Iteration of the Sacraments

ITERATION OF THE SACRAMENTS. - From Lat. iterare (to do a second time), it is the repeated conferral of the Sacraments, made to the same subject.

I. MORAL PRINCIPLES

Sacraments that have certainly been administered validly and have a lasting effect cannot be repeated. Baptism, therefore, Confirmation and Order cannot be received again, because they imprint the character, which is indelible (CIC, can. 732 § 1). The effect of Matrimony remains during the marriage itself, so one cannot enter into a new marriage until the death of one of the spouses or the dissolution of the bond in cases of a ratified and non-consummated marriage. Sacraments that do not produce a perpetual effect can be repeated. Extreme Unction is repeated each time a person, in different illnesses, is in danger of death. The i. of this Sacrament is also permitted during the same illness, when the sick person, having overcome the danger of death, falls back into it after a notable time. According to the current discipline, it may be administered only once during the same danger of death (CIC, can. 940 § 2). Confession can be repeated each time there is sufficient matter (v. CONFESSIONE, II. Teologia morale, VI. Reiterazione). The administration of a non-repeatable Sacrament is invalid, and whoever knowingly administers or receives it commits a sin of sacrilege.

The i. of the Sacraments is permitted when their validity is doubtful. Moralists distinguish a twofold doubt, facti and iuris. The first refers to the circumstances of fact, that is, whether the Sacrament was conferred and in the proper manner, namely with the due matter, form and intention. Doubt iuris occurs when, the circumstances of fact being known, one doubts the validity of the Sacrament, because of the disagreement of authors on the value of the matter or form used. The doubt can be prudent or imprudent, according as it has a grave and reasonable foundation, or is entirely devoid of one. With an imprudent doubt the i. of the Sacraments is not lawful. In performing it, even conditionally, one gravely sins in oneself, because one certainly exposes the Sacrament, without just cause, to the danger of nullity. The condition, when the doubt is futile, is considered as not posited. One can be excused from sin, if one is driven by insistent anxieties and anguish of conscience, as occurs in the scrupulous. Any prudent and reasonable doubt legitimizes the i. of every Sacrament. The danger indeed that the faithful remain deprived of the fruit is a sufficient reason for the i., since the Sacraments were instituted for men. If the Sacrament, whose validity is doubted, is necessary for salvation, or the validity of other Sacraments depends on it, it must be repeated until one has moral certainty of validity. Therefore for the salvation of man, Baptism, absolution and Extreme Unction of the dying person, deprived of the senses, must be repeated, if there is a reasonable doubt about their validity. To avoid the danger of idolatry, the Hosts doubtfully consecrated must be reconsecrated. The danger of invalid administration of the other Sacraments imposes the i. of Order, in a secret manner (CIC, can. 1007), if its validity is doubted. In these cases the principle holds: if it is lawful to repeat the Sacrament, it must be repeated. The i. of the Sacraments that imprint the character is expressly prescribed (CIC, can. 732 § 2). Sometimes the repetition of the Sacraments necessary for salvation, although not prescribed, is permitted for the quiet of the soul, disturbed by scruples or by a doubt iuris, originating from an opinion devoid of true probability.

The i. of the Sacraments not necessary for salvation, that is, of Matrimony and of Extreme Unction of a sick person who is not deprived of his senses and who has already received the other Sacraments, is decided according to the nature of the doubt, the usefulness of the faithful and the inconvenience of the minister.

The Sacraments must be repeated in an absolute manner when one is certain of their invalidity. In doubt, on the other hand, the condition must be attached, in order to preserve, as far as possible, the reverence due to the Sacrament. For if the condition is fulfilled, the Sacrament is validly conferred; if it is not fulfilled, despite the application of the matter and form, there is no Sacrament. The condition must be expressed orally only when it is so prescribed by the rubric, as for Baptism and Extreme Unction. In other cases it is enough to conceive it mentally.

II. THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE ITERATION OF THE SACRAMENTS OF THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS

Heretics who had been baptized in the Catholic Church, when they converted, had hands imposed on them as a sign of penance, so that they might receive the Holy Spirit. Around the middle of the 3rd century a question arose as to whether those baptized in heretical sects, on converting, should be rebaptized. The question was settled in practice from the outset. At Rome, in Egypt and in Palestine the Baptism of heretics was held valid, provided it had been conferred in the due form. In proconsular Africa, on the other hand, confounding licitness with validity, the I. of Baptism was required. The error is connected with Tertullian, who required of the Sacrament's worth the right faith of the minister. From the principles: nemo dat quod non habet, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, he concluded that Baptism is one and is found only in the true Church. Converted heretics must therefore be rebaptized (De Bapt., chap. 15: PL 1, 1216). A Carthaginian Council, under Agrippinus, sanctioned this practice, which spread in Africa and, shortly afterwards, in Asia Minor with the Councils of Iconium and Synnada. The divergence of customs led to a conflict, through the intervention of St. Cyprian, who sought to extend the practice of rebaptizing heretics. In the De unitate Ecclesiae he regards the Baptism of heretics not as an ablution, but as a filth, which begets sons for the devil

(chap. 11: PL 4, 524). At the beginning of 255, a certain Magnus asks him whether converted Novatianists should be rebaptized. Cyprian answers in the affirmative with Tertullian's argument (Epist. LXIX: PL 3, 1138). Meanwhile an inquiry reaches him from eighteen bishops of Numidia. Cyprian, having gathered in a Synod the vote of thirty-one bishops of proconsular Africa, responds by reaffirming his opinion, confirmed by the custom of his predecessors (Epist. LXX, 1: PL 3, 1038).

While Numidia agreed with Carthage, Mauretania, situated to the west of Africa and in contact with Rome, followed the contrary practice. The bishop Quintus wrote to Cyprian, condemning the I. of Baptism in the name of ancient tradition. The conflict between the Carthaginian and the Roman usage was looming imminent. Cyprian foresaw it. He sent to Quintus, together with the previous synodal letter, another letter, in which he insisted on the essence of true Baptism among heretics; nor could custom prescribe against the truth. Peter himself had yielded to Paul's reasons (Epist. LXXI, 2: PL 3, 1106). In the Synod of 256, seventy-one bishops of proconsular Africa and of Numidia again declared the Baptism of heretics invalid. Cyprian drafted the synodal letter, which he sent to Pope Stephen. The latter, however, did not approve the decision of the African Council and imposed conformity with the Roman usage, with the threat of excommunication. After the question of the lapsi and of the Novatianists, now for the third time, the Pope found himself facing the zealous bishop of Carthage, more inclined to give lessons than to accept them. For this reason, as well as for the doctrinal one, Stephen was intransigent. Cyprian nevertheless in the autumn of the same year convoked another Council. Eighty-seven bishops renewed the decision of the previous synods. The conciliar acts were sent to Rome, but the Pope refused to receive the legates and forbade the clergy to communicate with them.

The threatened excommunication was in fact not pronounced and the schism was avoided. Stephen was succeeded by Sixtus II, who resumed relations with Cyprian, without abandoning the Roman practice, of which he did not believe it necessary to impose rigid acceptance. Thus the Churches of Africa and of Asia continued for a certain time in their own usage. Protestantism wrongly sees in the controversy an argument against tradition, as a rule of faith, and against pontifical authority and infallibility. Cyprian and his followers erred in the question of fact, not in that of right. They acknowledged indeed the value of an apostolic tradition and pontifical infallibility, but in this controversy they judged the custom, opposed by Stephen, to be erroneous, although more ancient, because purely human. The question concerned both the dogmatic and the disciplinary field. The tenor of Cyprian's words, which leave the bishops free, without wishing to break unity with those who did not share his opinion, suggests that he treated the question from a disciplinary point of view. His arguments, however, indicate that he saw in the controversy something more than a simple disciplinary question. It is certain that Cyprian did not pose the question on the exclusive ground of faith. The question was new and difficult, since many points of sacramental doctrine were still obscure. St. Augustine shed light on the matter, when the error, under a new form, was taken up by the Donatists (v. DONATISMO), who required of the Sacrament's worth the faith and the state of Grace of the minister. St. Augustine distinguished between the valid Sacrament, which can also exist outside the Church, and the fruitful Sacrament, which is found only in the Church. For a similar question in relation to the Sacrament of Order, v. RIORDINAZIONI.

Vincenzo Carbone