Sacramental Signification

SACRAMENTAL SIGNIFICATION T HERE IS a latent antinomy in the theology of the sacraments in the solution of which the most fundamental issues which divide Catholics and Protestants are raised, and which seems intimately connected with another antinomy which has troubled philosophers, more especially from the time of Descartes to our own day. The problem of how to bridge the gulf between spirit and matter, of how to reconcile the subjective and objective, has called forth solutions ranging from utter materialism to the most extreme idealism. It is but natural to expect that if this antinomy appears in the natural order, when we try to determine the relations of man with nature, it will also appear when we come to consider the relations of man with God, the author of nature. The overly subjective point of view in determining these relations does not begin with the Reformers, but it is they who raised this spiritual subjectivism into a first principle, apply it methodically to every part of theology, especially to the doctrines of faith, grace, and the sacraments. A violent controversy followed, and, as always in controversy, attention was directed to some particular aspects of the subject, while other, more important, aspects were relegated to the background and were forgotten. Later theologians are too often content to follow in the steps of the masters of controversy thus perpetuating a tradition which considers the elements of worn-out dispute as of primary importance in questions of theology, whereas more fundamental aspects of dogma, which have never been challenged, have been therefore overlooked. In a most general way, the antinomy which concerns us now may be described as a conflict between the objective and the subjective elements of the sacraments, or perhaps, between the external and internal elements. The sacraments are both signs 334 SACRAMENTAL SIGNIFICATION 885 and causes; and the antinomy appears under both of these considerations. As regards the causality of the sacraments, tradition has crystallized this opposition into the two famous formulas, opus operantis and opus operatum; and Catholic theologians have ably defended the objective position against the attacks of the subjectivists. But too few of them have defined the objective standpoint in relation to sacramental signification as distinct from causality; some who have attempted it do not seem to have succeded very well. The heterodox theologians, as usual defending the subjective point of view, seem to have reason and common sense on their side. A sacrament, as everyone admits, is primarily a sign. A sign is a means of communication of knowledge; and if we omit natu:ral signs as outside the question where the sacraments are concerned, the sacraments are symbols, not of things, but of thoughts or of subjective states. Thus a sacrament is essen.;. tially subjective, wholly ordained to making known to others our feelings, our desires, our ideas. In the supernatural order, then, sacraments as signs are symbols, means by which we give expression to an inward state of soul~ or by which God does so. This subjectivist position leads, of course, to the teaching that the sacraments are signs by which God testifies to our inward sanctity, or by which we profess our faith, or excite it in ourselves or others. That sacraments are, in some way, signs of the faith that is within us is perfectly true. The traditional formula "sacraments of the faith" (sacramenta fidei) is no mere pious phrase, and St. Thomas can write: " The sacraments are so many signs which show the faith by which man is justified." 1 We have so concentrated our attention on one aspect of the sacraments that many would cry " heretic " if anyone other than St. Thomas had, uttered these words. It would of course, be heretical to affirm that the sacraments were nothing more than signs professing our faith.2 If this were the only role of the sacraments 1 Summa Tkeol., I, q. 61, a. 4. • Cf. Denziger, Enckiridion Symbolorum, nn. 848, 849. 5 886 A. J. MCNICHOLL they would be rather unnecessary, since the external profession of faith pertains formally to the virtue of faith, not of religion. Here, as in many cases, the heretics are right in what they affirm...