A reader writes:
I have recently heard a Catholic priest state that the number of sacraments was not always seven, and in fact was not defined until the 11th or 12th century. My understanding on this is that the term sacraments at one point had a broader meaning.
Correct.
For instance, Christ Himself may be considered a sacrament.
Well, that’s not the example I would cite. People can still refer to Christ or to the Church as sacraments in an extended sense. In the sense of the term that we’re after, a sacrament is a sacred rite of some kind that is performed by Christians. Jesus and the Church don’t qualify under that meaning of the term.
Some believed that funerals are sacraments.
Yes, this is a good example. Also blessings, foot washing, and the anointing of kings have been cited as sacraments.
How would you respond to the contention that the number of sacraments varied in the earlier Church (pre 11th century), yet the Catholic Church has the fullness of the Faith and has never erred in matters of faith and morals?
I would point out that the term sacramentum is not found in the Bible (its Greek equivalent–musterion–is found in the Bible, but does not seemed to be used in the sense that we are investigating). It is therefore a theological term that the Church has come to use to describe certain biblical realities.
Because it is a theological term, its boundaries are what the Church says its boundaries are. These boundaries changed over time. Originally, it was applied to various sacred rites, but as theology progressed, the Church began to make a distinction between those sacred rites that were given to us by Jesus himself to convey grace sacramentally and those that were not.
Other, similar rites that either didn’t come from Jesus (like the anointing of kings) or that don’t convey grace sacramentally (like footwashing) therefore became known as sacramentals–things that were like sacraments in some ways but not in others.
As it reflected on these matters, the Church eventually discerned that that there were seven biblical realities that count as sacraments in the modern sense. There had always been those seven–and only those seven–that were sacraments in this sense, but this fact previously masked by the lack of precision with which the word sacrament was being used. When it’s used in the precise sense, it picks out these seven things and only these seven things, which have always been sacraments in this sense.
This kind of parallels the formation of the canon of Scripture. Originally there were a bunch of religious writings circulating in Jewish and Christian communities, and it took time for the Church to discern which of these were inspired and which were not. (E.g., yesterday we talked about two first century documents: 1 Corinthians, which is inspired, and the Didache, which is not inspired.)
The inspired books had always been inspired. It just took time for the canon of scripture to be discerned by the Church, but eventually the Church signed off on it infallibly. The same thing happened to what we might call "the canon of the sacraments."
That’s why this doesn’t conflict with the Church’s infallibility: Because before a certain point in time the Church had not addressed the matter infallibly.
If you want to show this to the priest, you might want to point to what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on the matter:
1114 "Adhering to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, to the apostolic traditions, and to the consensus . . . of the Fathers," we profess that "the sacraments of the new law were . . . all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord."
1117 As she has done for the canon of Sacred Scripture and for the doctrine of the faith, the Church, by the power of the Spirit who guides her "into all truth," has gradually recognized this treasure received from Christ and, as the faithful steward of God’s mysteries, has determined its "dispensation." Thus the Church has discerned over the centuries that among liturgical celebrations there are seven that are, in the strict sense of the term, sacraments instituted by the Lord.
” in the strict sense of the term” is the real rub. The argument over the canonical list only comes when there is a desire to make the term “sacrament” into a technical term with increased precision. It was Hugh of St. Victor who first proposed an exclusive definition of sacraments, i.e., a definition of sacraments such that everything that met the requirements was a sacrament and anything that failed in even one part was not a sacrament. His success in this endeavour is debated, but he does get the list right, at least. Before that, I would say that sacrament named a familial relationship, like when I say I look like everyone else in my family.
The definition Jimmy alludes to–“sacred rite of some kind that is performed by Christians”–is a bit later than Hugh, viz., Peter Lombard. Hugh tends to focus on what we would now call the material cause and names that the sacrament. Hence, he will not say “The Mass is a sacrament” but “Bread and wine are the sacrament of the body of Christ.”
Interesting to note on this point is the caution showed to Fr. Schillebeeckx and “Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God,” in which he proposes (renews?) the idea that both the Incarnate Christ and His body the Church are “a primoridial sacrament” and “the ground sacrament for other sacraments.” Only when sacrament has an exclusive, technical meaning does one wonder at such an attribution.
It has been noted in several threads in the Eastern Christianity forum on forums.catholic.com that, for example, the Eastern Orthodox recognize monastic tonsure/profession (not sure of the exact term they use) as being as much a sacrament — they say “mystery” — as marriage or confession, etc.
Not that it much matters, as the Church herself never formally endorsed it, but there was some theological speculation, at least as late as the 13th century, as to whether the anointing of a Christian king was also a sacrament in the strict sense.
As for the “Anointing of Kings”…. The prayers and admonitions that are part of the rite for the Sacrament of Confirmation allude to Confirmation as a royal anointing of the sons and daughters of God. The Rite of Ordination also clearly alludes to the three Christological offices of king, prophet and priest as part of the anointing received for ordained ministry.
St. Peter received authority from Christ to bind and loose on earth for heaven. As his first “papal act” immediately after Christ’s Ascension, St. Peter himself bound the Church to begin the apostolic succession by replacing Judas.
Since the “post-Ascension” succession of apostles continues to this day, I have no beef with accepting the apostolic Church’s binding me on earth (with the authority of heaven and with authority in heaven) to seven Sacraments–no more, no less.
P.S.
The rite for Consecrating the Chrism makes repeated use of forms of the words “royal, priestly, prophetic.” (The Church BLESSES the oil for the anointing of the sick and the oil for the anointing of catechumens. The Church CONSECRATES chrism.)
Uses of the Chrism? At present in the Church, what “items” receive a liturgical anointing with the Sacred Chrism?
Baptized persons in the Sacrament of Confirmation.
Church walls in the Rite of Dedication of a Church.
Altars (either as part of the Rite of Dedication of a Church or, separately, in the Rite of Dedication of an Altar as when installing a new altar in an already dedicated church).
Bishops and priests (but not deacons) in the Rite of Ordination.
How about ADOPTION as a sacrament? Instituted by Christ? In a way, he gave John to Mary at the foot of the cross and was, himself, “adopted” by Joseph in a certain sense.
Also, the definition of a sacrament as a sign that actually brings about what it signifies is fitting. When a couple (or someone) adopts someone else that child actually becomes their child in all respect as if born of their own bodies.
As for bestowing Grace, I don’t know. It’s very covenental. At least that’s the way I’ve thought about it since I adopted my daughter.
Chris-2-4, the closest thing to a “rite of adoption” in the Liturgy is within the “Rite of Baptism” for infants.
At the beginning of the rite, the parents who are presenting the child formally announce the name they are going to give the child. Then they claim the child for Christ by tracing a cross on the child’s forehead.
Near the end of the rite the priest blesses the mother with a special prayer for her as the mother of the newly baptized child; he also blesses the father with a prayer for him as the father of the newly baptized child.