too many details of
the historical existence and constitution of the Church to the Jesus of
history. It is thought that that is the only way to insure divine legiti-
mation: only what was concretely founded by Jesus himself can be con-
sidered to be of divine origin, an institution of divine law (iuris divini).
Now, there can be no doubt that, as regards the existence of the Church
and its essential institutions, we must maintain a connection with Jesus,

1. As soon as it appears, it will be possible to refer for this topic to the ecclesiol-
ogy of M. M. Garijo Guembe.

237
238 Sacramental Theology

but present-day theology is not the first to have tried to think of this
connection in a theologically fuller, “‘broader’’ form. In its decree on
the institution of a sacramental confession of sins by divine law, the
Council of Trent designated the concrete form recognized from the early
days of the Church as corresponding to Christ’s institution and com-
mand, and thus not as a purely human invention (NR 665/DS 1706).
But even in Scholastic theology “‘institution’’ was not necessarily iden-
tical with a historical action; it could also be seen as an impulse com-
ing from the exalted Jesus Christ. This indicates two lines or dimensions
that must be present in the Church and its essential institutions: histori-
cal proximity or correspondence (which is something different from
concrete institution or foundation) and an impulse of the divine Spirit.
It is not difficult to recognize that the Church and its offices, from this
point of view, were not instituted in a purely historical fashion, but
also in a Trinitarian and salvation-historical way. It is sufficient for
historical purposes if a development corresponds to (i.e., conforms
positively and at least does not contradict) the content of the preach-
ing and practice of Jesus.
In determining the historical contexts, it is important to ask how
a particular development could have begun such a short time after
Jesus’ departure, if it could not have had some positive connection with
him. The beginning of the earliest Christian community (at that time
still within Judaism), and thus the beginning of the Church, presumes
a consciousness that it was legitimate to carry on Jesus’ mission, to
continue witnessing to him and his message, to win over other people,
and to live in a new form of human community. In the continuation
of the mission and in the identity of the message we find fundamental
elements of historical continuity, and thus of ‘‘divine law.”’
As a matter of course, different functions and forms of service arose
within the newly-founded community of faith. The connection with
Jesus, who did not wish to separate himself and his companions from
Israel, can be seen in two factors. In the first place, Jesus himself, in
teaching and sending out disciples, apparently made a distinction be-
tween those who believed in him as a group and those who were called
to serve in a special way. It is the task of exegesis to discover the mo-
tives for this distinction. Secondly, the Easter experiences of the resur-
rected Jesus were not given to all in the same way. On the basis of
these distinctions, a core group consisting of eyewitnesses and direct
 The Sacrament of Orders 239

hearers of Jesus’ word crystallized; they could and should witness to

the identity of the historical Jesus with the Risen One.
On the basis of these factors of mission and witness, the Church
has understood itself and continues to understand itself as “‘apostolic,”’
independently of the precise meaning of the concept of ‘‘apostle.’’2
“Apostolic succession’ (successio apostolica) in the broad sense exists
when the Church continues in the faith of the first disciples and
apostles, particularly the Trinitarian and Christological confession, and
carries on its proclamation and its mission in that faith. Obviously, a
practical discipleship of Jesus is essential as well.
The concept of ‘‘apostolic succession”’ in the narrower sense is de-
rived from the meaning of witness, which constitutes the Church it-
self: office in the Church exists to preserve the identity and continuity
of the witness of faith. It receives its legitimation not only from the
identity of its faith and confession with the faith and confession of the
first witnesses, but also through its historical origins in the first wit-
nesses. This view, however, is not shared by all Christian Churches;
it is precisely at this point that ecumenical problems regarding office
and orders begin (see 11.5 below). The Catholic Church cannot sur-
render the principle of apostolic succession as an essential element of
the Church and a criterion for the true Church of Jesus Christ in the
broader or in the narrower sense, because its messengers and witnesses
must prove themselves not only through their faith and Christian praxis
(which could prove fragile), but also through the legitimacy of their
discipleship. Only certifiably legitimate missionaries have the right to
preach a word that commands belief. The identity and continuity of
a human community, as a historical entity, cannot be founded solely
on something that in itself demands interpretation, such as a book (e.g.,
the Bible). It also requires a legitimate succession of witnesses and mes-
sengers.
This view of things accounts for a unique, specifically Catholic un-
derstanding of the relationship between offices of service and the com-
munity. On the one side, all together make up the one Church. All
together are hearers, believers, and confessors. All together, with Jesus
Christ, make up one body, a community of faith in the Holy Spirit.
This fundamental equality and unity has received its sensibly-
2. For initial information, see the articles in TRE III (1978) 430-483; EKL I (1986)
221-223, both with bibliography.
240 Sacramental Theology

perceptible sacramental expression in baptism. On the other hand, the

office of service is something ‘‘before’’ or ‘‘over against’ the commu-
nity: the messengers or witnesses present and confront the community
with the apostolic word, which contains and interprets the message
of Jesus—the Word of God—in order that it may again and again be
heard, accepted, and transmitted through the community’s confession.
By this act, the messengers or witnesses do not take the place of the
head, as if they were the head of the body of Christ and ordinary be-
lievers were its members. The messengers or witnesses are, rather,
signs or pointers to that fundamental, unique ‘‘before’’ and “‘over
against,’’ who is and remains Jesus Christ himself (not least as the real
subject of all liturgy).
Having said this, we have already laid the foundations for a theol-
ogy of the sacrament of orders. The office of service in apostolic dis-
cipleship is constitutive for the Church. Therefore the solemn
acceptance of a person into this office of service is a sacrament. The
duties of the office of service, which in biblical language can also be
called a service for the growth of the body of Jesus Christ or a building
up of that body, have been sketched in the preceding paragraphs in
light of the Church’s original situation, as a service of the gospel. In
the course of history this service has taken on some very different fea-
tures in the Church’s praxis: from these servants the basic functions
of the Church (martyria, leiturgia, diakonia) are expected, not exclusively,
but in a special way. To martyria belongs the special service of preach-
ing; to leiturgia the leadership in divine worship, as well as most of
the sacraments; and to diakonia the witness of Christian praxis. It is
obvious that these duties, if they are properly carried out, will make
a total demand on any human being. Thus it is understandable that
in choosing and preparing such persons the Church looks to quite
different dimensions, and must adopt quite different points of view,
than does any other association, no matter how humanitarian its work,
in choosing its functionaries. It is equally clear from historical ex-
perience that human beings fall short of the ideal in one way or an-
other, and that some of them fail. It is just this kind of realistic view
of human weakness and incapacity that aids us in seeing the content
of this service more sharply: the word is to be proclaimed, the pres-
ence that is to be implored and indicated in a sensibly-perceptible way,
are not the word and presence of the official person. They are and re-
main the word and presence of God who alone is sovereign. The fact
 The Sacrament of Orders 241

that the bearers of this office of service must not and cannot person-
ally be that ‘“before’’ and “‘over against,’’ of which we spoke before,
but instead only point to them by their actions, is expressed in the
teaching that the sacrament of orders bestows a ‘sacramental
character.’’
From what has been said it must have become clear that the essen-
tials of the office of service are what God intends for the building up
and life of the Church. They are therefore given by the divine Spirit
who is called upon and is present in the sacrament. That means, on
the one hand, that these gifts of God are not the Church’s property,
and thus cannot be bestowed by a community (by means of ‘‘delega-
tion,”’ ‘“empowerment,”’ etc.). On the other hand, they are given by
God for the building up and life of the greater whole, so that the office-
bearers are never in and for themselves ‘the Church,’’ and what they
alone do remains fragmentary (and this applies to all three of the
Church’s basic functions), so long as it is not cooperatively borne and
completed with and by the community.?
There are concrete forms of office that obscure this most central
meaning of office and obstruct its positive effects. Among these are
the factual division of the Church in two classes (clerics and laity), as
well as the factual exercise of power on the part of many officeholders.
Such obstacles to true service cannot be eliminated by theological in-
sight alone.* Among the elements of orders and office that are more
negative than positive should be counted the juridical language em-
ployed: is it really appropriate to call the gifts necessary for the build-
ing up and life of the Church ‘‘powers’’ (potestates)? When there is talk
of possessing, bestowing and restricting ‘‘powers,’’ the dimensions
of petition to the Holy Spirit, of faith, and of the effects that arise from
and strengthen faith fade into the background or disappear.
The office of service in the Church developed historically with differ-
ent accents as regards the content of that service, a topic we will ad-
3. On the one hand, this does not imply a ‘‘democratizing’’ of the Church in
principle, but on the other hand a much greater cooperation on the part of church
communities in the appointment of their ministers is theologically legitimate and
practically possible.
4. There are very clear norms in the New Testament that are critical of lordship
and power: cf Mark 10:42-45; Matt 23. It is true that the Church may not be regarded
from the point of view of a division of power. But it would be dishonest to act
as if there were not a massive exercise of power in the Church and everything
that occurs were selfless ‘‘service.”’
242 Sacramental Theology

dress in more detail below. This development is regarded by the

Church as a legitimate development on the basis of what Jesus him-
self did, and therefore abides within the framework of ‘divine law.”
But that means that it cannot be reversed or given fundamental revi-
sion. If the accent were differently located, the critical points could shift,
and some things could be forgotten, even though nothing could be
totally eliminated. However, we may say that the development is open
to the future, so long as we believe in the presence of the divine Spirit,
with the result that new forms may be added to the full-grown shape
of ecclesial offices of service as they now exist.

11.2 The Origins of Office in the Church

11.2.1 Biblical Findings

In light of the close connection between office and orders, two ques-
tions arise with regard to the New Testament: in what forms the of-
fice of service in the Church first existed and what we can know about
the induction of a person into office.
The historical question, beginning with Jesus himself, can only refer
to his circle of Twelve. During the earthly lifetime of Jesus we cannot
speak of apostles, since ‘‘apostle’’ is definitely a post-Easter concept.°
According to the best-substantiated exegesis, the circle of the Twelve
is almost certainly pre-Easter.* Since Jesus did not intend to gather a
new people of God or found an exclusive community within Israel,
the Twelve cannot be regarded from the outset as progenitors of Chris-
tianity commissioned as such by Jesus. It is most probable that, at the
beginning of his public activity, Jesus called together an open, grow-
ing group of people who were to be his personal followers. When
doubts arose about the validity of his message even within this group
of disciples, he founded the group of Twelve. This action was there-
fore in the first instance a move to secure the existence of a faithful
group of disciples. The fact that even Matthew’s Gospel quotes some

5. Cf. the literature in n. 2 above.

6. A. Vogtle, ‘Das Problem der Herkunft von ‘Mt 16, 17-19,’ ’’ in his Offen-
barungsgeschehen und Wirkungsgeschichte (Freiburg: 1985) 109-140, at 139-140, n. 109.
In what follows I am also relying on A. Vogtle.
 The Sacrament of Orders 243
logia as directed to the Twelve and repeats the same logia in a differ-
ent redactional context as addressed to all believers shows that even
a long time after Jesus’ departure the distinction between the Twelve
and the other disciples was not seen as a hierarchical one. (Something
similar can be said about the resurrection witnesses and the other dis-
ciples in John’s Gospel.) It is not impossible to see the founding of
the group of Twelve as a symbolic action, that is, an indication of Jesus’
continuing desire to gather together all Israel.
We cannot say anything definite about the transition from these pre-
Easter Twelve to the post-Easter apostles. In any case, temporally
speaking, Paul’s self-designation as ‘‘apostle of Jesus Christ’ lies be-
tween those two points, but Paul neither thought of himself as an office-
holder nor did he apparently feel any concern about the fate of his
communities after his death, since he expected the return of the Lord
to take place very soon.’ His apostleship remained a special case. But
Paul belongs within the later concept of an apostle to the extent that,
because of his experience of Jesus, he could also claim to be a hearer
and eyewitness to him. Thus Paul was also a recipient of the revela-
tion of God embodied in Jesus. But it is precisely this central charac-
teristic of apostleship—direct witness and reception of revelation—that
makes it impossible to view apostleship as an office, in which there
could be ‘’successors’’ in any sense of the word. ‘‘In their character
as unique recipients of revelation within the history of salvation, in
such a way that they could constitute a normative tradition, the apostles
could not have ‘successors,’ whether intended or directly named by
themselves; only with respect to their responsibility for the preaching
and preservation of the gospel and of the life of the community in har-
mony with the gospel could there be any talk of ‘successors.’ ’”
But it was not only ‘‘successors of the apostles’’ who took up this
responsibility. It is historically possible to show that the responsibility
existed, but it is not possible to restrict its shouldering to successors
of the Twelve or other apostles. It would also be completely wrong
to try to find evidence in the New Testament for leadership over a
universal Church. What we find there is only the structure of offices
7. A. Vogtle, ‘“Exegetische Reflexionen zur Apostolizitat des Amtes und zur
Amtssukzession,”’ ibid., 221-279 (with extensive literature), at 235. About the group
and activities of those who might have been called apostles before Paul we know
next to nothing.
8. Ibid., 221.
244 Sacramental Theology

in some local communities. But while it is wrong, on the one hand,

to posit a direct development of apostolic succession from the Twelve
through the apostles to the bishops, it is also false to set the charisms
(free gifts of grace) mentioned in the oldest, Pauline, witnesses, in op-
position to offices or to distinguish charismatic and non-charismatic
roles.
For Paul, all the events in the life of a community, everything that
is mentioned in the lists of charisms, and all roles of service that are
mentioned apart from those lists are to be traced to the work of the
divine Spirit. He offers us neither precise data for reconstructing a com-
munity constitution nor a model of what a community ought to be.
On the basis of the things that Paul mentions we can understand the
later development by which certain spiritual gifts were recognized as
indispensable and were institutionalized.° In listing the charisms, even
Paul emphasizes some functions (which he already found in place) that
have a tendency to endure and to be tied to a particular person: teacher,
prophet, presider. Paul accepted the fact that a community called those
who would exercise certain functions and gave them institutional titles
such as episkopos and diakonos (Phil 1:1). Nowhere is it evident that Paul
regarded the episcopal office as particularly important or indispensable;
in the two decades after Paul’s death the ‘‘synagogal presbyterate’’
dominated as the ‘‘regular official structure”’ in the territories of Paul’s
missionary activity.1°
Paul’s writings do not reveal any order of rank in the various names
given to functions tending toward the status of offices. The respon-
sible and controlling body remains the whole (local) community di-
rectly subject to Jesus Christ. Clearly, the measure, norm, and
corrective of all charisms and roles were and remained love and the
building up of the body of Jesus Christ. Paul appeals to the freedom
and independence of the communities; he himself only offers as-
sistance.!! The whole of community life and its relationship to the
apostle are supported by a trust ‘in the uniting and directing power
of the Spirit.’’12

9. Ibid., 232, as well as for what follows.

10. Ibid., 230.
11. Ibid., 238.
12. Ibid., 239. See the important observations on the beginnings of office in the
Church in the work of B. Holmberg (see Bibliography 9). Holmberg also concludes
 The Sacrament of Orders 245

Among the other New Testament evidence that is important for the
development of offices in the Church is the pseudepigraphic letter ‘‘to
the Ephesians,”’ circulated in the name of Paul. Anton Vogtle dates
it to about the years 80-90. The preaching of the apostles and prophets
remains the norm, while the roles of service that are necessary from
time to time are brought forth directly by the exalted Lord. ‘‘Office’’
is a result and function of the gospel that is to be handed on; the func-
tions of preaching and leadership must be regarded as constitutive for
the Church. Anton Végtle firmly agrees with this thesis of Helmut
Merklein.'* Teaching and leadership in the community are firmly con-
nected with one another; people who are gifted in this way and whose
talents have been tested are factually acknowledged by the commu-
nity and can be regarded as ‘’successors of the apostles,’’ without being
themselves the recipients of revelation. Charis remains the inclusive
factor.
The First Letter of Peter, written not long after Ephesians, shows
how the charismatic idea of community is reconciled with the neces-
sity for a clear, stable leadership. Here we find an expression of con-
cern for the survival of the community in the post-apostolic period.
As in the Acts of the Apostles, which is some years older, and in the
later Letter of James, there emerges in 1 Peter (5:1ff.) the group of pres-
byters (as in the synagogue), who are an already recognized leader-
ship group.’ The risen Christ himself, however, is the shepherd and
bishop of the faithful (2:25); the leaders of the community are not called
shepherds, because the Risen One is at work in them:"* their existence
is not traced in 1 Peter to God (as in 1 Cor 12:28) or to the Holy Spirit
(as in Acts 20:28) or to the exalted Lord (as in Eph 4:11).
In the Acts of the Apostles, the presbytery appears without further
introduction (11:30) and is associated with the episcopal group (20:28).
The author of Acts had an interest in the ‘principle of continuity,’
as the appointment of community presbyters by Barnabas and Paul

that Paul contributed to the institutionalization of authority in the Church less

through his own initiative than through acknowledgment of what was taking place
in the communities.
13. A. Végtle, ‘‘Exegetische Reflexionen,’’ 244. In dating other writings I am
also following Vogtle.
14. Ibid., 246.
15. Ibid., 249-250.
16. So A. Vogtle, ibid., 252, with Helmut Merklein.
246 Sacramental Theology

(14:23) shows.” It is not the charismatic community, but the Holy Spirit
who appoints presbyters (14:28; cf. the discourse at Miletus in 20:17-34);
it is to the Spirit that the presbyters must give account for the exercise
of their office; they are not only to lead the people of God’s own choos-
ing, but also to protect it against dangers, in particular to secure the
apostolic tradition against false teachings within and without. Thus
particularly on the basis of Acts 20 we can see how care for the tradi-
tion of faith/teaching and office/leadership are combined. The Holy
Spirit and ecclesial office are, each in its own way, “elements that create
Church.’’18
In the last third of the first century we thus find the first evidence
to document, on a relatively broad scale, the efforts to emphasize the
apostolic tradition (some of which was already written down) as nor-
mative and to protect it against alterations. Late witnesses to the de-
velopment of these efforts are found in the Pastoral Letters and 2 Peter.
Concern for ‘‘that which has been entrusted to you”’ led to insistence
on following apostolic teaching, but still not to any efforts to demon-
strate a succession of office reaching back to the Twelve and to Paul
through some series of imposition of hands. In the second and third
Christian generations it was still possible for someone to enter into of-
fice through an immediate pneumatic experience.”
Finally, we should say something very briefly about terminology.
For a while it was popular (and some echoes of this are still heard to-
day) to make a polemic contrast between the beginnings of office in
the New Testament, with the demonstrated emphases on teaching and
leadership (for the preservation of the unity of the community), and
the cultic aspect. The postbiblical development of offices was criticized
as a retreat to cultic officialdom, as ‘‘sacerdotalizing,’’ etc. Special em-
phasis was placed on the fact that the words episkopos (supervisor), pres-
17. Ibid., 257. The meaning of the imposition of hands remains unclear. In the
literature there is frequent reference to the influence of Numbers 27:18-23. Remark-
ably enough, the “‘transferral of the spirit’ to the students of the rabbis (Deut 34:9)
is not made use of here. The verses discussed include Acts 6:6; 13:3; 14:23; 1 Tim
4:14 and 2 Tim 1:6 (in the last two cases: transmission of a charism by the imposi-
tion of hands?); 1 Tim 5:22 (ordination or reconciliation?). Cf. also O. Knoch, ‘’Die
Funktion der Handauflegung im Neuen Testament,”’ Liturgisches Jahrbuck 33 (1983)
222-235.
18. A. Végtle, ‘‘Exegetische Reflexionen,’’ 256, 262-263.
19. Ibid., 267. See, in Bibliography 9, also the works of H. von Lips, Glaube—
Gemeinde—Amt, G. Lohfink, ‘Die Normativitat,’’ and W. Trilling, “Zum ‘Amt.’ ’’
 The Sacrament of Orders 247

byteros (elder), diakonos (servant) were secular terms, and that other,
earlier designations of office like ‘‘teacher,’’ ‘‘presider,”’ ‘‘shepherd’’
are not cultic-sacral terms either. The polemic literature we are speak-
ing of resorts to a number of simplifications. Of course, there are also
genuine theological problems here, the core of which lie in the fact
that a cult that must appease its god through divine worship, a form
of sacrifice based on the idea that God’s pleasure is found in self-denial
even to the point of the sacrifice of one’s own life, and a priesthood
that regards itself as indispensable for communication between God
and humanity, are all absolutely incompatible with Jesus’ preaching
about God. It is undeniable that the New Testament in general rejects
sacrificial works in the Temple (but not prayer in the Temple!), and
that for this reason, in the early period, everything suggestive of cultic
persons was excluded from the designation of Christian offices.
The cultic critique in the New Testament, and particularly that of
Jesus himself, exists within the context of Judaism. It should be seen
as continuous with the sharp prophetic criticism of the sacrifices (cf.,
for example, Hos 6:6; Isa 1:10-17; Mic 6:5-8; Jer 7:21-23; Ps 50:7-15).
The New Testament adopted the positive alternative within Judaism
as its own: sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving for the mighty acts of
God (Ps 50:23), the practice of justice toward the poor (Isa 1:17; Mic
6:8), and merciful love (Hos 6:6, cited in Matt 9:13 and 12:7) are to take
the place of the sacrificial cult. Nevertheless, this renewed practice of
devotion in no way excludes praise, petition, and calling upon God,
including liturgical forms. Israel’s hope also included a pure sacrifice
(Mal 1:11) and a renewed priesthood (Mal 3:3-4; Sir 45:7, 15, 24). New
Testament expressions do not go out of their way to avoid liturgical
language: for example, we read that the whole life of believers should
be an act of worship, that all are the temple and the house of God,
and that the faithful are God’s own priestly people (1 Pet 2:5, 9; Rev
1:6; 5:9-10; 20:6 with reference to Exod 19:6 and Isa 61:6). Other de-
tails could be mentioned (apart from the disputed ‘‘priestly service’
of Paul in Rom 15:16),”° especially in connection with Jesus: not only
in Hebrews (5-10), but also in Ephesians 5:2, he is called gift and sac-
rifice (prosphora and thysia); his blood is interpreted as the blood of the
covenant according to Exodus 25:5-8; he gives a liturgical stylization

20. Cf. A. Vanhoye, Prétres anciens, prétre nouveau selon le Nouveau Testament (Paris:
1980).
248 Sacramental Theology

to the Last Supper and confers a blessing as he departs (Luke 24:50-51);

the faithful share in his priesthood (Heb 10:14-25; 13:16).
Thus the New Testament, up to the end of the first century and
possibly as late as the first half of the second century, offers a wealth
of malleable ‘‘material,’’ including the beginnings of institutionaliza-
tion, from which later specific offices, orders, and the theologies be-
longing to them could arise. Two methodological errors are to be
avoided: the later developments are neither in such sharp contrast to
the ‘‘center of the gospel’’ that they can only be regarded as wrong,
nor does the development begin with the apostles at Jerusalem who,
with one exception, were called by Jesus. Quite apart from the fact
that the Twelve were only designated at a late date (Acts 8:1) as the
patriarchs of the early Church resident in Jerusalem,”! there is no di-
rect line even from this group to the ‘“monarchical’’ bishops of the post-
biblical period. As regards movements toward sacramental orders, we
find no traces. At a later period, the induction of deacons through
prayer and imposition of hands (Acts 6:6) served as a model for a con-
secration that transmitted, or rather, implored the presence of the
Spirit, but scholars do not agree whether the imposition of hands men-
tioned in the New Testament can be regarded as an ‘‘ordination.”’

11.2.2 Postbiblical Developments

The postbiblical evidence from the first and second centuries”? shows
a continued development and fixing of ecclesial offices, but there is
no reflection on ordination as an event. The theological focus is on con-
cern for adherence to apostolic tradition, both in faith and teaching
and in institutional matters.
The Letter of Clement indicates that in the Corinthian community
leadership and liturgy (‘‘the offering of sacrifice’’) were official func-
tions. Besides the office that was both presbyteral and episcopal in

21. So A. Miller, ‘’Amt als Kriterium’’ (see Bibliography 9) 102.

22. On this subject see, from the works in Bibliography 9, especially J. Martin,
Der priesterliche Dienst III; G. Kretschmar, ‘‘Die Ordination im friithen Christen-
tum’’; J. Rhode, ‘‘Urchristliche und friihkatholische Amter’’; A. Jilek, “Bischof
und Presbyterium’’; B. Kleinheyer, ‘Ordination und Beauftragungen’’; from ear-
lier literature, see K. Rahner and H. Vorgrimler, eds., Diaconia in Christo (Freiburg:
1961), and P. Fransen, ‘‘Weihen, Heilige,’’ Sacramentum Mundi IV (Freiburg: 1961)
1249-1293.
 The Sacrament of Orders 249

structure, there were also deacons. These offices were traced to the
will and direction of God and are here for the first time compared to
the Jewish hierarchy.
Ignatius of Antioch is often spoken of as the witness in whose writ-
ings we see that the development toward a ‘‘monarchical episcopate’’
or ‘‘monepiscopate’’ has been completed. In reality he offers us only
one regionally limited view of things. His theological interest is shaped
by his habit of thinking in images or types; here emerges a remarkable
typology that does not correspond to the later Catholic hierarchy. The
bishop is the image of God the Father, the deacons are to be revered
like Jesus Christ, and the presbyters are compared to the apostolic col-
lege. Church office is, for Ignatius, the preferred place of the Holy Spirit
and the Spirit’s activity, and he sees the Church as existing nowhere
except where this office exists. The bishop presides at the liturgy and
is responsible for the unity of the community.
In contrast to these two witnesses, other writings, even from a sub-
sequent period, refer only to presbyters (2 Clement, Hermas).
During the great upheavals brought about in the second century
by adherents of gnosis and mystery cults and by sectarian divisions
in the Church, a strong consciousness of the institutional and histori-
cal aspects of the Church arose. The most prominent testimony to that
consciousness comes from Irenaeus of Lyons. He strengthened the
theological insight that had emerged in the last third of the first cen-
tury, the recognition that the apostolic element was normative for the
Church. He exerted himself to show that the Church is and remains
in the truth only when it is in continuity with the Church of the
apostles. The Catholic Church’s apostolic succession is visible in the
succession in office: through the fact that an unbroken official line can
be traced from the apostles to the bishops, it is certain that the apostolic
tradition of faith and doctrine was preserved and not falsified, since
the ‘‘successors of the apostles’’ have received the ‘‘reliable charism
in truth.’”’
Tertullian was the first to refer to the bishop as ‘‘summus sacerdos,’’
or high priest, probably under the influence of a Melchisedech theol-
ogy (Ps 110:4; Heb 5-7). Theologically, the idea that the Old Testa-
ment institutions were also fulfilled in the New Testament was gaining
popularity. It was also Tertullian who gave a collective Latin technical
name to the Church’s officeholders: ordo. He found this concept, which
among the Romans referred to the leadership group, a special body
250 Sacramental Theology

in contrast to the people, in the Latin translation of Psalm 110:4. To

this day it is used in the Romance languages to describe the sacrament
of consecration or ‘‘orders’’: sacramentum ordinis. What had been
glimpsed in the Letter of Clement was now fully evident: there were
no longer any psychological or theological hesitations toward the adop-
tion of non-Christian notions like ‘high priest,’’ ‘‘priest,’’ and ‘‘state’’
or ‘‘rank’’ in Christian language referring to office. In the third cen-
tury Cyprian went still farther: for him, the sacerdotium relates to the
Eucharistic altar; he speaks of a clericus (from the Greek kleros, lot),
referring to those who, because of their state, have a special concern
for and relationship to God. Origen uses similar language: its biblical
roots are in Deuteronomy 4:20; 9:29 and Acts 1:17. The associated con-
cept of laikos for the ordinary people appears as early as the Letter of
Clement. Cyprian called the various offices within the one ordo ‘‘gra-
dus,’’ thus carrying the hierarchizing trend further.
It was certainly owing to the Church’s defensive attitude toward
threats within and without, especially the struggle with Gnostic teach-
ings, that beginning in the second century charismatic community func-
tions are mentioned less and less frequently outside the ordo, although
there have been free charismatic impulses within the Church at all
times. It is remarkable that even Tertullian knew of women prophets
who had the right to speak during public worship.
Meanwhile, at Rome, Hippolytus had brought together elements
of the liturgy and theology of orders in his Apostolic Tradition. The office
of bishop, with its duties of preaching, shepherding, and priestly serv-
ice, is the complete form of the ecclesial office that is conferred through
prayer and the imposition of hands. In this consecration, ‘‘the power
of the spirit of leadership’ is implored for and bestowed upon the can-
didate; thereby, he is incorporated into the mission of Jesus Christ and
the apostles which is the work of the Holy Spirit. The essential tasks
of the bishop appear to be the offering of the Eucharistic gifts donated
by the community and presented by the deacon (praise and thanks-
giving are spoken by the entire community, but the bishop alone utters
the eucharistia and conducting public penance. In comparison to the
bishop, the presbyters remain shadowy figures; the members of the
presbyteral college support the bishop in the performance of his duties.
The deacons are not subject to the presbyters, but to the bishop; they
exercise a mediating service between him, or rather the altar, and the
community. The special relationship between bestowing the Spirit
 The Sacrament of Orders 251

through the imposition of hands and Eucharist is made clear through

statements that are not related directly to the offices in question: ‘‘con-
fessors’’ can act as priests even without having received the imposi-
tion of hands, because their martyrdom has shown that they already
possess the Holy Spirit. Widows do not receive an imposition of hands,
because their important (charitable) office is not related to the Eucharist.
If Hippolytus’ model was not universally adopted within the
Church, if we take it together with other evidence it permits the con-
clusion that the components of office have clearly emerged by the third
century, i.e., service over a long period of time, special competences
and a rule of succession. What is constitutive for office is apostolicity,
and office in turn is constitutive for the Church.” It is clear that the
conferral of three offices is understood sacramentally and that two of
them include a competence related to the Eucharistic liturgy.
The Apostolic Tradition became a dominant influence by being taken
up in the Apostolic Constitutions, a fourth-century Syrian legal and litur-
gical church order that forms the basis of all ordination liturgies in the
Eastern Churches. (There are some variations: an expansion of the
epiclesis and a description of the priest as the normal liturgist of the
proclamation of the word and the celebration of the Eucharist.)
Thus, the postbiblical development led to formation of a structure
of Church offices and, within that structure, to the dominance of the
bishop, a position that was theologically justified on the basis of aposto-
licity. Between the sixth and ninth centuries there occurred an impor-
tant shift, the reasons for which were manifold.” In this brief overview
it must suffice to indicate the lines of development that were impor-
tant for the theology of orders, and to limit ourselves to the Western
Church. In Rome in the fifth century the prayers at the imposition of
hands quite clearly place the presbyters, as a secundus ordo, below the
bishop, whom they are to assist in his task of preaching. But under
Old Gallican (sixth century) and particularly Frankish influence (eighth
century), their service at the Eucharist became central. From then on,
a separate image of the priest developed: priests are the sacrificial
priests of the new covenant, to whom, through sacramental ordina-
tion, the power to consecrate the Eucharist is irrevocably given. The
theology of the episcopal office declined at the same time. The bishop’s

23. A. Miller, ‘‘Amt als Kriterium,’’ 106.

24. For a good summary, see P. Fransen, ‘‘Weihen, Heilige,’” 1262-1265.
252 Sacramental Theology

role was interpreted theologically less as a shepherd's office in the com-

munity, and more as a perfection of ‘’fullness’’ of the priesthood. But
what dominated the picture of the bishop was his juridical status: his
models within salvation history are Moses and Aaron.
The rite of ordination was also changed. From the third century on-
ward, the heart of the rite for ordaining bishop, priest, and deacon
was prayer with the imposition of hands. ‘Imposition of hands’’ in
the first three centuries could also describe a simple choice or selec-
tion; similarly, ordinare could retain the meaning of ‘‘designate.’’ Be-
ginning in the fourth century, fixed concepts for the rite of ordination
were gradually established, in particular ‘‘imposition of hands,”’ ‘‘bless-
ing’’ (benedictio) or ‘‘consecration’’ (consecratio). In addition to these
three offices, there were a series of lesser roles of service, both in the
East (first attested by Clement of Alexandria and Origen) and in the
West (first attested by Tertullian and Cyprian). One was inducted into
these through a simple rite; their number shifted between two and
eight. Some of these were also conferred on women.
The bishop (chosen by the people) received the imposition of hands,
according to the Apostolic Tradition, from another bishop; after the
Council of Nicaea in 325 and the Synod of Arles in 314 the consecra-
tion of a bishop must be carried out by three bishops. To the imposi-
tion of hands was added an imposition of the book of the Gospels.
Priests were consecrated by the bishop through imposition of hands;
from the time of the Apostolic Tradition the other priests present also
laid hands on the candidate. Deacons received ordination through the
imposition of the bishop’s hands alone. (On deaconesses, see 11.4.4
below.) The Council of Chalcedon in 451 forbade, in canon 6 (COD
66), the ‘‘absolute ordination’’ of presbyters, deacons, and other ‘‘ec-
clesial orders,’’ i.e., in East and West every ordained person must be
related to a particular community (church or monastery): “‘relative or-
dination.’”’
Under Frankish influence, however, from the seventh century on-
ward the consecration of a bishop was expanded to include an anoint-
ing of the head with chrism, the presentation of staff and ring, and
an enthroning: the bishop’s power is regarded as ‘‘sovereign.’” The
ordination of priests now included an anointing of the hands, the
presentation of bread and wine (or, rather, paten and chalice), and a
second imposition of hands to bestow the power to forgive sins: the
 The Sacrament of Orders 253

priest’s service is regarded as primarily liturgical. A Roman synod in

1099 permitted ‘‘absolute ordination.’’
A new liturgy of consecration for the ‘‘lesser orders’’ in the Latin
Church was prescribed in Gaul in the tenth century: Frankish influence
was evident from the prominent place given to the presentation of the
““instruments”’ of the particular service. The ‘lesser orders’’ were now
understood to include the roles of porter, lector, exorcist, acolyte, and
subdeacon. These no longer had any real function in the community:
they were stages of ordination on the way to the priesthood, intended
to prepare the candidates for the various aspects of priestly service.

11.3 The Development of Teaching about the Sacrament of Orders

11.3.1 From Antiquity to the Scholastics

In the earlier centuries of the Church, the theology of orders first

concentrated on the bishop: in the liturgy of consecration, in which
he was accepted into an ordo episcoporum, the Church prayed that he
might receive the gracious assistance of God to enable him to fulfill
his tasks. For the sake of preserving the unity of the Church, certain
duties were reserved to the bishop. There is no false systematization
involved in dividing the episcopal office according to three central cate-
gories of duties: the service of proclamation, liturgy, and leadership
of the community—with the observation that the bishop’s function in
proclamation and liturgy is also one of leadership (i.e., of final responsi-
bility). A proper theological understanding viewed the bishop as be-
ing included within the service and mission of Jesus Christ from the
Father in the power of the Holy Spirit. This inclusion meant that the
bishop had received the grace of God by means of which he, as image
(typos) of the Father or (especially after the fourth century) of Jesus
Christ, could make visible and perceptible the One who is always in-
visibly present, for the sake of strengthening and faithfully preserv-
ing the faith handed on by the apostles. At the beginning of the third
century, when this service was theologically interpreted as priestly,
the ‘grace of priesthood” was seen to be primarily realized in the
bishop. (To clarify this development it is necessary to repeat here some
of what was said in 8.4.7 above.)
 254 Sacramental Theology

In both the Western and Eastern Church from the fourth century
onward there was a tendency to focus on the spiritual ‘‘ability’’ of
officeholders*® and to accept a theological equality of bishops and
priests. Episcopal witnesses (from the bishops of Rome, the Roman
ordination liturgy, etc.), by contrast, deliberately portray the priest-
hood of priests as subordinate, secundi meriti munus. The important wit-
nesses for the presbyteral tendency were taken up by Frankish
theologians and thus passed on to Scholastic theology. As soon as the
question of ‘‘ability’’ gave way to that of ‘“‘power,’’ the opinion devel-
oped that the most important power of any Church office was related
to the sacraments, and since the priest, through his ordination, pos-
sessed an unsurpassable power with respect to the Eucharist and the
sacrament of reconciliation, it could not be further increased by epis-
copal ordination. The influential Peter Lombard (d. 1160) therefore
taught that episcopal ordination was not a sacrament, whereas the or-
dination of a priest, since the clarification of the concept of sacrament
in the middle of the twelfth century, was regarded as the sacrament
of orders. The special character of the episcopal office was seen, in-
stead, as relating to jurisdiction (‘‘pastoral power’’).2 Thus with re-
gard to priests, one spoke of a “‘potestas in corpus eucharisticum,’’ and
with regard to bishops of a ‘‘potestas in corpus mysticum.’’ From this
division arose differing ‘‘images’’ of the priest and the bishop, which
in turn were subject to historical fluctuations.?”
The two areas of ‘’power and ordination’’ and ‘‘power of jurisdic-
tion’’ were, of course, not completely separate.?8 In sacramental the-
ology, the refusal of sacraments is important. Priests could (and can)
only give absolution in the sacrament of reconciliation if the ““power’’
granted them at ordination has also been jurisdictionally ‘‘conferred
on” them. In the Western Church the bishop remained the ‘‘minis-
25. The motives for this are not clear. For Jerome, it is associated with attacks
on deacons and on the bishop of Jerusalem. It is often coupled with his name,
but was also represented by other important ancient witnesses, such as Ambrose
and John Chrysostom. Cf. ibid., 1271-1273.
26. Canonists maintained the sacramentality of episcopal consecration. For the
progress of the controversy, see ibid., 1272-1273.
27. There is a special literature on this point, which cannot be introduced here,
but which is in urgent need of social-historical expansion. For initial information,
see ibid., 1264-1267.
28. Very instructive for a preliminary view is K. Mérsdorf, “Heilige Gewalt,’’
Sacramentum Mundi II (Freiburg: 1969) 582-597.
 The Sacrament of Orders 255

ter’ of confirmation in ordinary cases. But in particular, he was and

is the ‘‘minister of holy orders.’’ Only a bishop may ordain priests and
deacons,” and in the normal instance several bishops acting together
are required for the consecration of a bishop.

11.3.2 Historical Decisions

The first official teachings concern the ‘‘validity’’ of orders conferred

by heretics, schismatics, or even simonists: they are valid (only Latin,
DS 478 in the year 601, DS 705 in the year 1106). The second Council
of Lyons in 1274, which spoke of the sacraments as seven in number
(NR 928/DS 860) no longer demanded of the separated Eastern
Churches, as Rome had still done in 1254, that they accept the minor
orders.
In the text produced by the Council of Florence in 1439 as part of
the negotiations toward union with the separated Armenian Church,
the Scholastic ideas on the sacrament of orders are reproduced in a
brief passage borrowed from Thomas Aquinas:
The sixth sacrament is that of Order. Its matter is that by the handing
over of which the Order is conferred: thus the presbyterate is conferred
by handing over the chalice with wine and the paten with the bread;
the diaconate by giving the book of the gospels; the subdiaconate by
handing over the empty chalice covered with an empty paten; and simi-
larly the other orders by assigning the things pertaining to their office.
The form of the presbyterate is this: ‘“Receive the power of offering the
Sacrifice in the Church for the living and the dead, in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’’ And similarly for the forms
of the other Orders, as is contained in detail in the Roman Pontifical.
The ordinary minister of this sacrament is the bishop. The effect is an
increase of grace so that one may be a suitable minister [at the altar] (NR
705/DS 1326).
This represents (in a form that is not dogmatically binding) the teach-
ing of the Church at that time which, as regards matter and form, is
no longer valid. The consecration of a bishop is not even mentioned.

29. Certain other consecrations are also normally performed only by the bishop
(see ch. 13 below). On historical expectations in which priests were ordained by
priests, see P. Fransen, ‘‘Weihen, Heilige,’’ 1270-1271 (with sources).
256 Sacramental Theology

The Reformers decisively restored the idea of the ‘‘universal’’ priest-

hood (the expression used at that time: something like ‘‘common’”’ or
‘‘mutual’’ priesthood would be better).°° From that standpoint they
opposed the distinction between clerics and laity; they disputed the
existence of the sacrament of orders and the power of orders conferred
by it. Luther taught expressly that baptism ordains all Christians as
priests and bishops, so that, from that point on, they have no further
need of a special priestly mediation. In light of the New Testament,
it was not denied that there are legitimate offices (officia) in the com-
munity of the faithful, but only one office was regarded as of ‘divine
law,’’ namely that of preaching, a duty of every believer. From this
also a ‘‘distinction’’ between office and community can be derived.
There are particular officeholders who are called by the Holy Spirit and
“‘ordained’’ by those having authority in the community, i.e., inducted
into their office with petitionary prayers, for the sake of public order
in the community. (See 11.5 below for further remarks on this point.)
The Council of Trent, in opposition, defended the existence of a
visible, external priesthood, in such a way that ‘priestly service’’ (sacer-
dotii ministerium) is the overarching concept for an institution that ex-
ists by ‘‘divine command” (Dei ordinatione, also divina res) and is
arranged in hierarchical stages. At the same time, the teaching on the
existence of the sacrament of orders was strengthened. The conciliar
statements are found in four chapters and eight associated canons from
the twenty-third session in 1563. The chapters read:
Chapter I: The Institution of the Priesthood of the New Law
Sacrifice and priesthood are by the ordinance of God so united that both
have existed under every law. Since, therefore, in the new covenant the
Catholic Church has received from the institution of Christ the holy,
visible sacrifice of the eucharist, it must also be acknowledged that there
exists in the Church a new, visible and external priesthood into which the
old one was changed. Moreover, the sacred scriptures make it clear and
the tradition of the Catholic Church has always taught that this priest-
hood was instituted by the same Lord our Savior, and that the power
of consecrating, offering and administering his body and blood, and like-
wise of remitting and retaining sins, was given to the apostles and to
their successors in the priesthood.
30. On the Reformers’ ideas, see W. Lohff in LThK II, 1222-1224, and further
material in the collection edited by H. Vorgrimler, AMT UND Ordination in
okumenischer Sicht (Freiburg: 1973).
 The Sacrament of Orders 257

Chapter II: The Seven Orders

But since the ministry of so holy a priesthood is something divine, in
order that it might be exercised in a more worthy manner and with greater
veneration, it was fitting that in the perfectly ordered disposition of the
Church there should be several distinct orders of ministers, serving in the
priesthood by virtue of their office, and that they be so distributed that
those already having the clerical tonsure should ascend through the minor
to the major orders. For, the sacred scriptures mention unmistakably
not only the priests but also the deacons, and teach in the most authorita-
tive words what is chiefly to be observed in their ordination. And from
the very beginning of the Church the names of the following orders and
the ministries proper to each one, namely, those of subdeacon, acolyte,
exorcist, lector and porter, are known to have been in use, though they
were not of equal rank. For the subdiaconate is counted among the major
orders by the Fathers and the holy councils, in which very frequently
we also read about the other, lower orders.

Chapter III: Order is Truly a Sacrament

Since from the testimony of scripture, apostolic tradition and the unani-
mous agreement of the Fathers it is clear that grace is conferred by sa-
cred ordination, which is performed by words and outward signs, no
one ought to doubt that order is truly and properly one of the seven
sacraments of Holy Church. For the apostle says: ‘I remind you to re-
kindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my
hands; for God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power
and love and self-control’ (2 Tim 1:6-7).

Chapter IV: The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and Ordination

But since in the sacrament of order, as also in baptism and confirma-
tion, a character is imprinted which can neither be erased nor taken away,
the holy council justly condemns the opinion of those who say that the
priests of the new covenant have only a temporary power, and that those
who have once been rightly ordained can again become laymen if they
do not exercise the ministry of the word of God. And if anyone should
assert that all Christians are without distinction priests of the new covenant,
or that all are equally endowed with the same spiritual power, this is
nothing else than upsetting the Church’s hierarchy, which is ‘‘like an army
with banners”’ (cf. Song 6:3), as if, contrary to the teaching of St. Paul,
all were apostles, all prophets, all evangelists, all pastors, all doctors (cf.
1 Cor 12:29).
Therefore the holy council declares that, besides the other ecclesiasti-
cal grades, the bishops, who have succeeded the apostles, principally be-
258 Sacramental Theology

long to this hierarchical order and have been, as the same apostle says
(Acts 20:28), ‘“established by the Holy Spirit to govern the Church of
the Lord;’’ that they are superior to priests, confer the sacrament of con-
firmation, ordain ministers of the Church, and can perform most of the
other functions over which those of a lower order have no power.
The holy council teaches, furthermore, that in the ordination of bishops,
of priests and of other grades, the consent, call or mandate, neither of
the people nor any civil power or authority, is necessary to the extent that
without it the ordination would be invalid. Rather it decrees that all those
who ascend to the exercise of these ministries, being called and installed
only by the people or by the civil power or authority, and those who
in their rashness assume them on their own, are not to be regarded as
ministers of the Church, but ‘as thieves and robbers, who have not en-
tered by the door’ (cf. Jn 10:1) (NR 706-712/DS 1764-1769).

The canons read as follows:

1. If anyone says that there is in the New Testament no visible and ex-
ternal priesthood, or that there is no power of consecrating and offering
the true body and blood of the Lord and of remitting and retaining sins,
but only the office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel; or that
those who do not preach are not priests at all, anathema sit.
2. If anyone says that besides the priesthood there are in the Catholic
Church no other orders, major and minor, by which, as by various steps,
one advances towards the priesthood, anathema sit.
3. If anyone says that order or sacred ordination is not truly and
properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord, or that it is a kind
of human invention devised by men inexperienced in ecclesiastical mat-
ters, or that it is only a kind of rite by which are chosen the ministers
of the word of God and of the sacraments, anathema sit.
4. If anyone says that by sacred ordination the Holy Spirit is not given
and that, therefore, the bishops say in vain: ‘‘Receive the Holy Spirit;’’
or if anyone says that no character is imprinted by ordination; or that
one who has once been a priest can again become a layman, anathema sit.
5. If anyone says that the sacred anointing which the church uses at
holy ordination not only is not required but is despicable and pernicious,
and so are also the other ceremonies, anathema sit.
6. If anyone says that in the Catholic Church there is no hierarchy in-
stituted by divine ordinance, which consists of bishops, priests and
ministers, anathema sit.
7. If anyone says that bishops are not superior to priests; or that they
do not have the power to confirm and ordain, or that the power they
have is common both to them and to priests; or if anyone says that orders
 The Sacrament of Orders 259

conferred by them without the consent or call of the people or of the

civil power are invalid; or that those who have neither been rightly or-
dained by ecclesiastical and canonical authority nor sent by it, but come
from some other source, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacra-
ments, anathema sit.
8. If anyone says that bishops chosen by the authority of the Roman
Pontiff are not true and legitimate bishops but a human invention,
anathema sit (NR 713-720/DS 1771-1778).

Priesthood was interpreted by Trent in light of the liturgy, and par-

ticularly on the basis of the ‘‘powers’’ reserved to priests. The starting-
point in the two covenants is problematic, and the teaching on the hier-
archy is set independently alongside. According to canon 6, this hier-
archy rests not on divine institution, but on divine ordinance. The
question whether the consecration of a bishop is a sacrament is deliber-
ately left open. The doctrine of an enduring sacramental character im-
printed at ordination implies not only an acknowledgment of the
faithfulness of God, whose gracious gifts (granted through the Holy
Spirit) are given irrevocably and without regret. It also protects the
right of the community to services that are independent of the per-
sonal quality of the officeholder. In a positive sense, however, this
means that the service to which ordained persons are called lays claim
to their whole existence and cannot be a mere function. In the hierar-
chy, the bishops (with no special mention of the pope) are described
as the superior authority. The manner of division and the style of this
text show that the intent is only to refute the Reformers’ positions and
not to present a complete theology of orders; consequently, there is
practically no attempt at biblical foundation. One-sided positions are
rejected; quite obviously the council did not intend to deny the im-
portance of preaching the Word or of the common priesthood of be-
lievers, nor did it wish to refuse the people a part in the selection of
bishops.*?
Of special importance for sacramental theology as a whole, and for
the sacrament of orders in particular, was and is Pius XII’s apostolic
constitution, Sacramentum Ordinis of 30 November 1947 (NR 724/DS
3857-3861). Here the pope expressed his views on the Church’s com-

31. On the Tridentine teaching on orders, from Bibliography 9 see L. Ott, Das
Weihesakrament and P. de Clerck, ‘‘Ordination’’; from Bibliography 1, A. Duval,
Les sacrements au Concile de Trente. For a critique of Trent, see B. Snela’s article in
NHthG III (1985) 433-434.
260 Sacramental Theology

petence regarding the sacraments; he declared that only the imposi-

tion of hands constitutes the ‘‘matter’’ in the ordination of deacons,
priests, and bishops, and that the ‘‘form’”’ is simply those words ‘‘de-
termining the application of the matter’’ and unequivocally signifying
the effects of the sacrament, namely, the potestas ordinis and the grace
of the Holy Spirit. This declaration was basic to the statements of Vati-
can II on sacramental theology and the liturgical reforms that followed.
The Pope thus decided that the handing over of the liturgical vessels
is not (or is no longer) part of the sacramental action of ordination.

11.3.3 Vatican Council II and the New Code of Canon Law

The renewal movements of the twentieth century have contributed,

particularly through a wealth of biblical and patristic studies and re-
search into the history of liturgy, to a revision of the main emphases
in the theology of orders. These efforts were reflected in the documents
of the Second Vatican Council, both in the pathbreaking constitution
on the liturgy and especially in Lumen Gentium. By contrast, ecumeni-
cal discussions of the problem of office have not left such prominent
traces in the conciliar texts; they made their more significant progress
only after the council (see 11.5 below).
In describing ordination and offices in the Church, Vatican II fol-
lowed its established course: while preserving earlier teaching, it sought
to broaden the point of view, to shift the points of emphasis, and thus
to renew both theology and praxis. The distinction between clerics and
laity was retained as a matter of course, but it was relativized by the
emphasis on, and the precedence given to those things that all mem-
bers of the Church have in common. The first concept that is given
prominence is that of the ‘‘people of God’’ (LG II), which, if it is
properly employed, should really consider Israel as included, and not
merely ‘‘related to’’ it (LG 16).
The second comprehensive factor is the common priesthood.
Through baptism, all are consecrated priests, called and empowered
to offer spiritual sacrifices, to preach and to bear witness. This is con-
sidered a sharing in the priesthood of Jesus Christ (LG 10). A distinc-
tion is then drawn within this common priesthood:
Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree,
the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchi-
 The Sacrament of Orders 261

cal priesthood are nonetheless interrelated. Each of them in its own spe-
cial way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. The ministerial
priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, molds and rules the priestly
people. Acting in the person of Christ, he brings about the Eucharistic
Sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. For their
part, the faithful join in the offering of the Eucharist by virtue of their
royal priesthood. They likewise exercise that priesthood by receiving the
sacraments, by prayer and thanksgiving, by the witness of a holy life,
and by self-denial and active charity (LG 10).

According to this council, the way in which the two kinds of priestly
activity are complementarily related to one another is similar to the
way in which the common sense of faith of all believers is related to
the teaching office of the Church: in the latter case, the common basis
is a sharing in the prophetic office of Jesus Christ (LG 12).
After thus laying the groundwork, the council next speaks of ‘The
Hierarchical Structure of the Church, with Special Reference to the
Episcopate’’ (LG III). The chapter title indicates where the emphasis
will be placed, clearly following the indications from the third century
(Hippolytus’ church order and the subsequent Eastern liturgies).32 The
council takes as its starting point the officeholders’ possession of a ‘’sa-
cred power,’’ without describing that power any more precisely (LG
18). It speaks of the Twelve, of the unity of the apostles with and under
Peter who formed a college, i.e., as the council interprets it, a ‘’fixed
group”’ (LG 19) who appointed their successors to carry on their minis-
try. Thus the bishops are to be regarded as shepherds of the Church
who “’by divine institution’ have succeeded to the place of the apostles
(LG 20; cf. 28: the apostles have legitimately handed on to different
individuals in the Church various degrees of participation in their
ministry). Concerning bishops, the council teaches that Jesus Christ
is present and active in them to the extent that they are his servants.
He acts ‘‘above all,’’ but not exclusively through their service in this
sacramental manner, a service that includes preaching the word of God
(which is mentioned first by the council, both here and elsewhere).
The council then proceeds to the teaching that the consecration of a
bishop confers ‘‘the fullness of the sacrament of orders.’’ Thus, the
traditional theology of orders with its ascending ladder of ordinations

32. On what follows, see the commentaries on the council. I am here using my
own text from Kleines Konzilskompendium, 109-115.
262 Sacramental Theology

and the concept of episcopal consecration as an unessential addition

to priestly ordination has been abandoned; ordo means those sacramen-
tally ordained, a complex entity corresponding to the ancient concept
of the sacerdotium. The ‘‘fullness of the priesthood’’ belongs to the
bishop, and the other degrees of ordination confer a limited, though
not in every way dependent, share in that fullness.
The council goes on to state that episcopal consecration confers the
three offices of sanctifying, teaching, and governing. The two
‘“powers”’ of orders and jurisdiction are here seen in their internal,
that is, their sacramental unity. However, the council says that the ex-
ercise of the office of teaching and governing can only be carried out
in complete union with the pope and the whole body of bishops (ad-
dressing at the same time the ecumenical problem of true bishops who
are separated from Rome). At the end, this very important article (LG
21) speaks of the sacrament of orders in its ‘fullness’; here the coun-
cil teaches the sacramentality of episcopal consecration:

For from tradition, which is expressed especially in liturgical rites and

in the practice of the Church both of the East and of the West, it is clear
that, by means of the imposition of hands and the words of consecra-
tion, the grace of the Holy Spirit is so conferred, and the sacred charac-
ter so impressed, that bishops in an eminent and visible way undertake
Christ’s own role as Teacher, Shepherd, and High Priest, and that they
act in His person. Therefore it devolves on the bishops to admit newly
elected members into the episcopal body by means of the sacrament of
orders (LG 21).

From that point, the council turns to the theme of the episcopal col-
lege existing in the Church by divine will and possessing, with and
under the pope, the highest and fullest power: ‘’. . . one is constituted
a member of the episcopal body by virtue of sacramental consecration
and by hierarchical communion with the head and members of the
body’’ (LG 22).
The bishop of Rome is the perpetual and visible source for ‘‘unity
in multiplicity’’; the ‘‘visible’’ principle because the real and ultimate
principle is the Spirit of Jesus Christ. In parallel fashion, the individ-
ual bishop is the visible principle of the unity of his particular Church.
The conciliar teaching that the universal Church consists of and is com-
posed of the individual Churches is an important one (LG 23). After
articles on the mission and teaching office of the bishops (LG 24 and
 The Sacrament of Orders 263

25), the council turns to the local churches: the whole Church is truly
present in the local Church, in word, Eucharist, and love; the bishop
is the proper priestly presider in each of these individual local Churches
and in every community existing around an altar (LG 26).
The council next speaks about the bishops’ work of governing (LG
27), and then turns its attention to priests. There is no detailed discus-
sion of particular historical questions; it is simply stated that the
apostles themselves ‘‘legitimately handed on to different individuals
in the Church various degrees of participation’ in their ministry.
Through a variety of expressions—‘‘in the image of Christ,”’ ‘“partakers
of the function of Christ the sole mediator,’’ ‘‘acting in the person of
Christ’’—the council intends to express a special and direct relation-
ship of the priest to Jesus Christ. Parallel to the bishops, the priests
by virtue of sacramental ordination share in the three offices and thus
are true priests. The primary emphasis given to the duty of preaching
also parallels the teaching on bishops. The priests of a local Church,
in unity with their bishop, constitute ‘‘one priesthood”’ in analogy to
the collegiality of the bishops. In the local Churches they make the
bishops ‘‘present in a certain sense,’’ take on some of his duties, lead
“that part of the Lord’s flock entrusted to them, [making] the univer-
sal Church visible in their own locality,’’ and share in concern for the
diocese and the whole Church. The revival of ecclesiological elements
from the patristic period (beginning with Ignatius of Antioch) is evi-
dent here (LG 28, supplemented by PO).
Following this section on priests, Vatican II wanted not only to pre-
sent its teaching on deacons, but also to offer an opportunity for a re-
introduction of the diaconate as a permanent office in the Latin Church.
The council teaches that the deacons are sacramentally ordained and
thus belong to the hierarchy. However, in contrast to bishops and
priests they are not ordained to the priesthood (sacerdotium), but to a
ministry of service (ministerium). The fact that sacerdotium is here un-
derstood in terms of Eucharistic ‘‘powers’’ is also evident when the
text says that the deacons are ‘’at a lower level of the hierarchy.’ The
particular office of deacons is only suggested: they are to make tangible
the service of the hierarchy to the people of God. The duties listed are
those that in the Church’s history were more or less often assigned
to the deacons (LG 29).
What is new in the vision of Vatican II is primarily its dynamic: be-
ginning with the mission of Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit and with
264 Sacramental Theology

the idea that human beings are given a share in that mission, the council
views Church office as a share in the threefold office of Jesus Christ
in service to the people.*? The sacrament of orders is seen from the
point of view of episcopal consecration as the primary and compre-
hensive case of ordination to office;#4 the theological relationship of
the three ordinations to one another is not explained in detail. The
council maintains the traditional teaching that ordination (to priest-
hood and episcopate), with the conferral of its special character, em-
powers its subject to act ‘‘in the person of Christ’ (cf. also PO 2), and
though priests are considered in their relationship to the bishop, the
source of their priesthood is not the episcopal office, but Jesus Christ
alone.*®
The new Code of Canon Law attempts to remain true to this point
of view adopted by Vatican II. It says of the sacrament of orders that
“by divine institution’’ it makes human beings to be consecrated ser-
vants (sacri ministri) by the ineradicable character it imprints. They are
ordained and delegated to this service (consecrantur et deputantur), in
order that, according to the grade of ordination (pro suo quisque gradu)
and in the person of Christ the head, they may fulfill the duties of teach-
ing, sanctifying, and governing, and pasture the people of God (CIC
1983, canon 1008). The expression consecrari indicates that this is an
experience that lays claim to the whole of a person’s existence, a deeper
matter than a mere induction into office which, under certain circum-
stances, can also be called ordinari. ‘Ex divina institutione’’ was deliber-
ately chosen instead of “‘ex Christi institutione,’’ in order not to say that
Jesus Christ had appointed priests and deacons. The sacramental
character and the acting in the person of Christ are not necessarily to
be understood: as applying to deacons.*° Ordines in the Latin Church
are ‘‘episcopatus, presbyteratus et diaconatus’’ (CIC 1983, canon 1001 § 1):
since 1 January 1973 only these three constitute the clerical orders.
Minor orders, including the subdiaconate, were abolished in the Latin
Church at that time. Lectors and acolytes continue, for the services
of reading and of serving at the altar, but they are no longer called
ordines. Instead, they are ministeria, and are not conferred by an or-

33. Cf. L. Schick, Das dreifache Amt Christi und der Kirche (Frankfurt: 1982).
34. H. Miiller in HKR 716-717.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid., 718.
 The Sacrament of Orders 265

dinatio (ordination or induction into office), but by an institutio (instal-

lation or commissioning).3” Those commissioned, like the ministers of
communion, are not part of the clerus; they exercise their offices as lay
persons.
The external sign of each of these three ordinations is the imposi-
tion of hands and the appropriate prayer of ordination.3® These prayers
are as follows. For the ordination of bishops: ‘‘Send down upon this
chosen one the power that comes from you, the Spirit of leadership
which you gave to your beloved Son Jesus Christ. He gave the Holy
Spirit to the apostles, and they founded your sanctuary, the Church,
everywhere on earth, to the everlasting praise and glory of your
Name.”’ For the ordination of priests: ‘‘Almighty God, we pray you:
give to your servants the dignity of priesthood. Renew in them the
Spirit of holiness. Grant, O God, that they may hold fast to the office
they have received from your hand; let their lives be an incentive and
a guideline for all.’’ For the ordination of deacons: ‘‘Send down upon
them, O Lord, the Holy Spirit. May his sevenfold gifts strengthen them
so that they may perform their service with fidelity.’’%°
Regarding the ‘‘minister’’ of the sacrament of orders, the new Code
of Canon Law gives special attention to the concept of validity and
the question: who is allowed to administer the sacrament? Theologi-
cally relevant is the determination that every validly consecrated bishop
in turn validly ordains to the episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate
(CIC 1983, canon 1012).*°
Concerning the recipients, the Code says that ‘‘according to canon
1024 only a baptized man is capable of validly receiving sacred
orders.’’41 (On the ordination of women, see 11.4.4 below.) Admis-
sion to orders js granted on the basis of a divine call to this ecclesial
service which, according to the Church’s long experience, can be recog-

37. Ibid., 719. On this point, see especially B. Kleinheyer, ‘“Ordinationen und
Beauftagungen”’ (Bibliography 9).
38. Paul VI, apostolic constitution Pontificalis Romani (18 June 1968), AAS 60 (1968)
369-373, confirming the 1947 decision of Pius XII; motu proprio Ministeria quaedam
(15 August 1972), AAS 64 (1972) 529-534.
39. See H. Miiller, HKR, 719-720.
40. Ibid., 720-723, with guidelines for what is permitted and remarks on
problematic ‘‘cases.”’
41. Ibid., 723.
266 Sacramental Theology

nized in the aptitude and attitude of the candidate; the local Church
sets up a series of criteria for such recognition.”

11.4 The Sacrament of Orders: Systematic Aspects

11.4.1 Bishop

From the historical point of view, ‘ordained office’ in the Church

is so broadly conceived that it offers the possibility of placing the em-
phases differently according to the demands of a particular period. In
the course of time the ‘‘images’’ of the priest have shifted, and not
everything that theology may have introduced into its ‘‘priestly im-
age’’ could be maintained in light of authentic tradition. According to
our present conception, the theological emphasis in sacramental priest-
hood is clearly on the bishop. It is in looking at the bishop that we
can most clearly discern what ‘‘ordination’’ is and what are its effects.
Ordination in Catholic thinking is not merely an induction into of-
fice. It is a conferral of the Spirit in the form of an epiclesis, i.e., in
the petition of the Church that, in faith, is certain of being heard. This
prayer thus refers to the charism, the effectiveness of the gift of the
divine Spirit who is believed to be present. It is the Church’s faith that
God will enable the one ordained to make sensibly present (in the man-
ner of a real image) in the Church, and through it in the world, the
work of Jesus Christ: in this person Jesus Christ is and remains the
one who is really acting, in his Spirit, to the glory of the Father; the
ordained person is taken into this service, but is not, as a person, the
representative. of the absent Jesus Christ.*
It is obvious that the Holy Spirit of God belongs to the Church, the
body of Jesus Christ, as a whole: the earthly Jesus made this steadfast
promise to the faithful, and the exalted Jesus leads them through his
Spirit. In sovereign freedom, he awakens in the Church those gifts that

42. More deiail (including the impediments to ordination) and bibliography, may
be found in ibid., 724-727.
43. This is well described by A. Miiller, ‘‘Amt als Kriterium,’’ 111, with the ad-
ditional remark that the Church in antiquity was influenced in this question not
by Aristotelian ideas of causality, but by Platonic concepts of relationship. P. J.
Cordes also (see Bibliography 9) wishes to understand acting in persona Christi as
“exclusively relating to the action’”’ (p. 111).
 The Sacrament of Orders 267

he desires to grant it. The Church firmly maintains that among these
effects of the Spirit is the uniting of the Church into an organized so-
ciety, and therefore its structuring in ordines and the bestowal of the
charism of governance in the ordo as one among many charisms.
The Spirit who is active in the Church effects, according to New
Testament witnesses (Rom 8:26), its prayer of petition. The Spirit has
also moved the Church to combine its prayer of ordination with the
gesture of imposing hands, familiar since ancient times, into a
sacramental sign, without any necessity that this had to have been ex-
pressly ordered by Jesus Christ or the apostles.“ In this liturgy, which
in this sense confers the Spirit, the ordained person is at the same time
incorporated into a community within the Church, made up of bishops,
priests, and deacons.
Through episcopal consecration a bishop is inducted into the col-
lege that witnesses to the apostolic faith, binds the local Churches
within the continuity of faith, represents the unity of the Church, bears
responsibility for the liturgy as the glorification of God, and thus
guarantees the empirical identity, the recognizability of the Church.
The dynamic of this office is both historical and eschatological: it is
no contradiction to the providence of the divine Spirit that this office
has become historical, shaped by decisions taken in time and space;
and it corresponds to the finality of the divine message, which is
preserved and transmitted by this means, that such an important de-
velopment is irreversible and irrevocable.
This being-taken-into-service for Jesus Christ, the one who is really
active, a service that lays claim to a human being in totality (‘‘existen-
tiell’’), participates in such irrevocability; it can, of course, be trans-
formed from a situation of lively activity to one of rest (e.g., when a
bishop goes into retirement), but it can never be reversed as if it had
not happened. That is the meaning of the doctrine of the sacramental
character or mark, which at the same time implies that an ordination
can only be given once and may never be repeated.*

44, A. Miller, ‘‘Amt als Kriterium, 119.

45. There are some good observations on the sacramental character in the sacra-
ment of orders in P. Fransen, ‘‘Weihen, Heilige,’’ 1286-1289. Fransen views the
sacramental character primarily as the visible rite of ordination, ‘‘through which
the ordinand is legitimately incorporated in the college of his Ordo and thereby
takes on himself a body of rights and duties’’ (1288).
268 Sacramental Theology

That the one thus ordained and accepted into service remains a
hearer among hearers, a believer among believers, a sinner among sin-
ners, and is not changed into some kind of “‘higher being,”’ is perfectly
obvious.
The special sacramental grace is to be understood as the assistance
of the loving and justifying God for the fulfillment of the specific mis-
sion or service intended for the office.*

11.4.2 Priests

The priest is the bishop’s assistant. His duties depend to a certain

extent on the particular situation, so that the theological ‘‘image’’ of
the priest is not completely settled; some duties, however, have re-
mained constant in the tradition and were undergirded by Vatican II
(and developments since): among these, the priestly role in the celebra-
tion of the Eucharist was determinative for the priest’s ‘‘image’’ and
continues to be so. In most areas where priests are active today, we
can rightly speak of a ‘“sacramental pole’ and an “‘institutional pole’
of their tasks.4” The priest’s capacities in the sacramental area are not
given by the bishop and do not come from the assignment of his duties
nor from the community: they come through ordination, whose effect
is that priests—as was already said of the bishop—are able to be im-
ages and instruments of Jesus Christ, who is invisibly present. It is
he who proclaims his Word through their ministry and who, in the
liturgy, glorifies his Father in the Holy Spirit for the salvation of hu-
manity. In the concrete exercise of their ministry in celebrating the
sacraments within the liturgy, including the ministry of the Word, they
are dependent on the bishop whom they represent. It is not without
some justice that this double dependency and obscuring of the human
person ‘‘behind”’ the liturgical symbolic actions and ‘‘behind’’ the
Word of another has led some people to speak of a ‘‘depersonaliza-
tion’ of the priest.** It is true, of course, that the liturgy achieves its

46. Ibid., 1289.

47. Ibid., 1284-1285. (Literature on this subject is instructive concerning vari-
ous recent theologies of priesthood, not all of which, however, were accepted: e.g.,
Karl Rahner’s theology based on the preaching of the Word, with its somewhat
dangerous tendency toward an institutionalization of the prophetic role.)
48. Ibid., 1283.
 The Sacrament of Orders 269

end independently of the qualities of the presider. But that does not
mean that the priest’s service can be understood as a mere function;
the theological concept of the “‘servants of Christ’’ is not adequately
served by a functional minimum. It must meet the demands of a par-
ticular spirituality that, at its core, is a Jesus-mysticism. In the tasks
of pastoral care and in catechesis, as well as in the institutional area,
there are still sufficient opportunities for the application of one’s own
personal talents. Regarding the sacramental character and the grace
of priestly ordination, what has been said of the bishop also applies
here.
The theology of the priestly office of service need not be radically
altered in view of what seems to be a critical situation. The structure
of offices, with a college of ordained priests serving with and belong-
ing to a single bishop, arose under the impulse of the divine Spirit and
has proved itself in the ‘‘normal’’ situation of the Church and in the
fulfillment of its tasks. In the present critical shortage of priests, the
fundamental meaning of the common priesthood of all believers, the
consciousness of their capability for faith, prayer, and liturgy, and hope
in the unshaken charismatic activity of the divine Spirit, even apart
from the sacraments, for the continuing life of Christian communities
can and must suffice. (See also the previous remarks on spiritual com-
munion: 8.4.9). It need not be supposed that in such critical situations
the community itself can ‘“empower’’ people of its own choice to
sacramental service. But the crisis can contribute to a correction of lop-
sided notions of priesthood and serve to incorporate priests more
thoroughly and more perceptibly within their communities. This
means, among other things, that both in the sacramental area (e.g.,
baptism, assisting at marriages, anointing the sick, preaching, bless-
ing, and conducting funerals) and in the institutional field (in teach-
ing, organization, etc.) priests will be replaced by other, non-priestly
persons. The revival of priestly collegiality can help to build up the
image of the priest as a prominent spiritual authority.‘

49. Against E. Schillebeeckx’s attempt to make relative ordination the ideal, we

would emphasize the positive value in the fact that a priest is primarily seen in
the context of the college of presbyters. This college embodies many opportuni-
ties for mutual help and a flexibility that is not present when a priest is completely
dependent on—and “‘handed over to’’—a parish or other local community.
270 Sacramental Theology

11.4.3 Deacons

There were two primary reasons for the renewal of the permanent,
ordained diaconate in the Latin Church:® (1) the hierarchy of the or-
dained, as a group set apart in the Church, should make it evident
that diakonia, service in the social-charitable area, is also laid upon them
and that this service is exercised in the closest possible connection with
the liturgy; (2) in the crisis situation caused by the shortage of priests,
assistance should be provided in various areas (although the Church
from the beginning reserved the role of presiding at the Eucharist and
at the sacrament of reconciliation to those in priestly orders). The duties
of the deacon are not tightly circumscribed, nor can they be; none of
the tasks that Vatican II mentioned as possible assignments for dea-
cons (LG 29) is exclusively reserved to them. Nonetheless, all that the
deacon does is done as a member of the hierarchy, of the clerus; whether
married or not, the deacon is one of the sacramentally ordained. In
his person, the deacon makes it clear that the liturgy must have con-
crete consequences in the world with all its needs, and that work in
the world that is done in the spirit of charity has a spiritual dimen-
sion. Sacramental ordination asks for and effects in deacons the grace
to perform this service.
In addition, the Latin Church also retains a sacramental ordination
of deacons as a stage on the way to priesthood. This is intended to
make candidates aware of the diaconal dimension of their calling. Or-
dinarily, these deacons also perform concrete tasks of that nature for
a period of time.

11.4.4 The Ordination of Women

On this issue, it is not a question of blessings given to.and by women
(see chapter 13 below), but of women’s access to ordained ministry,

50. In addition to the commentaries on LG 29, see K. Rahner and H. Vorgrimler,

Diaconia in Christo (Freiburg: 1961), with bibliography; J. G. Pléger and H. J. Weber,
Der Diakon. Wiederentdeckung und Erneuerung seines Dienstes (Freiburg: 1980), with
bibliography; H. Schwendenwein, ‘’Der standige Diakon,’’ HKR 229-238; S. Zar-
doni, Idiaconi nella chiesa (Bologna: 1983). Information on the further practical and
theological development of the diaconate can be found in the periodical Diaconia
XP published by the Internationales Diakonats-Zentrum, Freiburg im Breisgau (not
to be confused with the Diakonia published in Vienna).
 The Sacrament of Orders 271

the subject of discussion in this chapter in connection with the sacra-

ment of orders. The twentieth century has witnessed an increasing con-
sciousness on the part of women of their oppression and degradation
(sometimes in the form of elevation on a pedestal), of their unequal
treatment in the socio-economic realm, and of restrictions placed on
their equality as citizens. A worldwide emancipation movement has
had a sensitizing effect, and has won a place in the Catholic Church
as well.5! Among the requests directed to Vatican II was that for the
admission of women to priestly ordination. In an ecumenical context,
it was pointed out that women pastors are being ordained in a num-
ber of Protestant Churches.
In Catholic sacramental theology before Vatican II the exclusion of
women from priestly orders (CIC 1917, canon 986) was regarded as
unproblematic. Karl Rahner set off a dogmatic discussion of the ques-
tion: is this exclusion founded on revelation, i.e., is it ‘‘of divine law?’’5?
In its declaration, Inter insigniores, of 15 October, 1976,55 the Congre-
gation for the Doctrine of the Faith concluded that, in fidelity to the
model of the actions of Jesus Christ and the apostles, the Church does
not feel authorized to admit women to priestly orders, since the priest
must represent the man Jesus Christ (among other things, as bride-

51. Cf. the historical overviews in Frauen in der Mannerkirche? (Concilium 16/4
[1980]). The feminist theological literature to date is immense; cf. the current bibli-
ographies under a special heading in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses. Cf. also
M. Kaiser, ‘’Die Stellung der Frau in der Kirche,’” HKR 179-181, with bibliography.
52. H. van der Meer’s dissertation, Priestertum der Frau (1962), directed by Karl
Rahner and published at Freiburg in 1969, saw no adequate reasons for the exclu-
sion of women from priestly orders. A dissertation by M. Hauke directed by L.
Scheffczyk, Die Problematik zum das Frauenpriestertum vor dem Hintergrund der
Schépfung- und Erlésungsordnung (Paderborn: 1982) came to the opposite conclu-
sion, that is, that the exclusion of women from ordained priesthood has a divine
basis. W. Beinert writes correctly concerning Hauke’s work (Theologie und Glaube
73 [1983] 203): ‘Qui nimis probat, nihil probat [who proves too much, proves
nothing]. This is an ideological work based on an enormous body of (not very well
assimilated) material from all possible fields of knowledge. The opportunity for
a detailed and objective discussion of a question to which a well-founded solution
must be given, one way or the other, has been wasted in this book. One can well
imagine that it will have the opposite effect from that intended: anyone familiar
with its argumentation will be tempted to adopt the contrary thesis.”’
53. AAS 69 (1977) 98-116. A German commentary with a tendentious commen-
tary (denying the possibility of priestly ordination for women from the outset) is
Die Sendung der Frau in der Kirche (Kevelaer: 1978).
272 Sacramental Theology

groom of the Church). Important counter-arguments, for example that

every woman who “‘administers’’ a sacrament (baptism, marriage)
‘‘represents’’ Jesus Christ, were not discussed. The declaration admits
that it can offer no conclusive proof to justify the practice of the Church,
but it declines to treat the question in the context of discussion about
equal rights for women, since access to the priesthood should not be
regarded as a right. The declaration’s style of argumentation has been
subjected to sharp criticism.°4 Nevertheless, the new Code of Canon
Law retained the precise wording of the old Code, excluding women
from the sacrament of orders (CIC 1983, canon 1024).
Thus it is highly probable that for the immediate future women’s
access to the priesthood is blocked. The reasons for this are clear. The
Latin Church makes no decisions, certainly not those that have broad
implications, under any sort of deliberate pressure. The question was
bound to be decided negatively from the moment it was advanced in
the form of an emancipatory demand couched in terms of class struggle,
often combined with a coercive threat that, if ordination were not per-
mitted, women would leave the Church. There are no compelling theo-
logical reasons for the Latin Church’s refusal; not even the new Code
of Canon Law claims that its position is ‘‘of divine law.’’ However,
in the foreground of present theological discussion there are two
grounds for denying women’s ordination that are worthy of serious
consideration, and may even be called plausible: (1) in a development
lasting nearly two thousand years, what has emerged is a structure
of office that is completely masculine in form. Such a development can-
not be abruptly interrupted; it can only be revised forward, in the sense
of a new and expanded form; (2) the question must be seen in an ecu-
menical context in which the separated Eastern Churches regard them-
selves as the special defenders of the authentic apostolic tradition. An
admission of women to the priesthood without the agreement of the
Eastern Churches would do damage to ecumenical efforts.
The possibility of ordaining women as deacons is quite another mat-
ter. There was such an ordination in the early days of the Church.55
54. H. Pissarek-Hudelist, ‘‘Die Bedeutung der Sakramententheologie Karl
Rahners fiir die Diskussion um das Priestertum der Frau,”’ in H. Vorgrimler, ed.,
Wagnis Theologie (Freiburg: 1979) 417-434 (with bibliography); H. Miiller, HKR, 724
(with bibliography).
55. In recent literature, see: H. Frohnhofen, ‘‘Weibliche Diakone in der friihen
Kirche,’’ Stimmen der Zeit 111 (1986) 269-278, with bibliography; C. Oeyen, ‘’Priester-
 The Sacrament of Orders 273

There are important reasons for thinking that women were part of a
group of co-workers, even in New Testament times, from which later
arose the ordained ministry of women deacons or deaconesses. We
have evidence of women deacons in Asia Minor in the second century
and in Syria in the third century; the Western Church partly rejected
them, but they existed there also from the fifth century, and there were
still women deacons at Rome in the eleventh century, and in the Byzan-
tine Church until the fifteenth century.® In the East, and in imperial
law, they were counted among the clerus.°” According to the Didasca-
lia (a north Syrian church order from the third century), the woman
deacon (or deaconess) is to be honored as a type of the Holy Spirit.
The question whether their ordination is sacramental could not be
asked before the reflections on sacramental theology in high Scholasti-
cism. In the Byzantine liturgy, it has all the characteristics of a major
ordination.*®
In light of the existing common tradition in East and West there
is no serious reason to continue excluding women from the flexibly
conceived permanent diaconate.®? Diaconal orders for women would
undoubtedly be a sacramental ordination, and the women so ordained
would be part of the clerus.

amt der Frau?’’ Okumenische Rundschau 35 (1986) 254-266. The periodical Diakonia
XP (see n. 50 above) also lists literature on the ordination of women to the diaconate.
56. A. G. Martimort, Les diaconesses (Paris: 1982) interprets the sources with an
openly minimalist tendency. In his opinion, all the documents mentioning women
deacons in which liturgical ministries are not mentioned do not refer to real dea-
cons (cf. C. Oeyen, ‘’Priesteramt der Frau?’’ 257). Of course, Martimort also pays
no attention to the fact that before the Council of Nicaea in 325 diakonos could mean
both men and women deacons.
57. On this point, see H. Frohnhofen, ‘‘Weibliche Diakone,”’ and in more de-
tail O. Barlea, Dei Weihe der Bischéfe, Presbyter und Diakone in vornicinischer Zeit
(Munich: 1969).
58. C. Oeyen, ‘‘Priesteramt der Frau?’’ 256 (with bibliography); E. Theodorou,
“Das Priestertum nach dem Zeugnis der byzantinischen liturgischen Texte,”’
Okumenische Rundschau 35 (1986) 267-280, at 271. Fundamental to the discussion
are the findings of C. Vagaggini, ‘’L’ordinazione delle diaconesse nella tradizione
greca e bizantina,’’ Orientalia Christiana Periodica 40 (1974) 145-189.
59. H. Miiller, HKR, 724, points to a motion of the Wiirzburg synod of 1975 ask-
ing the Pope to consider the question of the diaconate for women, based on posi-
tive assessments by Y. Congar, P. Hiinermann, O. Semmelroth and H. Vorgrimler.
The request had, by 1986, received no answer. Cf. M. Kaiser HKR, 181.
 274 Sacramental Theology

11.5 Ecumenical Dialogue

11.5.1 The Perspective of the Eastern Churches

If it is true that the essential differences between the Roman Catholic

Church and the separated Eastern Churches concern the Petrine of-
fice in particular, there are also theological disagreements regarding
other offices. These divergences, however, are not such as to divide
the Churches; they appear within a legitimate spectrum of variation
in which one point of view can have a critical and corrective function
for another.
The Eastern liturgy,® which, next to the Bible, is the most impor-
tant source for the theology of the Eastern Churches, distinguishes the
ordination (cheirotonia) of the three upper levels (bishop, priest, and
deacons, both male and female) from the blessing (cheirothesia) of the
lower grades. The three major ordinations have the same structure:
a solemn agreement of those present to the ordination of a candidate;
an epiclesis to the Holy Spirit for the grace necessary to exercise the
particular office; imposition of hands; clothing.
The Eastern Churches recognize something corresponding to what
is called ‘‘divine law’’ in the Latin Church: what comes from God and
is constitutive for the Church need not be expressly witnessed in the
New Testament; instead, it is understood as coming into existence
within history and at the same time as effected by the Holy Spirit. The
three canonical grades of ordained ministry are regarded as the con-
stitutive form with the greatest historical and ecumenical dignity. In
these, the major emphasis lies on the office of bishops: the Church
of Jesus Christ is episcopal in form. The college of bishops is seen as
the group of those who are the successors of the apostles; the con-
secration of a bishop by three other bishops, prescribed since Nicaea
in 325, means that the one consecrated is received into the episcopal
college and—by means of the “‘apostolic succession’’ conferred through
the unbroken series of imposition of hands—it signifies the continued
building up of the Church on the foundation of the apostles. In the
local Churches, where the body of Christ is constituted not by addi-

60. On this, see E. Theodorou, ‘‘Das Priestertum,’’ and, still unsurpass

ed, J.
D. Zizioulas on ordination in the Eastern Churches in H. Vorgrimle
r, ed., Amt
und Ordination in 6kumenischer Sicht (Freiburg: 1972) 72-113.
 The Sacrament of Orders 275

tion, but by a mutual inclusion of one within another, the bishop is

considered the representative and delegate of Jesus Christ.®
The fundamental service is performed by Jesus Christ, who was sent
by the Father; the minister is only his instrument, acting within a
Christological and pneumatological perspective. In the view of the East-
ern Churches the priest should not be regarded as acting in persona
Christi; rather, the priest is the symbolon Christou, a representative who
does not ontologically assume the place of Christ, but works through
the grace of the Spirit. In Latin terms, the priest acts in nomine Christi
and in persona Ecclesiae. The Eastern Churches cannot agree that the
sacraments can be administered with indicative formulae or that the
Eucharistic transubstantiation could (in case of necessity) be accom-
plished without an epiclesis.©
Through the epiclesis, the laity become fellow-liturgists. But there
is a qualitative, essential, and not only gradual or functional distinc-
tion between spiritual office and the lay state. Clerics and laity are re-
lated to one another as communicating bodies: the ordained priesthood
is the precondition for the priesthood of all.®
Among the sacramentally ordained, the deacon has a middle loca-
tion between divine worship and charitable work, but none of the dea-
con’s duties extends into the ‘‘strictly consecratory’’ (Eucharistic) realm
of the sacerdotium.™
In summary we may say that the functions of ecclesiastical office
effect among the faithful the disposition for the gracious activity of the
Holy Spirit; this circumstance is sacramentally embodied in the func-
tions of office. The spiritual office is a representation of the charismatic
reality, namely the reality of Jesus Christ, who is present in the Church
through his Holy Spirit. This fundamental sacramental-theological
view is no different from the Roman Catholic position.

61. E. Theodorou, ‘’Das Priestertum,’’ 274-275.

62. Ibid., 276-277.
63. Ibid., 277-278.
64. Ibid., 278-279. To say that the duties listed for deacons in LG 29 are exclu-
sively reserved to the deacon is a misunderstanding (ibid., 278).
65. Ibid., 280.
 276 Sacramental Theology

11.5.2 A Minimal Consensus

The theological concept of office in the Eastern churches and in the

Roman Catholic Church encounters objections in the theology that
emerged from the Reformation. Nevertheless, ecumenical discussions
with the Reformation Churches have made a positive beginning and
are not without result. Harald Wagner summarizes the minimal con-
sensus that has been reached so far as follows:® The call of all Chris-
tians to preach the gospel, accepted in faith by all the Churches, does
not exclude offices and ministries assigned to particular persons. The
holders of those offices and ministries are dependent on an inner call
from the Holy Spirit and on the confirmation of their service by the
whole Church. This confirmation and delegation from the Church is
done through ordination, which, as a rule, is conferred by officials who
are already themselves ordained, and who, with prayer and the im-
position of hands, call the ordinands to special office in the Church.
The ordinand, relying on the grace of God, accepts the obligation to
serve in obedience to God’s word and in unity with the confessions
(dogmas) of the Church. An apostolic succession is accepted by all the
Churches in the sense that the faith of a Church must agree with the
witness of the apostles and thus maintain a continuing connection with
the apostles’ fundamental ministry. Church office has authority only
to the extent that it serves the absolute authority of the word of God.
It “‘represents’’ Jesus Christ and his position within the community
only insofar as it gives expression to the gospel.
Within Catholicism, the following arguments, consciously directed
in an ecumenical spirit to speak to the Protestant position, have been
successfully advanced;* office is seen as a sharing in the three ‘offices
of Christ’ (as described in Calvinist theology). Here the primacy of
the preaching of God’s word receives special emphasis. The nature
of office, including the office of governance in the community, as serv-
ice is brought to the fore. The teaching on the ‘‘sacramental charac-
ter” is “‘softened,”’ if this is interpreted primarily as meaning that
ordination is not repeatable. Apostolic succession is considered a suc-

66. H. Wagner, ‘Das Amt vor dem Hintergrund der Diskussion um eine
evangelisch—katholische Grunddifferenz,’’ Catholica 40 (1986) 39-58. I am follow-
ing Wagner (48-49) literally. Cf. also Bibliography 2; on the previous status of ecu-
menical discussion, see S. Regli (Bibliography 2).
67. A. Miller, ‘‘Amt als Kriterium,’’ 113.
 The Sacrament of Orders 277

cession in faith, a succession both of the living word and of persons.

The question of the sacramentality of orders appears subject to a solu-
tion, if the theology of all the Churches, under the influence of exe-
getical research, can be disengaged from a fixation on the institutional
words of the historical Jesus and can conceive the notion of sacramen-
tality in broader terms. When Protestant theology does not deny to
office the dimension of the Holy Spirit, it implicitly accepts its sacra-
mentality.®

11.5.3 Questions Still Outstanding

Apart from the fact that there are individual Christians in all
Churches who, from a joy in division for its own sake, indulge in finer
and finer hairsplitting in order to emphasize the differences among
the Churches,® the statements that have separated us heretofore are
(1) those regarding apostolic succession in episcopal office and (2) those
concerning the sacrament of orders, to the extent that it empowers
those ordained to represent Christ (and so, as is said, levels out the
essential difference between God and human beings), so that it is es-
sential for the one who presides at a ‘‘valid’’ Eucharistic celebration.
Differences of opinion exist within Catholicism, especially with regard
to the representation of Christ and, in connection with that, the em-
powerment of the priest through the sacrament of orders. It is widely
accepted that the reservation of leadership in the Eucharistic celebra-
tion is necessary for Church order. That an empowerment for that role
does not mean that priests act in their own name and by their own
power is a basic and common conviction. In that case, however, ex-
pressions that state or imply that ordination causes an ‘‘ontological
assimilation’’ to Jesus Christ can only create confusion.

68. Ibid., 118. Cf. also the suggestions for unity in H. Fries and K. Rahner,
Einigung der Kirchen—reale Méglichkeit (Freiburg: 1983; 6th ed., 1985), especially H.
Fries’ replies to criticisms at 157-189.
69. Thus it is no longer comprehensible that Eilert Herms, in his controversy
with the Lima document (Kerygma und Dogma 31 [1985] 67-96) says that office ex-
ists only to witness to revelation and not, as in the Catholic view, to hand it on.
If such a statement means anything at all, it must be based on the idea that revela-
tion is fixed once and for all, even in its linguistic form, so that faith can only refer
to that fixed revelation and must abandon all thought and understanding. That
kind of Platonic-idealistic construct should, however, no longer bear the name of
divine revelation.
 Bibliography 9

Office and Ordination

a) Books
Amt und Dienst in den liturgischen Versammlungen (Concilium 8/2) 1972.
Barlea, O. Die Weihe der Bischéfe, Presbyter und Diakone in vornicanischer Zeit.
Munich: 1969.
Becker, K. J. Der priestliche Dienst Il. Freiburg: 1970.
Betti, U. La dottrina sull’episcopato del Concilio Vaticano II. Rome: 1984.
Cordes, P. J. Sendung zum Dienst. Exegetisch-historische und systematische Stu-
dien zum Konzilsdekret ‘’Vom Dienst und Leben der Priester.’’ Frankfurt: 1972.
Cunningham, A. The Bishop in the Church. Wilmington: 1985 (collection of patris-
tic texts).
Das Recht der Gemeinde auf einen Priester (Concilium 16/3) 1980.
Deissler, A., and others. Der priesterliche Dienst 1. Freiburg: 1970.
Delhaye, P., and L. Elders, eds. Episcopale munus. Assen: 1982.
Der Bischof und die Einheit der Kirche (Concilium 8/1) 1972.
Der Streit um das Amt in der Kirche. Regensburg: 1983.
Faivre, A. Naissance d’une hiérarchie. Paris: 1977.
Farnedi, G., and P. Rouillard, eds. II ministero ordinato nel dialogo ecumenico.
Rome: 1985.
Garcia Manzanedo, V. Carisma—ministerio en el Concilio Vaticano Segundo,
Madrid: 1982.

278
 Bibliography 9 279

Gaudemet, J. Les élections dans l’Eglise latine des origines au XVIe siécle. Paris: 1979.
Gegenseitige Anerkennung der Amter (Concilium 8/4) 1972.
Gemeinsame rém-kath./ev.-luth. Kommission [Lutheran-Roman Catholic Com-
mon Commission]. Das geistliche Amt. Paderborn and Frankfurt: 1981.
Genn, F. Trinitét und Amt nach Augustinus. Einsiedeln: 1986 (only Jesus Christ
has potestas, according to Augustine; representation is not an Augustin-
ian teaching).
Ghirlanda, G. ‘’Hierarchica Communio.’’ Rome: 1980 (the bishop according to
Lumen Gentium).
Greshake, G. Priester sein. Zur Theologie und Spiritualitat des priesterlichen Amtes.
Freiburg: 1982 and further editions.
Hainz, J., ed. Kirche im Werden. Studium zum Thema Amt und Gemeinde im NT.
Paderborn: 1976.
Holmberg, B. Paul and Power. The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church
as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles. Lund: 1978.
Hopko, T., ed. Women and the Priesthood. Crestwood, N.Y.: 1983.
Jilek, A. Initiationsfeier und Amt. Ein Beitrag zur Struktur und Theologie der Amter
und des Taufgottesdienstes in der friihen Kirche. Frankfurt and Berne: 1979.
Kertelge, K. Gemeinde und Amt im Neuen Testament. Munich: 1972.
Konig, D. Amt und Askese. Priesteramt und Ménchtum bei den lateinischen Kirchen-
vatern in vorbenediktinischer Zeit. St. Ottilien: 1986.
Laurence, J. D. ‘Priest’ as Type of Christ. The Leader of the Eucharist in Salvation
History according to Cyprian of Carthage. New York, Frankfurt, and Berne:
1984.
Lecuyer, J. Le Sacrement de l’ordination. Recherche historique et théologique. Paris:
1983.
Macquarrie, J. Theology, Church and Ministry. London: 1986.
Marliangéas, B.-M. Clés pour une théologie du ministére. In persona Christi. In per-
sona Ecclesia. Paris: 1978.
Martelet, G. Théologie du sacerdoce I. Paris: 1984.
Martimort, A. G. Les diaconesses. Rome: 1982.
Martin, J. Der priesterliche Dienst III. Freiburg: 1972.
Mumm, R., ed. Ordination und kirchliches Amt. Paderborn and Bielefeld: 1976
(results of ecumenical discussion).
Ott, L. Das Weihesakrament. Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte IV/5. Freiburg:
1969.
Rahner, K. Vorfragen zu einem dkumenischen Amtsverstandnis. Freiburg: 1974.
. Reform und Anerkennung kirchlicher Amter. Mainz: 1973.
Rhode, J. Urchristliche und friihkatholische Amter. Berlin: 1976.
Richter, K. Die Ordination des Bischofs von Rom. Eine Untersuchung der Weihe litur-
gie. Minster: 1976.
Schick, L. Das dreifache Amt Christi und der Kirche. Frankfurt and Berne: 1982.
280 Sacramental Theology

Schillebeeckx, E. Christliche Identitat und kirchliches Amt. Dusseldorf: 1985.

Schroer, H., and G. Miiller. Vom Amt des Laien in Kirche und Theologie. Berlin
and New York: 1982.
Tillard, J.-M. R. L’évéque de Rome. Paris: 1984.
Université d’Angers, ed. L’évéque dans l'histoire de l’Eglise. Angers: 1984.
Vanhoye, A. Prétres anciens, prétre nouveau selon le Nouveau Testament. Paris: 1980.
Vogel, C. Ordinations inconsistantes et caractére inamissible. Turin: 1978.
Von Lips, H. Glaube—Gemeinde—Amt. Zum Verstandnis der Ordination in den
Pastoralbriefen. Gottingen: 1975.
Vorgrimler, H., ed. Amt und Ordination in Okumenischer Sicht. Freiburg: 1973.
WeB, P. Ihr alle seid Geschwister. Gemeinde und Priester. Mainz: 1983; see ar-
ticles by L. Lies in Zeitschrift fiir katholische Theologie 108 (1986) 176-179
and P. WeB, ibid., 179-185.
Zardoni, S. I diaconi nella chiesa. Bologna: 1983 (history and theology).
Zemp, P. Das Sakrament der Weihe. Fribourg (Switzerland): 1977.
Zollitsch, R. Amt und Funktion des Priesters. Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung
und zur Gestalt des Presbyterats in den ersten zwei Jahrhunderten. Freiburg:
1974.

b) Articles
Angenendt, A. Kaiserherrschaft und K6nigstaufe. Berlin: 1984, 135-136: absolute
and relative ordination of priests in historical perspective.
Blank, J., and B. Snela. ‘’Priester/Bischof.’’ NHthG III (1985) 411-441 (with bib-
liography).
Congar, Y. ‘“Note sur ene valeur des termes ‘ordinare, ordinatio.’ ’’ Recherches
de science religieuse 68 (1984) 7-14.
Dassmann, E. ‘‘Zur Entstehung des Monepiskopats.’’ Jahrbuch fiir Antike und
Christentum 17 (1974) 74-90.
DeClerck, P. ‘’Ordination, Ordre.’’ Catholicisme X (1983) 162-206.
Doring, H. ‘Das Amt im 6kumenischen Kontext.’’ Theologische Revue 78 (1982)
185-192 (with bibliography).
Dupuy, B. D. ‘‘Theologie der kirchenlichen Amter.’” MySal IV/2 (1973) 488-594.
Faivre, A., and others. ‘‘Le devenir des ministéres.’’ Lumiere et vie 33 (1984)
1-106.
Fischer, B. ‘‘Das Gebet der Kirche als Wesenselement des Weihesakramentes.’’
Liturgisches Jahrbuch 20 (1970) 166-177.
Frohnhofen, H. ‘‘Weibliche Diakone in der friihen Kirche.’’ Stimmen der Zeit
111 (1986) 269-278 (with bibliography).
Hein, M., and H.-G. Jung. ‘“Bischof, Bischofsamt.’’ EKL I (1986) 518-522.
 Bibliography 9 281

Hilberath, B. J. ‘“Das Verhaltnis vom gemeinsamen und amtlichen Priester-

tum in der Perspektive von Lumen gentium 10.”’ Trierer theologische Zeit-
schrift 94 (1985) 311-326.
Hod, L. ‘’Das priesterliche Amt in der Kirche.’’ Miinchener Theologische Zeit-
schrift 34 (1983) 22-36.
Hoffmann, J. ‘’L’Eglise et son origine.’’ Initiation a la pratique de la théologie Il
(Paris: 1983) 55-141 (with bibliography).
Jilek, A. ‘“Bischof und Presbyterium.”’ Zeitschrift fiir katholische Theologie 106
(1984) 376-401 (on Hippolytus).
Kaczynski, R. ‘‘Das Vorsteheramt im Gottesdienst nach den Zeugnissen der
Ordinationsliturgie des Ostens und des Westens.”’ Liturgisches Jahrbuch
35 (1985) 69-84.
Karrer, M. ‘‘Apostel, Apostolat.’’ EKL I (1986) 221-223.
Klauck, H.-J. ‘“Gemeinde ohn Amt? Erfahrungen mit der Kirche in den jo-
hanneischen Schriften.’’ Biblische Zeitschrift 29 (1985) 193-220.
Kleinheyer, B. ‘‘Handauflegung zur Geistmitteilung.’’ Liturgisches Jahrbuch 30
(1980) 154-173.
. “Ordinationen und Beauftragungen.”’ In B. Kleinheyer, E. von
Severus, and R. Kaczynski, Sakramentliche Feiern II (Regensburg: 1984)
7-65.
____. ““Apg 1,24 im Kontext der Weiheliturgie.’’ Zeitschrift fiir katholische
Theologie 107 (1985) 31-38.
Knoch, O. ‘‘Die Funktion der Handauflegung im Neuen Testament.”’ Litur-
gisches Jahrbuch 39 (1983) 222-235.
Kretschmar, G. ‘Die Ordination im friihen Christentum.” Freiburger Zeitschrift
fur Philosophie und Theologie 22 (1975) 35-69.
Legrand, H. ‘‘Les ministéres de l’Eglise locale.’’ Initiation a la pratique de la
théologie II (Paris: 1983) 181-273.
Lengeling, E. J. ‘‘Die Theologie des Weihesakramentes nach dem Zeugnis des
neuen Ritus.”’ Liturgisches Jahrbuch 19 (1969) 142-166.
Lohfink, G. ‘Die Normativitat der Amtsvorstellungen in den Pastoralbriefen.”’
Theologische Quartalschrift 157 (1977) 93-106.
Miller, A. ‘‘Amt als Kriterium der Kirchlichkeit? Kirchlichkeit als Kriterium
des Amtes?’’ Theologische Berichte (Zurich) 9 (1980) 97-128.
Miiller, H. ‘’Die Ordination.’’ HKR 715-727.
Neumann, J., and others. ‘“Bischof.’’ TRE VI (1980) 653-697 (with bibliography).
Oeyen, C. ‘’Priesteramt der Frau?’’ Okumenische Rundschau 35 (1986) 254-266.
Rohls, J. ‘‘Das geistliche Amt in der reformatorischen Theologie.’’ Kerygma
und Dogma 31 (1985) 135-161.
Roloff, J., and others. ‘“Apostel/Apostolat/Apostolizitat.’” TRE III (1978)
430-483.
Schwendenwein, H. ‘’Der standige Diakon.’’ HKR 229-238.
282 Sacramental Theology

Stein, A. ‘‘Diakon.’’ EKL I (1986) 848-850.

Stockmeier, P. ‘‘Das Amt in der Alten Kirche.’’ In H. Althaus, ed. Kirche:
Ursprung und Gegenwart (Freiburg: 1984) 39-61.
Theodorou, E. ‘‘Das Priestertum nach dem Zeugnis der byzantinischen litur-
gischen Texte.’’ Okumenische Rundschau 35 (1986) 267-280.
Tortras, A. M. ‘‘El ministerio a la luz de las liturgias de ordenacién.”’ Estudios
eclesidsticos 60 (1985) 411-441.
Trilling, W. ‘Zum ‘Amt’ im Neuen Testament.”’ In U. Luz and H. Weder,
eds. Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments (Gottingen: 1983) 316-344.
Vanhoye, A., and H. Crouzel. ‘‘Le ministére dans l’Eglise.’’ Nouvelle Revue
Théologique 104 (1982) 722-748 (New Testament and early Church).
Vodopivec, G. ‘‘Lo Spirito Santo e il ministerio ordinato.’’ Euntes Docete 36
(1983) 329-360.
Vogt, H. J. ‘Zum Bischofsamt in der frithen Kirche.’’ Theologische Quartalschrift
162 (1982) 329-360.
Wagner, H. ‘‘Das Amt vor dem Hintergrund der Diskussion um eine
evangelisch-katholische Grunddifferenz.’’ Catholica 40 (1986) 39-58.
Zizioulas, J. D. ‘‘“Episkopé et Episkopos dans l’Eglise primitive.’’ Irénikon 56
(1983) 484-502.
 12

The Sacrament of Marriage

12.1 Introduction

Marriage is a ‘‘legally recognized relationship between two human

persons of different sex for a full community of life.’”! According to
the belief of the Catholic Church, the marriage of two baptized per-
sons is a sacrament. Thus marriage focuses a variety of dimensions
into one. Since we can only speak of the sacramental aspect here, very
important questions must remain outside the discussion: in sacramental
theology we cannot deal with sexuality and its human forms, or with
the emancipation of women, or with the problems in the life of couples
or in communities of persons living together, or with celibacy and its
values.
In the view of classic Scholastic theology, God created marriage in
Eden. When a distinction is made between the orders of creation and
redemption, we must therefore say that marriage originates in the order
of creation. The Book of Genesis does indeed speak very eloquently
about woman and man (1:27; 2:21-24), and if even an individual human

1. A. Stein in TRE IX (1982) 355.

283
284 Sacramental Theology

being can be a real symbol of God (see 1.3 above), the relationship of
man and woman is all the more appropriate for this type of symbolism.
A consideration of marriage as a sacrament can begin with the con-
sideration that puberty, marriage, sexuality, and giving birth have been
connected with religious symbolism in nearly every culture.
On the other hand, some more urgent and differentiated questions
need to be posed to the religious view of marriage. A more profound
notion of God’s action within history and of divine revelation can at -
least frame the question whether God creates human institutions at
all, or whether, instead, such matters of organization are left to human
initiative, although God gives impulses of divine will to indicate what
direction institutions and organizations ought to take. In addition, it
can and must be asked whether the relationship of two persons spo-
ken of in Genesis can be called ‘‘marriage,’’ given the meaning of the
word as we use it today.
In fact, marriage as an institution has undergone so many histori-
cal changes that we may ask whether, over many centuries, a stable
core that could be called the ‘essence of marriage’’ has survived. As
a legal institution, marriage has its historical and social basis primarily
in the guaranteeing of property relations.’ It first appears in history
as an economic community of production. Patriarchalism dominates
the common life: the wife is regarded as a piece of acquired property;
the purpose of marriage is the begetting of male heirs; polygamy is
legitimate, but in practice is reduced to polygyny; the man’s right to
sexual activity outside marriage is connected with his interest in ac-
quiring sons through concubines, slave women, etc. This notion of mar-
riage, very widely evidenced in the Old Testament, is, if the institution
of marriage is from God, to be traced to the order of creation, since
it was not practiced by deviants and immoral people, but by our an-
cestors in faith.® .
An idea of marriage that was completely material in orientation
dominated in Christendom as late as the period of the Enlightenment
(Kant) and its ideas of natural law. The essence of marriage was seen
in a contract whose purposes were clearly defined: begetting and edu-
cation of progeny, mutual support for the partners, and an orderly

2. H. Ringeling, ibid., 351.

3. Theological excuses offered in earlier periods (e.g., that God gave a dispen-
sation for the patriarchs’ polygamy) need not be discussed here.
 The Sacrament of Marriage 285

satisfaction of the sex drive. This also represents the official view of
marriage in the Catholic Church until Vatican II. The concept of mar-
riage as a legal institution alone left room for different forms; at any
rate, it offered no obstacle to the assertion of patriarchal power.
The idea of a loving relationship formed by equal partnership, free-
dom, and tenderness was extremely important both in Judaism and
in Christianity, but it was mentioned in connection with marriage only
in passing, and certainly not as something essential. A change in the
concept of marriage in favor of love was initiated by nineteenth-century
Romanticism (‘revolution of emotions’’), but it made no headway in
the Church or in society. Some individual theologians and anthro-
pologists did the preliminary work within the Christian Churches in
the first half of the twentieth century toward a renewed concept of
matriage, a concept that in itself was pressed by emancipatory move-
ments outside the Churches.5 Among those scholars were, on the Prot-
estant side, Karl Barth, and, among Catholics (though at first saddled
with the Church’s ban on publication), Herbert Doms and Ernst Michel,
who based their work on the concept of Christian personalism. Their
key terms were unity of body and soul, equality of persons, and mu-
tual responsibility. More recent theologians of marriage, as well as the
documents of Vatican II, drew ideal images of marriage.
The present era is, in contrast, characterized by serious crises, two
of which should be mentioned: the increasing inability of couples to
maintain successful relationships, and the rapid decline of the authority
of the Catholic Church. The devaluation of marriage as a legal institu-
tion and the disconnection of sexual activity from marriage have
demonstrated that some types of liberation do not guarantee the suc-
cess of love.* The Roman Catholic magisterium has offered bitter re-
4. For the history, see I. Weber-Kellermann, Die deutsche Familie. Versuch einer
Sozialgeschichte 5th ed. (Frankfurt: 1979); G. Duby, Ritter, Frau und Priester. Die Ehe
im feudalen Frankreich (Frankfurt: 1985); M. Schroter, ‘Wo zwei zusammenkommen
in rechter Ehe. . .’’ Sozio- und psychogenetische Studien iiber EheschlieBungsvorgdnge
vom 12. bis 15. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt: 1985); J. Goody, Die Entwicklung von Ehe und
Familie in Europa (Berlin: 1986).
5. These also led, in the course of about eighty years (for example: from the civil
code in Germany to the reform of marriage law in the Federal Republic in 1977)
to a gradual, but drastic, retreat of law from the field of moral judgments.
6. For an analysis of this crisis threatening not only marriage, but every kind
of loving relationship, see among others J. Willi, Die Zweierbeziehung (Reinbek: 1975);
D. Claessens and others, Familiensoziologie (K6nigstein: 1980); N. Luhmann, Liebe
286 Sacramental Theology

sistance and continues to do so (especially under John Paul II]),” but

at a cost: its attitudes toward divorced persons who have entered a
civil marriage (Familiaris consortio, 1981) and toward birth control (Hu-
manae vitae, 1968) have been rejected and ignored by a great many
Catholics as expressions of unfeeling harshness. Where human abili-
ties fall short, consideration of the sacrament becomes all the more im-
portant, and it need not be ecumenically divisive. ‘‘In contrast to
traditional definitions of the purposes of marriage and the biologistic
teleology of late scholastic natural-law doctrines, personal values, the
model of partnership in marriage, and the mutual love of the partners
are emphasized as the norm and the formative element; and when
these are mediated by the christological idea of covenant, it would ap-
pear that an ecumenical agreement on the concept of the sacrament
of marriage may also be possible.’’®

12.2 Biblical Foundations

12.2.1 Old Testament

The content of the passages concerning marriage in the first two

chapters of Genesis is astonishingly dense and at a very high level,
even in the older passages written by the Yahwist (2:21-24): woman
and man are intended by God to live in an equal partnership and to
be mutually complementary. According to the priestly writer (1:26-27)
man and woman were created ‘‘in the image and likeness of God.’’?
Here it is said of all human beings (without distinction of gender) that,
because they are human, they are the image of God. No theology of
sexuality and marriage can be derived from this; what is meant is that
all human beings have the duty ‘‘of protecting and preserving the order
of life that is given in creation,’ that they ‘‘are to be a manifestation

als Passion. Zur Codierung von Intimitat (Frankfurt: 1982); R. Sennett, Verfall und Ende
des Offentlichen Lebens. Die Tyrannei der Intimitat (Frankfurt: 1983); R. A. Johnson,
Traumvorstellung Liebe. Der Irrtum des Abendlandes (Olten and Freiburg: 1985); J. Willi,
Koevolution. Die Kunst gemeinsamen Wachsens (Reinbek: 1985).
7. On the different position of Protestants: H. Ringeling in TRE IX, 353.
8. Ibid, 353-354.
9. For an analysis of the idea of the human as image of God, see E. Zenger,
Gottes Bogen in den Wolken (Stuttgart: 1983) 84-96.
 The Sacrament of Marriage 287

and a medium of revelation of divine power and activity on earth.’’

They are ‘‘to govern and lovingly shape the world as their home, the
paternal house that has been bestowed upon them.’’!° Thus the part-
nership of woman and man does not consist in their revolving around
one another and seeking ‘‘fulfillment’’ in their relationship, but in
devoting themselves with one accord to their mutual tasks.
The Old Testament texts that are of great importance for a theol-
ogy of marriage are those in which marriage or betrothal are used as
images and comparisons for the relationship between God and God’s
people, Israel (e.g., Hos 1-3; Jer 2:2; 3:1; Ezek 16; 23; Mal 2:14-16).
These images are not lacking in that tenderness, intimacy, and tem-
pestuous emotion that are part of a deeper understanding of marriage.
Nor is it an overinterpretation of the texts to say that here the mar-
riage or bridal relationship is regarded as a covenant of enduring fi-
delity in the eyes of YHWH. Although the Old Testament mentions
no special religious rites of marriage, it does give evidence of the im-
portance of the blessing given by the parents to the bride or to the
couple (Gen 24:60; Tobit 11:17).
The ceremonies of marriage in Judaism in the time of Jesus’! had
both a legal and a festive aspect. Betrothal or promise of marriage came
first, before the bridegroom (on the average, eighteen years old) ‘’took
possession of’’ the bride (usually about twelve years of age), whereby
he symbolically represented the people Israel’s being taken up by its
God. The process, whose central feature was a huge family feast with
a bridal meal lasting several days, was concluded as the bride was con-
ducted to her new home. From a purely legal standpoint, the marriage
was undoubtedly a contract based on the intentions of the fathers of
the couple. A variety of grounds were given for which a husband could
publicly dismiss (i.e., divorce) his wife; however, he could not retain
possession of her dowry. In order to improve the lot of wives who had
been cruelly dismissed by making it possible for them to marry again,
the Torah provided for the giving of a letter of divorce (Deut 24:1-4).

10. Ibid., 90.

11. H.-F. Richter, Geschlechtlichkeit, Ehe und Familie im Alten Testament und seiner
Umwelt (Berne and Frankfurt: 1978); B. Reicke in TRE IX, 319-320; A. Tostato, ‘‘Il
trasferimento dei beni nel matrimonio israelitico,’’ Bibbia e Oriente 27 (1985) 129-148
(with bibliography)—an important article for avoiding a negative cliché! Also M.
Hutter, ‘Das Ehebruch-Verbot,”’ Bibel und Liturgie 59 (1986) 96-104 (with bibli-
ography).
288 Sacramental Theology

12.2.2 Jesus and the Jesus Traditions

Jesus never doubted that the will of God is to be found in the Mo-
saic Torah, but where the Torah contains legal language, he sought
the deeper and more radical sense of what was written there.!? In the
Jesus logion at Mark 10:9 par., Genesis 1:27 is combined with Genesis
2:24: the origin and indissolubility of marriage are attributed to God.
Jesus did not intend thereby to appear as a new lawgiver, especially
since, in view of the chance that the reign of God would be realized
in the near future, the question of marriage would be relativized in
any case (Mark 12:25 par.).
In a scene composed by the Christian community (Mark 10:1-9) in
which the authentic Jesus logion Mark 10:9 was embedded, Jesus is
asked whether a separation is permitted under any circumstances. He
declines to get involved in legal interpretation. When Deuteronomy
24:1-4 is depicted here as a concession to hardhearted human beings,
we may be dealing with some anti-Jewish polemic from the early Chris-
tian community. But Jesus’ intention fits in here: since God intends
the enduring unity of the partners, any separation is against the di-
vine will; therefore there should be no legal provisions for it. This stance
would have to have a positive effect on the position of women.
The teaching given the disciples in Mark 10:10-12 is also a compo-
sition of the early community. It envisions a case in which a man
divorces his wife and marries again, or a woman divorces her husband
and marries again: both cases constitute adultery. Here, apparently,
Jesus’ saying about the impossibility of separation (Mark 10:9) has been
translated into a Gentile Christian context, and given an even stricter
form.
In the Sermon on the Mount we find Jesus’ logion about the im-
possibility of separation (Matt 5:31-32) with the additional statement
that a man who gives his wife a letter of divorce is guilty of her remar-
riage and thereby of adultery: again this is a position that not only
favors fidelity in marriage but also gives an advantage to women, since
the appeal is to the special responsibility of the husbands. Nonethe-
less, v. 32 adds the ‘‘porneia clause’: Matthew’s community evidently
considered itself ‘“empowered” in particular cases—“‘porneia’’ often
meant idolatry in the New Testament—to make an exception to the
12. Still important for the interpretation is V. Eid and P. Hoffmann, Jesus von
Nazareth und eine christliche Moral 3d ed. (Freiburg: 1979) 109-146.
 The Sacrament of Marriage 289

indissolubility of marriage; they did not interpret the Jesus logion as

a law.
In Matt 19:1-2 the controversy scene from Mark 10:1-9 is reproduced
in such a way that Jesus is shown as if he should take a position on
the rabbinic discussion between the schools of Hillel (emphasis on male
authority: divorce of the wife allowed for any cause) and Shammai (re-
striction of male authority: divorce only in cases of adultery and sus-
picious behavior).'° Jesus declines to do so; here again he interprets
the will of God according to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, but the ‘‘porneia
clause’ is repeated.
The saying in Luke 16:18, which may go back to Jesus, reiterates
that there can be no separation and remarriage without adultery.
The tendencies to see marriage as an enduring partnership of equals
could then, and can now, appeal to Jesus’ own intention. But in the
concrete interaction with Jesus’ message, we can discern a stricter and
a milder line of interpretation.

12.2.3 Paul and the Letter to the Ephesians

In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul took a position on marriage in reaction to

enthusiastic-ascetic groups in Gentile Christian Corinth, who had a
religiously-based fear of sexuality and marriage (cf. vv. 1-9 and 36-38).
He sought justifications for both and found them in human weakness
(cf. also vv. 26-28). In vv. 10-11 he refers to the Jesus saying about the
impossibility of separation, applied to both partners and, in the case
of the wife, combined with a prohibition on remarriage.
As aresponse to the fear of Christian married people that they could
become unholy through marital relations with a Gentile partner, Paul
declares that the Christian partner ‘‘sanctifies’’ the unbeliever and also
their children (v. 14). The Christian partner may not separate from the
unbelieving partner, because of Jesus’ prohibition, but the unbeliever
may separate, and in such a way that the Christian partner has a right
to remarry (vv. 12-16 passim, the source of the so-called Pauline privi-
lege). Thus Paul also sees a possibility of holding to Jesus’ instruction
in principle and yet of making certain exceptions.
In vv. 25-28, Paul speaks of those who are not married. Here he
represents marriage as of only temporary value (in light of the ‘‘es-

13. More detail can be found in Z. W. Falk’s article in TRE IX, 315-317.
290 Sacramental Theology

chatological reservation’’). Two motives may be distinguished for his

preference for celibacy: in the,anxious expectation of the immediate
end, there was really no purpose in beginning something long-lasting
like marriage, and—something important for Paul himself—the mis-
sionary task made it impossible to concern oneself with the things of
this world. Nevertheless, Paul says that marriage is also a good thing.
In the so-called ‘“household codes’’ in the New Testament there
are a number of paraenetic passages on the correct behavior of hus-
band and wife toward one another. Among these, Ephesians 5:22-33,
a text that does not come from Paul, has been especially important in
the Church’s theology of marriage. Here again, in the context of the
times, we read of a natural superordination of the husband over the
wife, but husbands are challenged to love their wives ‘‘just as Christ
loved the Church and gave himself up for her’’ (v. 25). In vv. 28-31,
this love is further explicated and founded on Genesis 2:23-24, and
the union in love of husband and wife is compared with the unity of
the members in the body of Christ. The author says that ‘this is a great
mystery [mysterion, translated in the Old Latin as sacramentum], and
I am applying it to Christ and the Church”’ (v. 32). The more probable
interpretation of this difficult saying is that the union of the partners
in marriage is and (paraenetically!) must be an image of the union of
Jesus Christ with his Church. In other words: Paul’s breathless expec-
tation of the end has faded, marriages have become the usual thing
among Christians also, and not merely as something permissible, but
with a positive imaging function in the divine plan of salvation real-
ized in Jesus Christ; or: even now, within the context of marriage, it
is possible to live the new relationships that, according to Jesus’ preach-
ing, characterize the reign of God.

12.2.4 Additional Statements

The beginnings of a theology of marriage in the New Testament

show that marriage is relevant not only for the theology of creation,
but also for Christology, ecclesiology, and the theology of grace. The
comparison of a marriage with the relationship between God and God’s
people, Israel, is continued in the comparison with the relationship
between Jesus and his Church, in the images that depict Jesus as bride-
groom and salvation as a marriage feast. It is possible, and even com-
 The Sacrament of Marriage 291

manded, to marry ‘‘in the Lord” (1 Cor 7:39) and to live one’s married
life ‘‘in the Lord,”’ so that it becomes a way of salvation with positive
effects on partner and children (1 Cor 7:12-16).
Ideas shaped by their cultural and temporal context appear every-
where and create the impression that the correct behavior of a hus-
band within marriage is that of active care and provision, while the
wife is to be passively adaptable. But the theological and religious view-
point overcomes these notions in principle, for statements of equality
are also to be found (Gal 3:28; 1 Pet 3:7).
In this context, adultery is the sin that destroys not only order (in
propertied relationships) but the transparent character of marriage as
a religious image. Jesus radicalizes the matter when he says that adul-
tery does not begin only with actions that are legally determinable,
but with desire itself (Matt 5:28). However, people who are concretely
guilty of this sin are to be treated with compassion (John 8:2-11).
The celibacy of Jesus (as well as John the Baptizer and Paul) was
not, at first, considered a model or an obligation for those in ecclesiasti-
cal office (1 Tim 3:2-12; Titus 1:6). However, in certain Christian groups
there seems to have been a question about how often in the life of in-
dividual Christians (after the death of a spouse) marriage was permitted
(see the texts just cited, as well as 1 Tim 5:9). There was probably a
widespread conviction that marriage is not perpetuated in the heavenly
life with God (Matt 22:23-29 par.; 1 Cor 7:29-31).

12.3 Historical Decisions

12.3.1 The Development of a Theology, Liturgy, and Law of Marriage

In the same way as Jesus and Paul found marriage already in place
and took their positions on it as an existing reality, later missionaries
preached the gospel in societies that had marriages, marriage law, and
(among the Romans and Greeks) marriage crises. Roman ideas were
especially important for later developments in the Latin Church. There
were two aspects to marrying. The first was legal in nature, a part of
family law. From this point of view the marriage (sponsalia) was a con-
tract, regarded as a public announcement of an agreement in inten-
tion (pactio coniugalis). The second aspect was the beginning of common
life (nuptiae), which was already subject to religious interpretation
292 Sacramental Theology

among the Romans: the familial hearth was always understood as hav-
ing religious significance. Thus when Christians married, this was the
place for a special blessing. We have a paucity of evidence from the
first two centuries: according to Ignatius of Antioch, Christians should
only marry with the assent of the bishop; in Tertullian’s work the
Church appears as an agent and conciliator in marriages and there is
mention of a benedictio of the married couple at the Eucharist. Still, it
is probable that the Jewish prayer of blessing was adopted since Chris-
tians used blessing prayers on all other important occasions."
There is an abundance of evidence from the fourth and fifth centu-
ries. The Church Fathers’ idea of marriage appears especially in their
exegesis of biblical texts. Marriage concluded according to civil law is
considered to be affirmed by God; however, the monogamy that was
customary in Roman law is, by contrast to the Roman notion, regarded
as indissoluble since the ‘‘bond,’’ as spoken of in Genesis 2:23-24 (a
text very often cited) was “‘instituted’’ by God. The theological dimen-
sion of marriage as image of the union of Jesus Christ and his Church
is often addressed. Thus marriage is seen to be a positive value lead-
ing to salvation, even though in general celibacy is more highly es-
teemed. Stoic ideas about the purposes of marriage are taken over:
in the first place, it serves for the begetting of offspring; love is men-
tioned also, and is viewed as an overcoming of egoism and, in its Chris-
tian aspect, an imitation of the love of Jesus.
The practice of sexuality in marriage offered the Church Fathers
some difficulties. Here we must mention the important contribution
of Augustine. He saw in marriage, which he called sacramentum (with
reference to Eph 5:32), both the legal bond (vinculum) and the religious
real symbol (signum) that, in every marriage, indicates the marital union
of Jesus Christ with the Church and is perfected in baptism, which
accomplishes our incorporation in the body of Christ: Thus the order
of the goods of marriage (bona) is to be regarded in this way: first, off-
spring (bonum prolis: Gen 1:28, but only perfected in baptism!); sec-
ond, an exclusive sexual fidelity (bonum fidei: Gen 2:23-24 in Jesus’

14. On this, see K. Stevenson, Nuptial Blessing (London: 1982); D. Dacquino,

Storia del matrimonio cristiano alla luce della Bibbia (Turin: 1984).
15. Cf. the more precise and just interpretation of E. Schmitt, Le mariage chrétien
dans l’oeuvre de saint Augustin (Paris: 1983); P. Langa, San Agustin y el progreso de
la teologia matrimonial (Toledo: 1984).
 The Sacrament of Marriage 293

interpretation); third, the fulfillment of natural love in sanctification

(bonum sacramenti: Eph 5:32). Contrary to a long tradition stretching
from Philo to Jerome, Augustine presumed that the first parents in
Eden were already sexually active before the Fall, so that marital acts
are in themselves good. However, original sin had introduced an evil
into this good thing, concupiscence or disorderly lust, which strongly
disorders reason. It was only because of these circumstances that Au-
gustine considered it necessary that there be a justifying reason for
marital acts, and he saw that justification in the orientation of these
acts to the begetting of offspring.
Weddings remained, as before, a matter of secular law, but the wit-
nesses attest that the rite of veiling (velatio), prayer of petition, and
prayer of blessing (benedictio) had become customary; according to the
Liber Praedestinatus III (mid-fifth century) they were also combined with
a celebration of the Eucharist. The bride’s white veil (taken over from
the consecration of virgins and well evidenced in the fourth century)
symbolized the union of Jesus Christ with his bride, the Church. Other
originally pagan rituals as well, such as crowning with the bridal crown
or crowns (coronatio) and the joining of the right hands (dextrarum
coniunctio) were introduced into the liturgy here and there. Around
400 we also have evidence of a missa pro sponsis.
In collections of canons of ecclesiastical law we find that, from the
fourth century onward, the Church established a number of impedi-
ments to marriage, especially difference of religion and blood relation-
ships. The Church Fathers are reticent on the question whether, after
the death of a spouse, a second or perhaps even a third marriage is
permitted for the surviving Christian partner, or else they answer in
the negative. There is frequent evidence of separation due to differ-
ence of religion (privilegium Paulinum), as is separation because of adul-
tery. Fairly often, remarriage was overlooked or even expressly
permitted,16sometimes after completion of a penance imposed by the
Church.

16. Evidence assembled by H. Crouzel in TRE IX, 329. On the Eastern Churches’
views on marriage see also R. Hotz, Sakramente, 249-250. It is wrong to say that
the Eastern Churches permit divorce and remarriage. The Eastern Churches main-
tain the indissolubility of marriage, but in dealing with people whose marriages
have been broken, they follow the principle of compassion, which, in the divine
oikonomia, takes precedence over the principle of dogma.
294 Sacramental Theology

In the Eastern Church a different view arose, beginning in the early

tenth century. At that time a priest’s blessing became necessary for
a valid Christian marriage. Church weddings were made up of two
rituals, the ‘‘pledge’’ and the ‘‘crowning.”’ To the present time, and
in express reference to Ephesians 5:32, a marriage blessed by a priest
is regarded in the Eastern Churches separated from Rome as a sac-
rament.
In the Western Church a tendency began in the Frankish period
to place the wedding itself under Church auspices. Since the priest
was generally regarded as a reliable person, Charlemagne, for example,
desired that a priest would undertake the ‘‘marriage examination,”’
i.e., inquire about possible impediments to marriage and then offici-
ate at the wedding uniting the couple. The influential Decretum Gratiani
in the mid-twelfth century demanded both conditions, but still regarded
a marriage before a secular official as valid. By 1200 only Church mar-
riage survived, in a rite performed at the church door, in which the
priest no longer prays in the optative form, ‘‘may God join you’’ (deus
vos coniungat), but declares in the indicative: ‘I join you’ (ego vos coniungo);
this rite is followed by a wedding Eucharist in the church. Beginning
about 1300, the marriage itself took place in the church.
In the ‘““Germanic’’ world the dominant notion was that a valid mar-
riage took place with the first marital intercourse, and that alone made
it indissoluble (copula theory). This idea first appeared in a theologi-
cal context in the work of Hincmar of Rheims (d. 882): the union of
a man and a woman, if they are baptized, becomes a sacramental and
indissoluble marriage through this consummation, even if it only takes
place in secret. The copula theory was later defended by the impor-
tant canonical school of Bologna.
Against the copula theory, the consent theory of Roman law was
still maintained by some theologians: the expression of willingness,
the marriage vow itself (sponsalia de praesenti), is the efficient cause (causa
efficiens) of marriage and makes it indissoluble. Consummation has only
a complementary character. In order to be a sign of the union of Jesus
Christ with the Church (and provided that the married couple are mem-
bers of Jesus Christ through faith), the marriage must be consummated.
This was the teaching of, for example, Ivo of Chartres (d. 1116), Hugh
of St. Victor (d. 1141), and, with them, the important school of Paris.
Pope Alexander III (d. 1181), who himself was a canonist, promoted
a compromise that is still valid in Catholic canon law: the consent of
 The Sacrament of Marriage 295

the partners founds a true and valid marriage, but only the consum-
mation of the marriage makes it absolutely indissoluble.
In the meantime, theological reflection on the sacraments had ar-
rived at a certain clarity; by the middle of the twelfth century the classi-
cal concept of a sacrament had been established. In the eleventh
century, Peter Damian (d. 1072) had listed marriage as one of twelve
sacraments, but most important for the fixing of the number of seven
sacraments was the work of Peter Lombard (d. 1160).17 He counted
marriage among the seven and called it a sacred sign of a sacred thing.
The contest between the copula theory and the consent theory also
influenced the discussion of the question regarding the moment when
the sacrament comes to be. Alexander III’s decision was that the mar-
riage of baptized persons that comes about with their consent is a genu-
ine sacrament, even before its consummation. (Before consummation
it is called matrimonium ratum et non consummatum).
There were difficulties in Scholastic theology in applying the con-
cepts of ‘matter’ and ‘‘form’’ to marriage.’* Important theologians
denied that the sacrament of marriage had a material element. Even
for Thomas Aquinas, the words have primary importance: consent
through words spoken directly to one another (verba de praesenti) con-
stitute the efficient cause and forma of the sacrament of marriage.
Thereby the bond of marriage comes into being and a disposition is
created that enables the partners to receive divine grace, thanks to the
divine institution of the sacrament. The effect (res) of the sacrament
is seen as being, on the one hand, at the level of symbolism (union
of Jesus Christ with the Church), and on the other hand at the level
of obligation (to married life and indissolubility). Thomas regarded the
priestly blessing at marriage as only a sacramental (see chapter 13 be-
low). Thus it was possible to think of the couple themselves as
‘ministers’ of the sacrament of marriage. This conclusion, and still
more the fixation on marriage as a legal action, did not take into ac-
count the fact that marriage, as a sacrament, is the Church’s liturgy.
This was still acknowledged, however, in the Eastern Churches.

17. J. Finkenzeller I, 123.

18. Ibid., 140, 142.
 296 Sacramental Theology

12.3.2 Statements of Earlier Church Teaching

Adherents of the lay and reform movements of the twelfth century

rejected various sacraments and rites of the Church. In opposition to
them, the Second Lateran Council of 1139 defended Church marriages
(only Latin, DS 718), as did the Council of Verona in 1184. It was at
that council that marriage was called a ‘‘sacrament”’ for the first time
in a doctrinal statement (only Latin, DS 761).
In the confession of faith presented to the Eastern Roman emperor
in 1267 for the purpose of reuniting the Churches of East and West,
we read: ‘’On marriage she [the Church] teaches that a man may not
have more than one wife at the same time, and a woman may not have
more than one husband at the same time. But if a proper marriage is
dissolved by the death of one of the partners, she says that then a
second and third marriage are permitted, if no other canonical impedi-
ment of another sort exists’’ (NR 928/DS 860). In the same text, mar-
riage is numbered among the seven sacraments of the Church.
In the decree intended to advance the reunion of the separated
Armenians with Rome, the Council of Florence in 1439 taught, follow-
ing Thomas Aquinas:

The seventh is the sacrament of matrimony which is the sign of the union
of Christ and the Church according to the saying of the apostle: ‘’This
is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church”
(Eph 5:32). The efficient cause of matrimony is the mutual consent duly
expressed in words relating to the present. A triple good is found in
matrimony. The first is the begetting of children and their education to
the worship of God. The second is the faithfulness which each spouse
owes to the other. Third is the indissolubility of marriage, inasmuch as
it represents the indissoluble union of Christ and the Church. But, al-
though it is permitted to separate on account of adultery, nevertheless
it is not permitted to contract another marriage since the bond of a mar-
riage legitimately contracted is perpetual (NR 730/DS 1327).

The Reformers" challenged the Church’s teaching on marriage from

two points of departure: the higher value placed by the Church on
celibacy in contrast to marriage, and the dominant role played by canon
law. Luther’s formulation, that marriage is a “worldly thing,’ is often

19. For initial information, see M. E. Schild’s article in TRE IX, 336-346, on Luther
and the other Reformers.
 The Sacrament of Marriage 297
misunderstood by Catholics. He saw marriage as founded in the di-
vine order of creation; sexual desire and the longing for marital union
existed even before the Fall and were good; since the Fall, marriage
is a condition of love, faith, and the cross. Marriage is not a sacrament,
since the New Testament contains no word of Christ promising a sacra-
ment of marriage, but on the basis of the order of creation it is a sign
(parable) of God’s gracious action, and now it is a sign of the union
of Christ with his members. In his distinction of God’s spiritual and
worldly ‘‘regimes”’ or ‘’kingdoms,”’ Luther included marriage within
the worldly regime. He praised celibacy as the charism of a few who
are able to give themselves undividedly to prayer and the preaching
of the gospel. Luther combined this view with sharp attacks on the
Church’s practice of subjecting marriage to canon law, of recognizing
marriages made in secret, of witnessing vows of celibacy, etc. He re-
quired that marriages be made in public, i.e., that consent, as the act
that brings about the marriage, be given before witnesses. In cases of
adultery and the malicious abandonment of one partner, he permitted
the dissolution of marriage (which in itself is indissoluble); so did
Melancthon, who spoke of actions that can destroy a marriage that of
its own nature is indissoluble.
The Council of Trent, in its seventh session in 1547, established the
Roman Catholic Church’s number of seven sacraments and listed mar-
riage among them (NR 506/DS 1601). At the same time, it taught that
grace is conveyed by the sacraments (NR 511-513/DS 1606-1608). At
the twenty-fourth session in 1563 it presented its Doctrine on the Sacra-
ment of Matrimony and twelve attached canons. The essentials of the
doctrine are as follows:
The first father of the human race, inspired by the divine Spirit, proclaimed
the perpetual and indissoluble bond of matrimony when he exclaimed:
“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. . . . Therefore
aman leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they
become one flesh’’ (Gen 2:23-24).
But that only two are united and joined together by this bond, Christ
the Lord taught more clearly when, referring to these words as having
been uttered by God, he said: ‘’So they are no longer two but one”’ (Mt
19:6), and immediately confirmed the stability of the bond which was
proclaimed long ago by Adam in these words: ‘‘What therefore God has
joined together, let no man put asunder’’ (Mt 19:6; Mk 10:9).
Christ himself, who instituted the holy sacraments and brought them
to perfection, merited for us by his passion the grace which perfects that
298 Sacramental Theology

natural love, confirms the indissoluble union and sanctifies the spouses.
St. Paul suggests this when he says: ‘‘Husbands, love your wives, as
Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her’’ (Eph 5:25), adding
immediately: ‘‘This is a great mystery and I mean in reference to Christ
and the Church” (Eph 5.32).
Since, because of the grace of Christ, matrimony under the law of the
gospel is superior to the marriage unions of the old law, the holy Fathers,
the Councils and the tradition of the universal Church have with good
reason always taught that it is to be numbered among the sacraments of
the new law. Contrary to this teaching, ungodly and foolish men of this
age, not only have entertained false ideas concerning this holy sacra-
ment but, in their usual way, under the pretext of the gospel they have
given freedom to the flesh, and, by word and writing, they have
asserted—not without great harm to Christ’s faithful—many things alien
to the understanding of the Catholic Church and to customs approved
since the apostolic times (NR 731-734/DS 1797-1800).
The council chose to say nothing about the matter, form, and minister
of this sacrament, things that the Scholastics otherwise thought were
discernible for all the sacraments.
The canons read:
1. If anyone says that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the
seven sacraments of the law of this gospel, instituted by Christ the Lord,
but that it was devised in the Church by human beings and does not
confer grace, anathema sit.
2. If anyone says that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives
at the same time and that this is not forbidden by any divine law, anathema
sit.
3. If anyone says that only those degrees of consanguinity and affinity
which are mentioned in Leviticus (18:6ff) can impede contracting mar-
riage and invalidate the contract; and that the Church cannot dispense
from some of them or declare other degrees impedient and diriment,
anathema sit.
4. If anyone says that the Church did not have the power to establish
diriment impediments for marriage or that she has erred in establishing
them, anathema sit.
5. If anyone says that the marriage bond can be dissolved because of
heresy, or irksome cohabitation, or because of the wilful desertion of
one of the spouses, anathema sit.
6. If anyone says that marriage contracted but not consummated is
not dissolved by the solemn religious profession of one of the spouses,
anathema sit.
 The Sacrament of Marriage 299

7. If anyone says that the Church is in error for having taught and
for still teaching that in accordance with the evangelical and apostolic
doctrine (cf. Mk 10; 1 Cor 7), the marriage bond cannot be dissolved be-
cause of adultery on the part of one of the spouses, and that neither of
the two, not even the innocent one who has given no cause for infidelity,
can contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other; and that
the husband who dismisses an adulterous wife and marries again and
the wife who dismisses an adulterous husband and marries again are
both guilty of adultery, anathema sit.
8. If anyone says that the Church errs when she declares that for many
reasons separation may take place between husband and wife with re-
gard to bed and board or cohabitation for a definite period or even
indefinitely, anathema sit.
9. If anyone says that clerics in sacred orders or regulars who have
made solemn profession of chastity can contract marriage, and that one
so contracted is valid despite the ecclesiastical law or the vow; and that
the contrary opinion is nothing but a condemnation of marriage; and
that all those who feel that they do not have the gift of chastity, even
though they have vowed it, can contract marriage, anathema sit. For God
does not refuse that gift to those who ask for it rightly, and ‘‘He will
not let you be tempted beyond your strength’’ (1 Cor 10:13).
10. If anyone says that the married state surpasses that of virginity
or celibacy, and that it is not better and happier to remain in virginity
or celibacy than to be united in matrimony, anathema sit.
11. If anyone says that the prohibition of the solemnization of marri-
ages at certain times of the year is a tyrannical superstition derived from
pagan superstition; or condemns the blessings and other ceremonies
which the Church uses in solemn nuptials, anathema sit.
12. If anyone says that matrimonial cases do not belong to ecclesiasti-
cal judges, anathema sit (NR 735-746/DS 1801-1812).

The council defended not only the sacramentality and grace-giving

power of marriage, but also the Church’s competence to make canoni-
cal rules regulating matters relating to marriage.” The teaching on the
indissoluble bond of marriage is clearly stated. Canon 7 was the ob-

20. Cf. R. Lettmann, Die Diskussion tiber die klandestinen Ehen und die Einfiihrung
einer zur Giiltigkeit verpflichtenden EheschlieBungsreform auf dem Konzil von Trient (Min-
ster: 1966); G. Baldanza, ‘’La grazia sacramentale matrimoniale al Concilio di
Trento,’’ Ephemerides Liturgicae 97 (1983) 89-140; A. Duval, Des sacrements (see Bib-
liography 1).
 300 Sacramental Theology

ject of a thorough discussion on the history of dogma:?! the council

deliberately chose formulations protective of Roman Catholic practice
against the charge of error; at the same time, it did not wish to con-
demn the milder practice of the Eastern Churches and its basis in the
teaching of the universally accepted Church Fathers.
At the same twenty-fourth session in 1563, the council passed its
decree Tametsi for the reform of the marriage ceremony (excerpts, only
in Latin, in DS 1813-1816). Up to the Council of Trent, the Church had
never issued an obligatory form for marriage, such that, if it were not
used, the marriage would not be recognized as valid by the Church.
But because of the great number of secret marriages, in which an ex-
isting bond of marriage or other impediments were simply ignored,
the council now issued a disciplinary decree requiring that the mar-
riage must take place before the pastor (or a priest with appropriate
faculties) and two or three witnesses. Any Catholic who did not ad-
here to this obligatory form could not make a valid marriage.”2
Thus in the course of a millennium and a half, a solid Catholic no-
tion of marriage had developed. While in the first millennium civil mar-
riage and the Church’s liturgical blessing of the spouses had existed
independently of one another, now it was the case that, for Catholics,
the identity of valid marriage and Church wedding was obligatory.
Since consent (interpreted as a contract) was still considered the es-
sence of marriage, from that point onward doctrine and canon law
maintained the inseparability of the contract and the sacrament. In the
course of modern development, with its mixed confessional situation
and the increasing alienation of many people from the Church, the
Catholic concept of marriage came into conflict with the claims of state
and society, as seen, for example, in the attack of Josephinism on the
Church’s whole jurisdiction in matters of marriage, culminating in the
introduction of compulsory civil marriage in many countries.?3 Among

21. P. Fransen, ‘‘Das Thema ‘Ehescheidung nach Ehebruch’ auf dem

Konzil von
Trient,’’ Concilium 5 (1970) 343-348 (with bibliography). Fransen here
summarizes
earlier, more extended investigations.
22. More detail may be found in R. Lettmann, Diskussion.
23. On this development, see W. Molinski, Theologie der Ehe in der
Geschichte
(Aschaffenburg: 1976) 196-213.
 The Sacrament of Marriage 301

the public statements that sharpened the Church’s teaching on mar-

riage, we should mention the encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae of
Leo XIII in 1880 (NR 747-750/DS 3142-3146), the 1917 CIC and Pius
XI’s encyclical Casti connubii in 1930 (NR 751-760/DS 3700-3714). Even
though theological discussion, especially in the twentieth century,
under the influence of personalistic thought and biblical renewal, has
strongly criticized the Church’s contractual view of marriage as reduc-
ing it to an object, a just view of the question should not overlook the
considerable contributions of the Church’s contractual thinking to the
emancipation of women and the liberation of both spouses from the
powerful socio-economic ties of tribe and clan. This resulted directly
from the fact that the Church always insisted on the free consent of
the wills of both partners and regarded a consent given under duress
as invalid.

12.3.3 Vatican Council II and the New Code of Canon Law

The documents of Vatican II were the product of a great variety of

efforts toward a renewed and deepened religious-theological view of
marriage. The Constitution on the Liturgy called for a revision and en-
richment of the rite of marriage (SC 77 and 78), and the dogmatic Con-
stitution on the Church spoke of the sacrament as follows:

Finally, Christian spouses, in virtue of the sacrament of matrimony, sig-

nify and partake of the mystery of that unity and fruitful love which ex-
ists between Christ and His Church (cf. Eph 5:32). The spouses thereby
help each other to attain to holiness in their married life and by the rear-
ing and education of their children. And so, in their state and order of
life, they have their own special gift among the People of God (cf. 1 Cor
oi
For from the wedlock of Christians there comes the family, in which
new citizens of human society are born. By the grace of the Holy Spirit
received in baptism these are made children of God, thus perpetuating
the People of God through the centuries. The family is, so to speak, the
domestic Church. In it parents should, by their word and example, be
the first preachers of the faith to their children. They should encourage
them in the vocation which is proper to each of them, fostering with
special care any religious vocation (LG 11).
302 Sacramental Theology

The council also spoke of marriage and the family in other places.”
Most important are six articles (47-52) in the pastoral constitution Gau-
dium et spes.
Article 47 offers a foundation for active concern to establish the dig-
nity of marriage and family even outside Christianity and points to
present-day dangers to both. Article 48 selects the word ‘‘covenant’’
as a description of marriage, as a way of escaping the legal and objec-
tive view that had improperly taken over the most prominent place
in Catholic teaching and was evident in the technical term ‘‘marriage
contract.’’ Pleas for the word ‘‘contract’’ were determinedly rejected
(and the description in canon law of the ‘‘object of the contract’’ as
a mutual donation of ‘‘rights over the body’’ most certainly had to be
renounced as an unbearable example of objectivizing). The article does
say that marriage is ordered to the procreation and education of chil-
dren, but it carefully avoids setting up any hierarchy of the ‘‘goods
of marriage.’’ As a balance to earlier, biologistic ideas, it emphasizes
instead the central importance of love (in the second paragraph) and
describes the sacramentality of Christian marriage on that basis. The
rest of the article deals primarily with the duties of children (adding
a brief appreciation of widowhood) and sees marriage and family as
manifesting ‘‘the Savior’s living presence in the world.’’ Article 49
speaks of the “‘true love between husband and wife in marriage.’’ It
describes what this love is and what are its effects, and states that it
is uniquely expressed and perfected in the marital act. Therefore the
council ascribes moral value to these acts of union; the only, and quite
sensible, cautionary clause speaks of marital actions as being ‘‘ex-
pressed in a manner which is truly human’’ (something which may
differ according to the couples involved). These conciliar statements
will seem all too commonplace to today’s Christians. But many groups
of Catholic believers were brought up within a mentality that saw mar-
riage as a kind of legalized immorality and demanded an external mo-
tive to lend a moral color to every marital act. The council did away
with that notion. The conclusion of the article points out that public
opinion on marriage can be influenced by the witness of spouses within
the society; it also indicates the need for a correct and timely sex edu-

24. E.g., LG 35 and 41, AA 10 and 29, GE 3, 6 and 8, and GS 12, 61, 67 and
87. The summary presented here follows my introduction in Kleines Konzilskom-
pendium 434-436.
 The Sacrament of Marriage 303

cation for children. Article 50 then deals with the procreation and edu-
cation of offspring, a topic that for centuries held a one-sided grip on
Catholic morality. But this article neither expressly states nor hints that
every individual marital act, taken for itself, is or should be aimed at
procreation. All it says is that marriage as a whole, by its nature, is
ordained to the procreation and education of children. In this matter
the spouses are, as the second paragraph says, cooperators with the
love of God the creator ‘and. . . so to speak, the interpreters of that
love.’’ The expressions here chosen show that the spouses are not sub-
jected to blind, purely biological laws of nature and should not sub-
mit themselves to fate in a kind of trust in God falsely understood.
The article mentions the factors that responsible parents must take into
account, and comes to the conclusion that the spouses themselves must
(and may!) make the final decision about conceiving a child (includ-
ing the timing and number of their children). The final paragraph in
this article recalls once again that marriage is an institution not only
for the procreation of children, and thereby—with a reference to the
love of God—establishes the right of childless couples to the fullness
of marriage. Article 51 discusses the obstacles that often exist to an
increase in the number of children. In clear and unmistakable words
it points to the dangers of complete abstinence from intercourse in mar-
riage. It draws clear boundaries against abortion and infanticide; it em-
phatically recalls the special dignity of human sexuality, and again
concludes that marital actions performed in accordance with human
dignity ‘‘must be honored with great reverence.’ It further states that,
for a responsible regulation of births, the moral aspect of any behavior
is determined not only by good intentions and motives, but by objec-
tive criteria. This indicates the reason why in this area the Church has
a fundamental right to speak, even though the exercise of that right
must decidedly take other forms than those of detailed analyses of the
marital act, the prescription of individual norms for couples by their
confessors, etc. The article skirts the question of birth control methods.
It is well known that Church norms for birth control—to the extent
that the methods chosen do not offend human dignity or damage a
life already conceived—are not matters of dogma, but of authentic in-
structions that must be received by believers with respect and inter-
nal, but not irrevocable, acceptance. Article 52 treats the nature of the
family, the tasks of its members, and the duties of the state toward
it. The last three paragraphs request that the secular sciences continue
304 Sacramental Theology

to research methods of birth control, that pastors support and sustain

spouses (note the discreet and ‘tactful formulation!), and finally, that
married couples should be true witnesses to the mystery of Christ’s
love.
The conciliar texts, together with John Paul II’s apostolic letter
Familiaris consortio of 1981, summarizing the Church’s tradition regard-
ing marriage, were the bases for the new Catholic law of marriage.
Here we would like to point out some essential elements with theo-
logical relevance. Marriage is still understood as a contract (exchange
of vows) and the legal relationship resulting from it (married life): the
contract comes about through the mutual expression of will. To ex-
press the fact that marriage is not only a legal relationship, but also
a personal and religious reality, canon law takes up the council’s word
““covenant’’:?6 in this irrevocable covenant the partners mutually give
themselves to one another and accept one another (CIC 1983, canon
1057 §2). Together they thereby found a common destiny for the whole
of life (ibid., §1). The paraphrasing of this ‘‘covenant’’ with ideally
romantic phrases like ‘personal self-donation of the partners’”’ in canon
law shows that the Code has still not dealt with justified ‘‘personal’’
demands: marriage cannot mean that a human being ‘‘gives’’ himself
or herself to another; rather, she or he must live with the partner in
a relationship that permits each to remain his or her own person and
to fulfill his or her own self. Otherwise the legal institution of mar-
riage will not be freed of its twisted character as a legalized depriva-
tion of human freedom.
The ‘‘aims of marriage’’ appear in a changed order and partly in
new terms: marriage is directed to the good of the spouses and to the
procreation and education of offspring (canon 1055 §1).
As a matter of course, the new Code maintains the singleness and
indissolubility of marriage as essential characteristics (canon 1056), as
well as the concept that in every valid marriage, by its nature, an en-
during and exclusive bond is created (canon 1134). In a kind of relativiz-
ing of the teaching on the essential characteristics of marriage,” the

25. On this, see the authors in HKR as well as K. Liidicke, Eherecht (see Bibliog-
raphy X).
26. M. Kaiser in HKR, 731ff. For the sake of precision, I have followed him word
for word in writing about the new provisions of canon law.
27. Ibid., 736.
 The Sacrament of Marriage 305

ecclesial authority still claims the right to dissolve unconsummated and

non-sacramental marriages (canons 1142-1150).
Canon law regards marriage not only as contract and covenant, but
also as sacrament (canon 1055), a sign of the covenant of God with
humanity, the covenant of Jesus Christ with the Church, giving the
spouses both a special strengthening and a consecration in order that
they may fulfill the dignity and obligations of their state (canon 1134).
There can be no valid bond of marriage between baptized persons that
is not also a sacrament (canon 1055 §2).
In the well-founded opinion of canonists, the new Code of Canon
Law says nothing about the ‘‘minister’’ of the sacrament of marriage:
some type of official participation by the Church is involved in setting
forth this symbol of the covenant and bringing this fulfillment of the
Church’s life into being.?8
Marriage before the Church’s minister is the regular form for Catho-
lics and therefore is generally obligatory (canon 1117). In the Eastern
Churches it has long consisted in the liturgical blessing of the bridal
pair. In the Western Church it consists of the legal act of requesting
and receiving the consent of the couple (canon 1108 §2). The Church’s
official participation may not be regarded in a minimalistic fashion, in
the mere fact that the exchange of vows is public.”
The new Church law for marriage gives a great deal of attention
to the concept of validity, something that is more appropriately ap-
plied to a legal action and a legal institution than to a sacrament, since
it is only from a valid legal action that legal effects result, while God
alone knows whether a sacrament has been effective in bestowing
grace. The preconditions for a valid marriage are a full competence for
marriage, a faultless will to marry on the part of both partners, and
a rite of marriage that is without defects.*°
The supreme ecclesiastical authority maintains its claim to be able
to declare authentically what are the things that, by divine law, im-
pede the contract of marriage (canon 1075 §1), and also to establish
other impediments (not of divine law) for the baptized (canon 1075
§2). As regards secular and material legal consequences of marriage,
the Church recognizes the competence of the state, but regarding the

28. Ibid., 739.

29. Ibid., 739-740.
30. Details may be found in the CIC.
306 Sacramental Theology

personal aspects, Church authority claims competence only for marri-

ages in which a Catholic Christian participates, since the Church of
Jesus Christ is not composed solely of the Roman Catholic Church.*?
No claim to ecclesiastical authority is posed in cases of marriage be-
tween unbaptized persons.
A marriage between persons, at least one of whom is obligated to
observe the Church’s form of marriage (i.e., is Catholic), is in principle
only valid if the consent is given before the ordinary of the diocese
or the pastor of the parish, or by another priest, deacon, or even a lay
person (canon 1112 gives details of this instance) delegated by them.
There must also be two witnesses to the consent (canon 1108 §1). In
addition, there is provision for emergency marriage before two wit-
nesses only (canon 1116 §1). Those who have left the Church are not
obligated to observe the Church’s form of marriage (canon 1117). The
marriage of a Catholic to a non-Catholic partner who is a member of
one of the Eastern Churches, blessed by a non-Catholic priest, is valid
(canon 1127). If a Catholic can show that there are serious difficulties
in adhering to-the Church’s form of marriage, she or he can be dis-
pensed from the obligation (canon 1127). If this occurs in a mixed (in-
terconfessional) marriage, the non-Catholic partner must be told that
a dispensation has been requested; he or she must know that, in that
case, even through a non-Catholic Church wedding or a merely civil
ceremony—the spouses can choose the form, although a Church wed-
ding is to be preferred—a valid, sacramental marriage exists. This logi-
cally applies also to marriages between persons of different religion
(canon 1129).32
An interconfessional marriage can be contracted with the permis-
sion of the ordinary of the diocese (canons 1124-1125), if the Catholic
partner’s faith is not endangered thereby, and if the Catholic spouse
solemnly promises to do all in his or her power to see that all children
of the marriage are baptized and educated as Catholics (canon 1125
§1); a further condition is that the non-Catholic partner be informed
promptly of this promise (canon 1125 §2). Both partners must be in-
structed concerning the purposes and essential characteristics of mar-
riage, none of which may be excluded by either partner (canon 1125

31. M. Kaiser, HKR, 746, with reference to LG 8.

32. On this complex of laws, which are very important in practice, see B. Primet-
shofer’s article in HKR, 788-793, as well as H. Heinemann, HKR, 807.
 The Sacrament of Marriage 307

§3). A ‘’double marriage’ is not permitted, but an ecumenical ‘‘com-

mon” or ‘‘cooperative’’ marriage may be allowed.
In Catholic canon law a marriage is absolutely indissoluble if, in
the eyes of the Catholic Church, it has been validly contracted and con-
summated, and if both partners are baptized. In Catholic teaching, only
the marriage of baptized persons is sacramental. ‘‘Only its sacramen-
tality lends to marriage that solidity that permits no subsequent disso-
lution.’’*4 There are canonists who think that the sacrament comes to
be only because the partners are baptized, apart from any faith on their
part.*> The problem touches a very painful situation within the Church,
namely the fact that after the failure of many marriages, often begun
without any serious religious commitment, and following divorce and
remarriage, many people come to religious maturity and request that
the Church admit them to the sacraments. Here are two standpoints
in irreconcilable opposition within the Church: one lenient, the other
inexorable.*6

33. In a ‘‘double marriage’ the rites of both Churches are performed, each by
the official of that confession, either separately or in one ceremony. In an ‘‘ecu-
menical marriage’ one officiant performs the rite of his or her Church and the
other participates in the service of the Word. H. Heinemann, HKR, 803-804; M.
Kaiser, HKR, 645.
34. H. Flatten, HKR, 815. Cf. his article in its entirety.
35. Ibid., 816-817. On the contrary, T. Schneider, Zeichen (see Bibliography 1)
290-291, says that a minimal intention to marry as Christians is necessary for the
existence of the sacrament.
36. In the stricter Catholic opinion, represented, for example, by H. Flatten, HKR,
817-819 (and which can also refer to John Paul II for support), Catholics who are
civilly divorced and remarried are not excluded from the Church, but they are de-
nied the sacraments of reconciliation and Eucharist. They can only be admitted
to these sacraments when they promise, as a sign of their repentance, to live in
their new marriage ‘’as brother and sister.’’ The basis for this attitude lies in the
fear of ‘‘breaking the dam’’: if the Church begins in practice to retreat from its
rigid position, the idea will get around that the Catholic Church accepts divorce,
and the consequence will be that more and more people will enter into ‘’trial mar-
riages.’’ The lenient view, in which the failure of a marriage and the values of a
new union should be conscientiously examined in each individual case, and ac-
cording to which the Church must find ways to enable the persons concerned to
make a new beginning also with God and in the Church’s sacramental life, is
represented by, for example, T. Schneider, Zeichen, 298-300, referring to W. Kasper
and K. Lehmann. Cf. n. 16 above: the Eastern Churches, basing their thinking
on the primacy of the principle of mercy (which is of divine origin) accord them-
selves the corresponding ‘‘permission’’ to act with leniency.
308 Sacramental Theology

What at first glance looks like a Church divorce is, in reality, in most
cases the Church’s decision that a marriage did not exist from the be-
ginning.” But there really are Church dissolutions of marriages: in the
case of nonconsummation, through a papal decree of dissolution;** in
marriages of two unbaptized persons, one of whom is later baptized,
in which case, by the Pauline privilege as interpreted by the Church
(see 12.2.3 above), the old marriage is dissolved when the baptized
partner enters a new, valid marriage;? in nonsacramental marriages,
through a papal decree of dissolution.*° Of special importance in the
so-called Third World is the new canonical regulation applying to
polygamy (canon 1148 has polygyny in mind, but logically it would
also apply to polyandry): if a man becomes a Christian, he may con-
tinue to be married to only one wife; if it is difficult for him to retain
his first wife, he may choose another among his wives as his perma-
nent wife.*!
In view of these possibilities for dissolution and the statements in
canon law concerning the ‘‘papal decree of dissolution,”’ it is hard to
make clear why the canon law and the theology of marriage rest on
the idea of a permanent “‘bond of marriage,’’ even in the most extreme
cases of marital breakdown. We must maintain, together with the East-
ern Churches separated from Rome and with the Churches of the Refor-
mation, that marriage is indissoluble and that divorce cannot become
a legal possibility among Christians. But is it impossible to recognize
signs that show that the bases of a marriage have been destroyed and
that the bond of marriage can perish with them?

12.4 Theology of Marriage: Summary

The literature on the sacrament of marriage shows that, on the one

side, the legal obligations (unity and indissolubility) dominate, while
on the other side the most prominent question concerning the sacra-
ment itself is: what does it do for the spouses; what is the grace that
it effects? In all this, little attention is paid to the fact that the sacra-

37. On this, and on the legal process, see H. Flatten, HKR, 819-821.
38. Ibid., 821-822.
39. Ibid., 822-824 (according to canons 1143-1150).
40. Ibid., 824-826.
41. On the problems connected with this, see N. Bitoto Abeng in EKL I (1986)
971-974.
 The Sacrament of Marriage 309

ment of marriage is the Church’s liturgy. If we adopt that point of view,

the question of the ‘minister’ of the sacrament must be approached
differently from the way it appears in the literature. The one who truly
acts in the sacrament is Jesus Christ, who is at work in the Church,
through his Spirit, for the glory of God the Father. Looked at from
the human side, the liturgy of marriage is a matter of the conscious
consent of the partners and those celebrating with them to this glorifi-
cation of God, which in this case occurs through marriage as an ‘‘en-
during sacrament,”’ i.e., the sacrament of married life that begins with
the marriage ceremony. For it to succeed, the blessing of God in the
Holy Spirit is necessary: therefore the marriage ceremony must be
epicletic in form.
In the twentieth century, because of the division of the Church into
clerics and laity, and thereby of those celebrating the liturgy into ‘’min-
ister’ and ‘‘recipient,’’ it was important for many lay people to hear
from theologians that they did not receive the sacrament of marriage
“‘conferred”’ by a priest, but that they themselves ‘‘conferred’’ it (al-
though canonists objected that no one could ‘’confer’’ what he or she
did not already possess). The priest assisting at a marriage was then
called the ‘‘official witness.’’ To consider the ceremony of marriage
as liturgy does not mean a new clericalizing of the theology of mar-
riage, as if now the priest should be elevated to the status of ‘’minis-
ter’’ of the sacrament. All I am saying is that the spouses celebrate this
liturgy (whose true support lies in Jesus Christ) together; it is a liturgy
of the Church in which therefore (except in an emergency) other mem-
bers of the Church should also participate, and which must essentially
consist not only in the declaration of consent, but also in the prayer
of blessing.
In this liturgy of marriage, the love of God for humanity, which
in turn has found its ‘‘sacramental’’ expression in the love of Jesus
Christ for the Church, is made present in a perceptible manner, and
it is just in this way that the Church recreates itself in its smallest form
as a ‘house church.”’ Marriage, as an ‘‘enduring sacrament,’’ implies
this continuing symbolic value and the ongoing state of being Church
and building Church. From this fact alone results the indissolubility
of the marriage of believing Christians and the unity (monogamy) of
this marriage, things that cannot be made conclusive with purely ra-
tional arguments based on nature. The result of this theological reflec-
tion is that marriage—at least a marriage that is deliberately sacra-
310 Sacramental Theology

mental—cannot be built on a love that is primarily thought of as feel-

ing, emotion, sympathy, or attraction. In line with classic Christian
philosophy, love is instead to be understood as an act of the will illu-
minated by reason. In this view, love expresses itself not only in the
decision made at the beginning, but above all in fidelity.
The effective grace of the sacrament of marriage thus is directed
(1) to its deliberate religious symbolism and its being-Church; depend-
ing on the individual abilities of the partners, this aspect embraces fruit-
fulness, which is a gift of God’s grace, since children are to continue
the building up of the Church; and (2) to the lifelong will to fidelity.
When human strength appears too weak for both of these, the mem-
ory of the sacrament recalls that God’s grace is able to empower human
freedom to self-transcendence,* in which human persons, even in res-
tricted situations, can grow beyond themselves. Still further, faith trusts
that its epiclesis will be heard, so that God’s protection will rest on
the spouses throughout their lives.

42. So F. Bockle in Handbuch der christlichen Ethik I, 117-135.

 Bibliography 10

The Sacrament of Marriage

Aymans, W. ‘‘Die Sakramentalitat christlicher Ehe in ekklesiologisch-

kanonistischer Sicht.’’ Trierer theologische Zeitschrift 83 (1974) 321-338.
Baldanza, G. ‘’La grazia sacramentale matrimoniale al Concilio di Trento.’
Ephemerides Liturgicae 97 (1983) 89-140.
Baltensweiler, H. Die Ehe im Neuen Testament. Ziirich: 1967.
Bernhard, J. ‘“Le décret ‘Tametsi’ du Concile de Trente.’’ Revue de droit cano-
nique 30 (1980) 209-234.
Bockle, F. ‘‘Ehe und Ehescheidung.’’ Handbuch der christlichen Ethik II 2d ed.
(Freiburg: 1979) 117-135.
Corecco, E. ‘Die Lehre der Untrennbarkeit des Ehevertrages vom Sakrament
im Lichte des scholastischen Prinzips ‘Gratia perficit, non destruit
naturam.’”’ Archiv fiir katholisches Kirchenrecht 143 (1974) 374-442.
Cottiaux, J. La sacralisation du mariag de la Genése aux incises Matthéennes. Paris:
1982.
Christen, E. ‘‘Ehe als Sakrament.’’ Theologische Berichte (Zurich) 1, 11-68 (with
bibliography).
Dacquino, D. Storia del matrimonio cristiano alla luce della Bibbia. Turin: 1984.
Desserprit, A. Le mariage, un sacrement. Paris: 1981.
Die Zukunft der Ehe in der Kirche (Concilium 9/8-9) 1973.
Duss-von Werdt, J. ‘’Theologie der Ehe—Der sakramentale Charakter der Ehe.’’
MySal IV/2 (1973) 422-449.

311
312 Sacramental Theology

Eid, V., and L. Vaskovics, eds. Wandel der Familie—Zukunft der Familie. Mainz:
1982. ‘
Engelhardt, H., ed. Die Kirchen und die Ehe. Frankfurt: 1984 (with the Church
regulations—Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Anglican—and the
civil laws).
Evdokimov, P. The Sacrament of Love. The nuptial mystery in the light of the ortho-
dox tradition. New York: 1985 (Original: Sacrement de l’Amour. Paris: 1980).
Fransen, P. ‘‘Das Thema ‘Ehescheidung nach Ehebruch’ auf dem Konzil von
Trient.’’ Concilium 5 (1970) 343-348 (bibliography and a summary of previ-
ous research).
. Hermeneutics of the Councils. Louvin: 1985, 126-197 (researches on
the teaching on marriage before Trent).
Gregg, R. C. ‘’Die Ehe: Patristische und reformatorische Fragen.’’ Zeitschrift
flir Kirchengeschichte 96 (1985) 1-12.
Grimm, R. L’institution du mariage. Paris: 1984.
Guzetti, G. B. “Il nesso contratto-sacramento nel matrimonio dei battezzati
in un ricente dibattito.’’ Scuola Cattolica 110 (1982) 211-253.
Handbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts. Regensburg: 1983: Kaiser, M. ‘’Grund-
fragen des kirchlichen Eherechts,’’ 730-746; Zapp, H., ‘Die Vorbereitung
der EheschlieBung,’’ 746-754; idem, ‘Die rechtliche Ehefahigkeit und
die Ehehindernisse,’’ 755-756; Primetshofer, B., ‘‘Der Ehekonsens,’’
765-782; idem, ‘Die EheschlieBung,’’ 782-795; Heinemann, H., ‘Die
konfessionsverschiedene Ehe,’’ 796-808; Geringer, K.-T., ‘“Die Konvali-
dation der Ehe,”’ 808-815; Flatten, H., ‘‘Nichtigkeitserklarung, Auflésung
und Trennung der Ehe,’’ 815-826.
Kasper, W. Zur Theologie der christlichen Ehe. Mainz: 1977.
Kleindienst, E. Partnerschaft als Prinzip der Ehepastoral. Wurzburg: 1982 (also
on sacramentality).
Kleinheyer, B., E. Von Severus, and R. Kaczynski. Sakramentliche Feiern II.
Regensburg: 1984: Kleinheyer, B., ‘“Riten um Ehe und Familie,’’ 67-156.
Koch, G., and W. Breuning. Die Ehe des Christen. Lebensform und Sakrament.
Freiburg: 1981.
Kramer, H. Ehe war und wird anders. Diisseldorf: 1982.
Kruse, H. “‘Eheverzicht im Neuen Testament und in der Friihkirche.’’ Forum
Katholischer Theologie 1 (1984) 94-116.
Langa, P. San Agustin y el progreso de la teologia matrimonial. Toledo: 1984.
Lettmann, R. Die Diskussion iiber die klandestinen Ehen und die Einfiihrung einer
zur Giiltigkeit verpflichtenden EheschlieBungsform auf dem Konzil von Trient.
Minster: 1966.
Liidicke, K. Eherecht. Essen: 1983.
Malone, R., and J. R. Connery, eds. Contemporary Perspectives on Christian Mar-
riage. Chicago: 1984.
 Bibliography 10 313

Mieth, D. Ehe als Entwurf. Mainz: 1984 (also on communal living without
marriage).
Molinski, W. Theologie der Ehe in der Geschichte. Aschaffenburg: 1976.
Nautin, P. ‘’Le rituel de mariage et la formation des Sacramentaires ‘Léonien’
et ‘Gélasien,’ ’’ Ephemerides Liturgicae 98 (1984) 425-457.
Ott, D. Christliche Ehe heute. Frankfurt: 1983.
Pannenberg, W. Anthropologie. Gottingen: 1983, 415-431 (with bibliography).
Pesch, R. Freie Treue. Die Christen und die Ehescheidung. Freiburg: 1971.
Rahner, K. ‘‘Die Ehe als Sakrament.’’ Schriften VIII (1967) 519-540.
Ratschow, C. H., and others. ‘“Ehe/Eherecht/Ehescheidung.’’ TRE IX (1982)
308-362 (with bibliography).
Reinhardt, K., and H. Jedin, eds. Ehe—Sakrament in der Kirche des Herrn. Berlin:
ao te
Richter, K., H. Plock, and M. Probst. Die kirchliche Trauung. Freiburg: 1979.
Ritschl, D., and others. ‘‘Ehe, Ehescheidung.’’ EKL I (1986) 956-985 (with bib-
liography).
Ritzer, K. Formen, Riten und religidses Brauchtum der EheschlieBung in den christ-
lichen Kirchen des ersten Jahrtausends. 2d ed. Miinster: 1981.
Schillebeeckx, E. Le mariage. Paris: 1966 (fundamental).
Schmilzle, U. F. Ehe und Familie im Blickpunkt der Kirche. Freiburg: 1978.
Schmitt, E. Le mariage chrétien dans l’oeuvre de saint Augustin. Une théologie bap-
tismale de la vie conjugale. Paris: 1983.
Sequeira, J. B. Tout mariage entre baptisés est-il nécessairement sacramentel? Paris:
1985.
Stevenson, K. Nuptial Blessing. A Study of Christian Marriage Rites. London: 1982.
Van Gansewinkel, A. ‘‘Ehescheidung und Wiederheirat in neutestamentlicher
und moraltheologischer Sicht.’’ Theologie und Glaube 76 (1986) 193-211
(with bibliography).
Verspieren, P. ‘‘Le mariage, un sacrement?”’ Initiation a la pratique de la thé-
ologie IV. 2d ed. Paris: 1984, 421-442.
Vogel, C. ‘’Le réle du liturge dans la formation du lien conjugal.’’ Revue de
droit canonique 30 (1980) 7-27.
Weber, L. M. Mysterium Magnum. Freiburg: 1964.
 13

The Sacramentals

The idea of ‘‘sacramentals’’ goes back to the clarification of the con-

cept of sacraments in the twelfth century. When the number of sacra-
ments was established at seven, liturgical actions that were somehow
associated with the sacraments (e.g., the blessing of water for baptism,
of the various oils for anointings, and of the altar for the Eucharist)
and were highly respected, but did not achieve the status of sacra-
ments, were given the name ‘‘sacramentals.’’! This indicated that they
had a certain similarity to the sacraments. Vatican Council II explained
the meaning of sacramentals in the Constitution on the Liturgy, as
follows:
60. Holy Mother Church has, moreover, instituted sacramentals. These
are sacred signs which bear a resemblance to the sacraments: they sig-
nify effects, particularly of a spiritual kind, which are obtained through
the Church’s intercession. By them [people] are disposed to receive the
chief effect of the sacraments, and various occasions in life are rendered
holy.

1. M. Lohrer, ‘’Sakramentalien,’’ Sacramentum Mundi IV (1969) 341-347 (344-345

on the history of the term).

314
 The Sacramentals 315

61. Thus, for well-disposed members of the faithful, the liturgy of the
sacraments and sacramentals sanctifies almost every event in their lives;
they are given access to the stream of divine grace which flows from
the paschal mystery of the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ,
the fountain from which all sacraments and sacramentals draw their
power. There is hardly any proper use of material things which cannot
thus be directed toward the sanctification of [human beings] and the
praise of God.

The sacramentals have their origin in Judaism,? in the praise of God

that culminates in a plea for God’s blessing. The Old Testament
represents not only God as the one who blesses: it also recognizes
people who bless, i.e., people who, after giving thanks for the signs
of God’s power present among the people, recognize that they are de-
pendent on God’s blessing and implore God for further concrete, sav-
ing actions. Even in Old Testament times, such blessings had taken
on a stylized form. Formulas of blessing were devised not only for
human persons, but also for objects such as food and drink, or fields
and harvests. Ultimately all requests for blessing were directed toward
a rich, overflowing life, which for believers is nothing else than a shar-
ing in God’s own life.
The New Testament from Paul onwards, as an inheritor of Jewish
tradition, contains stylized requests for blessing in full measure. The
Jewish prayer for the blessing of ‘“peace’’ is augmented by the Chris-
tian plea for “‘grace.”’ It is clear that the theological background in both
Old and New Testaments is the conviction that the word is effective.
The New Testament also retains the deepest of all desires: for the bless-
ing of a share in God’s life—for ‘‘grace’’ is nothing else than that.
On this biblical basis there developed, in the history of Christianity,
a wealth of consecrations and blessings.? These were always subject

2. R. Schmid, ‘‘Segnen und Weihen in der Bibel,’”’ in J. Baumgartner, ed.,

Glaubiger Umgang mit der Welt (Ziirich and Freiburg: 1976) 13-29; P. Schafer in TRE
V (1980) 560-562; I. Nowell, ‘‘Der narrative Kontext von ‘Segen’ im Alten Testa-
ment,’’ Concilium 21 (1985) 81-88.
3. R. Kaczynski in B. Kleinheyer and others, Sakramentliche Feiern Il (Regens-
burg: 1984) 233-274. Kaczynski rightly treats exorcism (which, despite its formu-
lae couched in a tone of command, is nothing but the Church’s petition for one
who is sick) separately from the sacramentals; see ibid., 275-291. For a brief historical
description, see D. Power, ‘‘Die Segnung von Gegenstanden,’’ Concilium 2 (1985)
96-106.
316 Sacramental Theology

to three dangers: (1) the temptation to divide God’s creation dual-

istically into a sacred and a secular realm and to sacralize as much as
possible; (2) the false belief that evil powers had released from people
who freely surrendered themselves to them a dangerous, independent
power that had to be ritually expelled; (3) the superstition that a bless-
ing introduced a positive, magical power into blessed persons and
objects.
Although the Reformers raised powerful objections against super-
stition and abuses, reformed Christianity retained a good many bless-
ings of persons and things. The combination of word with gesture was
not rejected.‘ Thus we find liturgical blessings of persons with the pre-
ferred formulae of Numbers 6:24-26 and 2 Corinthians 13:13, as well
as the blessing of churches.5 The Eastern Churches separated from
Rome surpass the Roman Church in their use of signs of the cross,
blessed oil, incense, and holy water.
The new Catholic Code of Canon Law‘ uses a formula that was first
used in an official document by Pius XII in his encyclical, Mediator Dei,
in 1947 (only in Latin, DS 3844), to describe the difference between
sacraments and sacramentals. The distinction consists in the fact that
sacramentals do not bring about their effects through the power of the
saving work of Jesus Christ made present (ex opere operato), but by the
power of the Church’s prayer of petition (ex opere operantis Ecclesiae)
(CIC 1983, canon 1166). We must, of course, add that the Church’s
petition can only be made in the power of the Holy Spirit who calls
the Church to prayer.
Canon law places great emphasis on the authority of the Roman
Church’s hierarchy and on the administration of the sacramentals in
an orderly manner (canon 1167).
The Church’s use of language in this area is complicated. Tradi-
tionally, sacramentals are divided into consecrations/dedications and
blessings. Consecration meant that persons, things, or places were re-
moved from purely secular purposes and symbolically dedicated to God
alone. Blessing meant the Church’s petition for God’s saving action
in the person or thing being blessed. To take several examples: con-

4. J. G. Davies in TRE V (1980) 565.

5. Cf. ibid., 568-569, for informative discussion of the blessing of churches since
the eighth century.
6. What follows is indebted to H. J. F. Reinhardt’s article in HKR, 836-839.
 The Sacramentals 317

secrated places included churches and cemeteries; consecrated things

could be altars or bells; consecrated persons were abbots and abbesses,
etc. Places to be blessed might include houses or fields, blessings were
given to various persons including the sick, the old, bridal couples,
and things that could be blessed include automobiles, herbs, fruits of
the harvest, and so on.
The 1983 Code of Canon Law uses the following concepts: the con-
secration of persons, combined with an anointing, is called consecra-
tio; the dedication of places and things, with anointing, is dedicatio; the
consecration (alteration of the purely secular purpose) of persons,
places and things without an anointing is called benedictio (constitutiva).
Only bishops, or priests who have received special permission, may
perform such consecrations (canon 1169, canons 1206-1207). The rea-
son for this is apparently that the Church leadership ought to be ap-
parent on such occasions. A bishop can also remove a particular
consecration (for example, if a church is to be sold).
The other blessings are benedictiones (invocativae); they should be per-
formed by a bishop or pastor, another priest or a deacon if they are
accompanied by proclamation of the Word or celebrated in a sacramen-
tal manner. However, the new Code of Canon Law leaves no doubt
that lay people can also bless.
Obviously, the request for a blessing from God does not accom-
plish ‘‘more”’ if it is done by a priest. It would be a magical notion
to suppose that a papal blessing has more power than, for example,
parents’ blessing of their children.
The Roman book of blessings (1984) contains some remarkable theo-
logical and practical statements.’ It sees the blessings as a confession
that all things are filled by the saving presence of God. It strives to
make clear that the blessings are the Church’s liturgy by suggesting
that they should at the least be combined with a service of the Word
and common prayer. A mere sign of the cross is never adequate: even
the slightest appearance of a transfer of power should be avoided. Only
objects that can be used for good purposes and are not ambiguous may
be blessed. The Church forbids the blessing of weapons (as, since 1947,
it has forbidden the blessing of political emblems). Blessings given by
lay persons can no longer be considered private in contrast to those
given by the Church.

7. On this, see the commentary by J. Lligadas in Concilium 21 (1985) 149-156.

318 Sacramental Theology

Thus, from a theological perspective, the sacramentals are not mere

signs. They are liturgical actions with a basically epicletic structure®
(or a structure made up of anamnesis and epiclesis). The inclusion of
objects or places within this dialogical event between God and human-
ity expresses a concern for the goods of creation, as well as the faith
that all the good things of creation, together with humanity, glorify
the God who is present in their midst.

8. J.-M. R. Tillard, ‘‘Segen, Sakramentalitat und Epiklese,’’ Concilium 21 (1985)

140-149. A blessing is like a seal embossed on a prayer to the Holy Spirit: ibid., 147.
 Bibliography 11

The Sacramentals

Baumgartner, J., ed. Glaubiger Umgang mit der Welt. Die Segnungen der Kirche.
Zurich and Freiburg: 1976.
Bommes, K. In H. Luthe (see Bibliography 1) 597-671.
Jorissen, I., and H. B. Meyer. Zeichen und Symbole im Gottesdienst. Innsbruck:
1977 (especially on the topic of blessings).
Jounel, P. In A. G. Martimort, ed. L’Eglise en priére III. New ed. Paris: 1984,
282-305.
Kaczynski, R. ‘Die Benediktionen.”’ In B. Kleinheyer, E. von Severus, and
R. Kaczynski. Sakramentliche Feiern Il. Regensburg: 1984, 233-274.
Kleinheyer, B. Heil erfahren in Zeichen. Munich: 1980.
Macht der Segnung—Segnung der Macht (Concilium 21/2) 1985.
Reinhardt, H. J. F. ‘‘Die Sakramentalien.’’ HKR, 836-839.
Schafer, P., R. Deichgraber, and J. G. Daves. ‘“Benediktionen.’’ TRE V (1980)
560-573.
Westermann, C. Der Segen in der Bibel und im Handeln der Kirche. Gitersloh: 1981.

si
 Additional Bibliography

Sacraments in General
Becker, G. Die Ursymbole in den Religionen. Graz: 1987.
Bucher, A. Symbol-Symbolbildung-Symbolerziehung. St. Ottilien: 1990.
Chauvet, L.-M. Symbole et sacrement. Paris: 1987.
Fink, P. (Hrsg.). The New Dictionary of Sacramental Worship. Collegeville: 1990.
Koch, G. Texte zur Theologie: Sakramententheologie. 2 Bde, Graz: 1991.
Kohlschein, F. (Hrsg.). Aufkldrungskatholizismus und Liturgie. Reformentwiirfe fiir
die Feier von Taufe. Firmung, Bufe, Trauung und Krankensalbung. St. Ottilien:
1989.
Lies, L. Sakramententheologie. Eine personale Sicht. Graz: 1990.
Meding, W. von. Natur, Kultur und Sakrament (zu. P. Tillich), in: ThZ 43. (1987)
353-370.
Merz, M. B. Liturgisches Gebet als Geschehen. Miinster: 1988.
Miller, W. W. Das Symbol in der dogmatischen Theologie. Frankfurt: 1990. (K.
Rahner, P. Tillich, P. Ricocur, J. Lacan).
Pannenberg, W. (Hrsg.). Lehrverurteilungen—kirchentrennend? Ill. Bd. Freiburg-
G6ttingen: 1990.
Rocohetta, C. Sacramentaria fondamentale. Dal ‘‘mysterion’’ al ‘‘sacramentum.’’
Bologna: 1989.
Ruffini, E./Lodi, E., ‘‘Mysterion’’ e ‘‘sacramentum.’’ La sacramentalita negli scritti
dei Padrie nei testi liturgici primitivi. Bologna: 1987.
Taborda, F. Sakramente: Praxis und Fest. Diisseldorf: 1988.

320
 Additional Bibliography 321

Wenz, G. Einfiihrung in die evangelische Sakramentcalchre. Darmstadt: 1988.

Zizioulas, J. D. Being as Communion. Studies in Personhood and the Church.
Crestwood-New York: 1985.

Sacraments of Initiation
Hélzt, F. Die Sakramente der Eingliederung in ihrer rechtlichen Gestalt und ihren
rechtlichen Wirkungen vom 2. Vatikanischen Konzil bis zum CIC von 1983.
Regensburg: 1988.
Kleinheyer, B. Sakramentliche Feiern I: Die Feiern der Eingliederung in die Kirche
(Gottesdienst der Kirche. Handbuch der Liturgiewissenschaft 7/1). Regensburg:
1989.
Martins, J. S. I sacramenti del’iniziazione cristiana. Battesima, cresima ed eucaristia.
Rome: 1988.
Okumenischer Rat der Kirchen. Kommission fiir Glauben und Kirchenverfassung.
Die Diskussion tiber Taufe, Euchariste und Amt 1982-1990. Frankfurt-
Paderborn: 1990.
Steffen, U. Taufe. Ursprung und Sinn des christlichen Einweihungsritus. Stuttgart:
1988.
Walsh, L. G. The Sacraments of Initiation: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist. Lon-
don: 1988.

Eucharist

Ahlers, R. Communio eucharistica. Eine kirchenrechtliche Untersuchung zur Eucha-

ristielehre im CIC. Regensburg: 1990.
Fischer, D. L’Eucharistie chez Calvin, en rapport avec la doctrine du Ministére, in:
FZPhTh 34 (1987) 415-436.
Giraudo, C. Eucaristia per la Chiesa. Brescia: 1989.
Hannerland, W. Die Eucharistie und ihre Wirkungen im Spiegel der Euchologie des
Missale Romanum. Minster: 1990.
Hoenig, E. Die Eucharistie als Opfer nach den neueren 6kumenischen Erklarungen.
Paderborn: 1989.
Ibebuike, P. Ch. The Eucharist. The Discussion on the Eucharist by the Faith and
Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. Lausanne: 1927; Lima:
1982; Frankfurt: 1989.
Keefe, D. J. The Eucharist Order of History. 2 Bde. University Press of America:
1991.
Keller, E. Eucharistie und Parusie. Fribourg: 1989.
Klauck, H.-J. Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, 2. durchgesehene Aufl. mit einem
Nachtag. Minster: 1986.
 322 Sacramental Theology

Macina, M. Fonction liturgique et eschatologique d l’anamneéese eucharistique. Le 22,19;

1 Co 11,2425; in: ELit 102 (1988) 3-25.
Meyer, H. B. Eucharistie. Geschichte, Theologie, Pastoral (Gottesdienst der Kirche.
Handbuch der Liturgiewissenschaft 4), Regensburg: 1989.
Navarro Gir6n, M. A. La came de Cristo. Madrid: 1989 (Abendmahlsstreit Paschasius
Radbertus bis Gottschalk).
Okumenischer Rat: s. Literatur III.
Rubin, M. Corpus Christi. The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture. Oxford: 1991.
Schaefer, G. K. Eucharistic im Okumenischen Kontext (von Lausanne 1927 bis Lima
1982). Gottingen: 1988.
Thaler, A. Gemeinde und Eucharistie. Fribourg: 1988.
Vagaggini, C. La dimension sacrificielle de la communion eucharistique, in: Com-
munautés et liturgies 69 (1987) 215-244.
Verheul, A., u.a. Eucharistie, in: Questions liturgiques 69 (1988 125-206.
Wehr, L. Arznei der Unsterblichkeit. Die Eucharistie bei Ignatius v. Antiochien und
im Johannesevangelium. Minster: 1987.

Reconciliation

Borobio, D. Eclesialidad y ministerialidad en el sacramento de la penitencia, in: Salm

34 (1987) 299-325.
Ders., Reconciliacién penitencial. Bilbao: 1988.
Goldhahn-Miller, I. Die Grenze der Gemeinde. Studien zum Problem der Zweiten
Bufe im NT unter Beriicksichtigung der Entwicklung im 2. Jh. bis Tertullian.
Gottingen: 1989.
Handbuch der Ablasse (deutsche Ubersetzung des ‘‘Enchiridion indulgentiarum, ”’ her-
ausgegeben von der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz, mit beigefiigter theologischer
Erklarung von H. Vorgrimler). Bonn: 1989.
Hasitschka, M. Befreiung von Siinde nach dem Johannesevangelium. Innsbruck:
1989.
Korting, G. Binden oder Lésen. Zur Verstockungs- und Befreiungstheologie in Mt
16, 19; 18, 18.21-35 und Joh 15, 1-17; 20, 23, in: STNU/A-14 (1989) 39-91.
Osborne, K. B. Reconciliation and Justification. The Sacrament and its Theology.
New York: 1990.
Varo, F. El léxico del pecado en la Epistola de San Pablo a los Romanos, in: Scripta
Theol. 21. (1989) 99-116.

Anointing
Kranemann, B. Die Krankensalbung in der Zeit der Aufkldarung. Miinster: 1990.
Varghese, B. Les onctions baptismales dans la tradition syrienne. Lowen: 1989.
 Additional Bibliography 323

Orders

Field-Bibb, J. Women Towards Priesthood. Cambridge: 1991.

Géssmann, E./D. Bader (Hrsg.). Warum keine Ordination der Frau? Unterschied-
liche Einstellungen in den christlichen Kirchen. Ziirich: 1987.
Internationales Diakonatszentrum. Wirkungsgeschichte des Diakonates. Freiburg:
1989.
Klauck, H.-J. Gemeinde—Amt—Sakrament. Wirzburg: 1989.
Martelet, G. Théologie du sacerdoce, Bd II und III. Paris: 1990,
Okumenischer Rat: s. Literatur III.
Osborne, K. B. Priesthood. A History of Ordained Ministry in the Roman Catholic
Church. New York: 1989.

Marriage
Baldanza, G. La grazie matrimoniale nella riflessione teologica tra l’Enciclica ‘‘Casti
connubii’’ e il Vaticano II, in: ELit 103. (1989) 113-160.
Ders. La grazia matrimoniale nella fase preparatoria del Concilio Vaticano II, ebd.
281-308.
Ders. La grazia matrimoniale nella fase conciliare, ebd. 104. (1990) 368-414.
Ders., Die Gnade des Ehesakramentes in der Pastoralkonstitution ‘‘Gaudium et Spes,’’
in: In Unum Congregati (FS Kard. A. Mayer), hrsg. v. St. Haering. Met-
ten: 1991, 219-238.
Baudot, D. L’inséparabilité entre le contrat et le sacrement de mariage. Rome: 1987.
Baumann, U. Die Ehe—ein Sakrament? Ziirich: 1988.
Brooke, Ch. N. L. The Medieval Idea of Marriage. Oxford: 1989.
Gies, F. u J. Marriage and the Family in the Middle Ages. New York: 1989.
Hartmann, P. H. Warum dauern Ehen nicht ewig? Opladen: 1989.
Liidecke, N. EheschlieBung als Bund. Genese und Exegese der Ehelehre der Konzil-
skonstitution ‘‘Gaudium et spes’’ in kanonistischer Auswertung. Wurzburg:
1989.
Mackin, T. The Marital Sacrament. Marriage in the Catholic Church. New York:
1989.
Muller, E. C. Trinity and Marriage in Paul. New York: 1990.
Richter, K. (Hrsg.). EheschlieBung—mehr als ein rechtlich Ding? Freiburg: 1989.
 Index

Acts of the Apostles, on presbytery, Augustine, 31, 35, 45, 49, 52, 84,
245-46 114, 156, 189, 209, on
Adult baptism, as normative, 110, marriage, 292-93
111
Adultery, 291 Baptism, 76, 102-18; as primary
Alexandrian theologians, on sacrament for forgiveness of
Eucharist, 155 sins, 204
Anamnetic part of Eucharistic Baptism of Jesus, 103
prayer, 149, 151 Barth, Karl, on marriage, 295
Anointing of sick, history of, Berengar of Tours, and denial of
228-30 real presence, 158-59
Antiochene theologians, on Betz, Johannes, on Eucharist,
Eucharist, 155 192-93
Apostolic succession, 239 Bishop, office of in early Church,
Apostolic Constitutions of Eastern 181-82, 252-53; sovereign
Churches, 251 power of, 252; function in
Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, early Church, 253; theology of,
on theology of orders, 250-52 266-68
Aquinas, Thomas, on Old Bishops, Vatican II on, 261
Testament sacraments, 15, 31, Buber, Martin, 14
32, 46, 53, 54, 65, 85, 110; on
reconciliation, 209-10; on Calvin, John, 56; on Eucharist,
sacrament of marriage, 295 165; on penance, 212

324
 Index 325

Canon Law, new Code, on Damian, Peter, 51, 295

indulgences, 222; on sacrament de Lubac, Henri, 36
of orders, 264-65; on Deacons, office of, 263
ordination of women, 272; on Decree on the Sacraments (1547),
marriage, 304-08; on 59-60
sacramentals, 317 Diaconate, permanent, 270
Casel, Odo, on eucharist, 192 Diakonia, 240
Chalcedon, Christological dogma Didache, 35
of, 31-32 Divine grace and sacraments,
Children, baptism of, 110, 113-16 86-89
Christological presuppositions for Doms, Herbert, on marriage, 285
understanding sacramental Duns Scotus, John, 210
theology, 16-17
Church, fundamental tasks of,
Eastern Churches, on Church as
20-21
sacrament, 38, 57, 79, 80; on
Church, local, 33; theological
confirmation, 126; on
components of, 33-34; and
penitential practices, 208-09;
sacraments, 90-93;
on anointing of the sick, 231;
reconciliation through the, 204
on ordination, 274-75; on
Church’s right to restrict access to
marriage, 293note, 294
Eucharist, 136-37
Ecumenical dialogue on
Communication with God, 5-6, 82
ordination, 276-77
Communio, 187-190
Ecumenical perspectives of
Community as secondary subject
baptism, 116-17
of liturgy, 24
Epicletic part of Eucharistic
Concomitance, dogma of, 160,
prayer, 149, 151
164, 167, 168
Eucharist, 76, 132-195; as the
Confirmation, 122-30; history of,
liturgy, 132; and faith, 134-45;
125-28; as intensification of
concept of, 152-53
baptism, 125-26; as non-
Eucharistic celebration, meaning
sacramental in Protestant
of, 150
Churches, 127-28
Eucharistic theology, development
Congar, Yves, 36
of, 153-56
Consecration, words used in,
Exodus, 14
138-39
Consent theory of Roman law on
marriage, 294 Faith, 3, 7-8, 11, 29, 82-86, 180,
Constance, Council of, on 188; and baptism, 105; as
penance, 211 prerequisite for Eucharist,
Consubstantiation, 164 134-45
Contrition, 202 Fathers of the Church, on
Copula theory of marriage, 294 sacraments, 49-50
Council of Trent (see Trent, Feckes, Carl, on Jesus as
Council of) primordial sacrament, 32
Covenant, 21 Florence, Council of, on
Cyprian, 35; on priesthood, 250 Eucharist, 161-62, 188; on
326 Sacramental Theology

penance, 211; on orders, 255; Jesus’ understanding of his own

on marriage, 296 death, 147
Forgiveness, forms of, 203-05 John the Baptizer, 103

Gaudium et spes, on marriage and Kasper, Walter, 36-37, 134

the family, 302-04 Kuhn, Ulrich, 41, 179
General absolution, 219
Giraudo, Cesare, 149 Language, 69-70
God’s self revelation to humans, Last Supper accounts in New
6-7 Testament, 138-44
Greek theologians on real Lateran Council, Fourth, on
presence of Jesus, 154-55 Eucharist, 161; on
reconciliation, 211
Hellenistic memorial meals, 141
Latin theologians on Eucharist,
Herms, Eilert, 277note
155
High Scholastic theology, 53-54
Leiturgia, 240
Hincmar of Rheims, on marriage,
Lengeling, Emil Joseph, 21
294
Leo X, Pope, on indulgences, 221
Hippolytus, on rite of initiation,
Léon-Dufour, Xavier, on Luke’s
107-08, 181-82; on priesthood,
account of Last Supper, 142,
250-52 ‘
145-46
Hugh of St. Victor, on definition
Lévinas, Emmanuel, 14
of sacrament, 45
Life as fundamental sacrament, 11
Human beings as image of God,
Liturgy defined, 21-22; aspects of,
12; as word of God, 13
22
Hylomorphic doctrine as applied
Lombard, Peter, 46, 52, 53; on
to sacraments, 52-53
priesthood, 254; on marriage as
sacrament, 295
Icons, 9 Luther, Martin, 31, 42, 55; on
Ignatius of Antioch, on office of Eucharist, 164; on penance,
priesthood, 181, 249 211-12; on marriage, 297
Imposition of hands in baptism,
108-09, in confirmation, 125; in
Mark’s Gospel, on anointing of
orders, 252
sick, 227
Indulgences, 220-22
Marriage, sacrament of, 283-310;
Initiation, rite of, 107-09
as a legal institution, 284-85;
Innocent I, Pope, on baptism, 109 purposes, 284-85; in Old
Institutio, 74
Testament, 286-87; in New
Irenaeus of Lyons, on orders, 249
Testament, 288-91; conditions
for validity of, 306-07;
James, Letter of, on anointing dissolution of, 308; as liturgy,
with oil, 228-29 309
Jesus as revealer of God’s will, 17 Martyria, 240
Jesus Christ as primary subject of Matter and form in sacramental
liturgy, 23 theology, 160
 Index 327

Matthew’s Gospel on forgiveness Peukert, Helmut, 64

of sin, 206-07, 212 Place of sacraments in theology,
Melanchthon, Philip, 212 20-26
Merklein, Helmut, on death of Pneumatological presuppositions
Jesus, 147; on office in the for understanding sacramental
Church, 245 theology, 18-19; preconditions
Metz, Johann Baptist, 40, 81 for Eucharist, 135-36
Michel, Ernst, on marriage, 295 Preconditions for sacramental the-
Middle Ages and sacramental ology, 17-18
theology, 50-55 Presence of God, mediated, 25; in
Mystery theology, 62, 63 Eucharist, 134-35
Myterion, 31, 35, 44, 49 Priesthood, of believers, 24; office
Myth, 70 of, 180-84; common, 260-61;
Vatican II on, 262-63
Natural sacraments, 16, 29 Priestly office, theology of, 268-69
Neo-Scholasticism, 36
New Testament, and sacraments,
47-48; baptism in, 102-07;
Radbertus, Paschasius, 157-58
foundations for confirmation,
Rahner, Hugo, on sacramentality
122-24
of Church, 34-35
Rahner, Karl, on symbols, 10, 13,
O’Neill, Colman E., 63 24note, 25, 73; on Christology,
Office of service in the Church, 32; on Church as sacrament,
239-42 36, 38-40, 41; on sacraments in
Oikonomia, 28, 31, 33 general, 65, 67; on sacramental
Oil, anointing with, 228-29 theology, 74, 77, 81; on
Old Testament sacraments, 15, 29 indulgences, 221; on theology
Opus operatum, 52, 55 of priesthood, 268note; on
Orders, biblical foundations for, ordination of women, 271
242-48 Ratramnus, on real presence, 158
Orders, sacrament of, 237-77 Real presence of Jesus in the
Ordination as conferral of the Eucharist, 154-55, 156-59, 166,
Spirit, 266-67 172
Reconciliation, as precondition for
Paschal lamb as Old Testament liturgy, 133-34, 169, 200-222
sacrament, 15 Reformers, on sacraments, 55-57,
Paul, St., on baptism, 104-05; on 61, 71; on the Eucharist,
Last Supper, 139-40; on 164-66; on sacrifice of the
reconciliation, 206; on Mass, 175; on penance, 211-19;
charisms, 244 on anointing of the sick, 231;
Paul VI, Pope, on on priesthood, 256; on mar-
transubstantiation, 172, on riage, 296-97; on sacramentals,
indulgences, 221-22 316
Penitential practices, history of, Reign of God as central theme in
207-09 Jesus’ life, 226-27
328 Sacramental Theology

Res et sacramentum, 54, 92, 163, Symbols, 2, 9-11, 68-69, 90

217 Synoptic Gospels, on Last
Rite of Initiation, 107-09 Supper, 137-43

Tariff penance, 157, 209

Sacerdotium, 262, 263 Tertullian, on sacrament of
Sacraments, concept of, 43-44; orders, 249-50
number of, 51, 52, 55, 56, 65, Thurian, Max, 191
75-76, 295, 298; as symbolic Tillich, Paul, 72
actions, 71-72; and salvation, Transubstantiation, doctrine of,
88; as Church’s liturgy, 90-93 159, 164, 167
Sacramenta signs, 50 Trent, Council of, 58-61, 74, 84,
Sacramental principle, 13-14 85, 86, 111, 112, 115, 127; and
Sacramentals, 314-18; origin of, Reformers on Eucharist,
315 165-66; on the real presence,
Sacramentum, sacrare, sacrum, 166-72; on doctrine of sacrifice
44-45, 54 of the Mass, 172-80, 188; on
Sacrifice of the Mass, doctrine of, reconciliation, 212-219; on
172-80 indulgences, 221; on anointing
Schillebeeckx, Edward, 32, 40; on of the sick, 230-33; on
ordination, 269note sacrament of orders, 238,
Schmied, Augustin, 30 256-60; on marriage, 297-301
Scholastic theology, of Trinitarian presuppositions for
confirmation, 126; of the understanding sacramental the-
Eucharist, 160-63; of ology, 18-19
priesthood, 182-83; of Twelve, circle of in early Church,
indulgences, 221; of anointing 242-43
of the sick, 230; of sacrament
of orders, 238; of marriage, Validity, of sacrament, 84, 87; of
283-95 baptism outside Catholic
Scholasticism, 46, 51, 57, 59, 73, Church, 109-10
88, 90 van der Leeuw, Gerard, 70
Schtitz, Christian, 64 Vatican Council II, on sacrament,
Semmelroth, Otto, 36 32, 36-37, 40, 61-62; on
Shekinah, 25 confirmation, 128; on the
Signs, sacraments as, 49-50, 56, Eucharist, 184-87; on theology
68, 89, 90 of bishop’s office, 186; on pen-
Sin, 200-202 ance, 218-19; on anointing of
Spirit, divine, 18-19; received in the sick, 233; on priesthood,
confirmation, 122-23; role of in 260-66; on bishops, 261; on
ordination, 266-67 marriage, 301-08; on
Spirit baptism, 103, 104, 106 sacramentals, 314-15
Symbolic action of baptism, 103, Vogtle, Anton, on Jesus’ death,
106, 115 147; on offices in the Church,
Symbolic expression, defined, 245
10-11 von Balthasar, Hans Urs, 13, 179
 Index 329

Wagner, Harald, 276 Zenger, Eric, 12

Women, ordination of, 270-73 Zwingli, Huldreich, 56
Word of God, 76-79; as prayer in Zwingli, Ulrich, on the Eucharist,
administration of sacraments, 165; on penance, 212
79-81

THEOLOGY UBRARY = |
me amerasmrarr fALIC i
 ee Vyrntnty, 1. Een meng
& Aueoieh Monerds wie cl mare gc: 5
peaubntt od aw Wedd dents 1A Srgmeae ATA Golo bi
: PEG) o Pat ayeamy! 0 nodaThaaige6 wc
ite’ 29, 2 TA a
merle A) mares ut , x)
{
ow 4 o> © oy he Sy E.’ ’

; i. Pe Mery iV "
ip 1 Yo we 7 ie
@
‘ ‘ ry or.
4 we sued he
. ae’
Oe 5
Oe - af
7,

& —, : iy. Eh i*e Ww .

€. .% a e , "Shel it "<6 3
' "wae } ~~ j >) ee ~ = 4
c: mole ip @mtem iw 4% 7 7
: \. = : “te
= - I a ~@ _a a

ng Peres te — e = ot a od ecihe 7) 7

+. 8 tt Ga aS) PS Sa Why ame 7 4

Wire’. = } id ih ota = ony rei a
. irchibesatin:'s _ i eseincnny 5
oa) tg - es * aS” GAS
- -
ko Ae hopes . — the wert ~

parrnd; 40 oe al = re of © Cray raat

polay BM! @zucc bu a ih oe raw oer as te *
yan te | ferent ime
ea eo) ~~ | heey IGE 4 vt

wiiees?, 0-55 al ; Wve aii be ooh aaa

BELPost ody at> oa L). &
—s,! _ Y wT .
A Wthie, 0: -6F ceretions eg, @ @itinue. a7
eae Lone 1° gbpeetier
: Abts * - ie $F vu i ined, . .
i OO ’
aes, Chara
*ervack oe. Ota. “w
Tekin’ 5 ; :
Be) Gi B-t ® 2 7
5 Sas BR, FO, 0) any
am 22 aie
tin = 1 hae ampatl tp)
Tia

imeka, Ta) emi ;

erubliotipr. Teg-6? >

Gree Sal, AY a e. wi
nop a (nag
| iy
5, te etl, 25)
41 sie
can

ee
a: (Cw
 H. Vorgrimler offers us a view of the Christian
sacraments, which takes into account contempo-
rary understanding of symbols, of the history of
the sacraments, of the positions formulated by
Vatican II. He is careful to preserve tradition, on
the one hand, but opens the reader to new insights
of sacramental thought as well. Throughout the
book Vorgrimler attempts to span these two sides
of current Roman Catholic sacramental theology
and liturgy. He not only speaks about sacramental
~ liturgical life in general terms, but offers the
readera brief synopsis of each of the seven
sacraments as well.

_ For someone who is looking for an explanation

of both traditional and contemporary theological
studies, this volume will prove quite helpful.
Adult religious education will, certainly, be helped
by this book.

I
CAT SONY MLL OS ZB
Franciscan School of Theology
Graduate Theological Union
Berkeley, California
‘

Herbert Vorgrimler is a theologian, professor,

and dean in Munster, Germany.

us. $24.95 ISBN 0-8146-1994-0