The *i.* of Sacraments not necessary for salvation, namely of Matrimony and Extreme Unction of the sick, not deprived of the senses and who has already received the other Sacraments, is decided according to the nature of the doubt, the utility of the faithful, and the inconvenience of the minister.
Sacraments must be repeated in an absolute manner when their invalidity is certain. In case of doubt, however, a condition must be appended, so as to preserve, as far as possible, the reverence due to the Sacrament. If indeed the condition is fulfilled, the Sacrament is validly conferred; if it is not fulfilled, despite the application of matter and form, the Sacrament is not received. The condition must be expressed orally only when so prescribed by the rubric, as in the case of Baptism and Extreme Unction. In other cases, it suffices to conceive it mentally.
II. THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE *I.* OF BAPTISM OF HERETICS. — To heretics baptized in the Catholic Church, when they converted, hands were imposed upon them as a sign of penance, so that they might receive the Holy Spirit. Around the middle of the 3rd century, the question arose whether those baptized in heretical sects, upon converting, should be rebaptized. The matter was resolved in practice at first. In Rome, Egypt, and Palestine, the Baptism of heretics was considered valid, provided it was conferred in the proper form. In proconsular Africa, however, confusing liceity with validity, the *i.* of Baptism was required. The error is linked to Tertullian, who demanded that the minister’s right faith be a condition for the efficacy of the Sacrament. From the principles: *nemo dat quod non habet*, *extra Ecclesiam nulla salus*, he concluded that there is only one Baptism and it is found only in the true Church. Therefore, heretics who convert must be rebaptized (*De Bapt.*, cap. 15: PL 1, 1216). A Council of Carthage under Agrippinus sanctioned this practice, which spread in Africa and, shortly after, 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 *De unitate Ecclesiae* he considers the Baptism of heretics not a washing, but a defilement, which produces children for the devil (cap. 11: PL 4, 524). At the beginning of 255, a certain Magnus asked him whether Novatians who convert should be rebaptized. Cyprian answered affirmatively, using Tertullian’s argument (Epist. LXIX: PL 3, 1138). Meanwhile, he received an inquiry from eighteen bishops of Numidia. Cyprian, having gathered in a Synod the votes of thirty-one bishops of proconsular Africa, replied, 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, reproving the *i.* of Baptism in the name of ancient tradition. An imminent conflict loomed between the Carthaginian and Roman usages. Cyprian presented this. He sent to Quintus, along with the previous synodal letter, another in which he insisted on the essence of true Baptism among heretics; nor could custom prescribe against the truth. Even Peter had yielded to Paul’s reasons (Epist. LXXI, 2: PL 3, 1106). At the Synod of 256, seventy-one bishops of proconsular Africa and 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 African Council’s decision and imposed conformity with the Roman usage, with the threat of excommunication. After the question of the *lapsi* and the Novatians, for the third time now, the Pope found himself facing the zealous bishop of Carthage, more disposed to give lessons than to accept them. For this reason, as well as for the doctrinal one, Stephen was uncompromising. Cyprian, however, in the autumn of the same year, convened 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 from communicating with them.
The threatened excommunication was not in fact imposed, and the schism was avoided. Stephen was succeeded by Sixtus II, who resumed relations with Cyprian without abandoning the Roman practice, whose strict acceptance he did not deem necessary. Thus, the Churches of Africa and Asia continued for some time in their usage. Protestantism erroneously sees in the controversy an argument against tradition as a rule of faith, and against papal authority and infallibility. Cyprian and his followers erred in the matter of fact, not in that of right. They indeed acknowledged the value of an apostolic tradition and papal infallibility, but in this controversy they judged the custom opposed by Stephen to be erroneous, though older, because it was purely human. The question concerned both the dogmatic and the disciplinary field. The tenor of Cyprian’s words, which leaves bishops free without wishing to break unity with those who do 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 mere disciplinary matter. It is certain that Cyprian did not frame the question exclusively on the 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, in a new form, was taken up by the Donatists (v. DONATISM), who demanded that the minister’s faith and state of grace be a condition for the efficacy of the Sacrament. St. Augustine distinguished between the valid Sacrament, which can exist even outside the Church, and the fruitful Sacrament, which is found only within the Church.
ITINERARIES — Incipit of *De locis sanctis Martyrum quae sunt foris civitatem Romae* — Vienna, National Library, cod. 1008, formerly Salzburg 175, f. 180 (9th–10th c.).
INTRAMAR (Hebr.: *’Ithāmār*). — Youngest son of Aaron (Ex. 6:23); consecrated priest with his brothers and Aaron (Ex. 28:1, 4; 29); attended to the making of sacred furnishings (Ex. 38:21). When Nadab and Abihu were struck down for their ritual fault, Eleazar and I. assumed all priestly functions (Lev. 10; Num. 3:1–4; 26:60).
I. presides over the Gershonites and the Merarites for the transport of certain parts of the Tabernacle in the desert (Num. 4:28, 13; 7:8). The descendants of I. (the family of Eli) have custody of the ark at Shiloh (1 Sam. 1). Under David, they perform priestly functions together with the descendants of Eleazar (the family of Zadok): 1 Chron. 15:11ff.; 16:37–43. These, being also more numerous (1 Chron. 24:1–18), prevail, especially from the time of Solomon, who exiles Abiathar and grants the high priesthood to Zadok (1 Kings 2:26ff.). This preeminence becomes exclusivity after the exile (cf. Ezek. 40:46; 44:15ff.). Among those who returned with Ezra, there is a Daniel, a descendant of I. (Ezra 8:2).
ITINERARIES
From *iter*, itineraries are practical guides indicating the route to be followed when traveling from one place to another; sometimes, especially in later examples, they specify the nature of the terrain, distances, horse-changing stations (*mutationes*), and resting places (*stationes*) where travelers could find refreshment. They serve a wide variety of purposes—military, commercial, utilitarian—and develop and improve as a nation expands. The conquests of Alexander and those of the Romans linked successive generations to an entire network of roads, first trodden by phalanxes and legions, then by merchants, traders, emigrants, and pilgrims driven by the desire for gain, the pressure of other peoples, or religious sentiment.
The road from Babylon to the Black Sea became well known after the anabasis and catabasis of the soldiers led by Xenophon, just as Roman conquests ensured reliable knowledge of the passability of routes, the nature of the terrain, and the measurement of distances. At that time, travel services were organized, from which the itinerary indicators we possess today derive.
I. ROMAN ITINERARIES — These are found engraved on silver vessels, such as those of Vicarello, or inscribed on marble milestones, like those of Tongres or Autun, or reproduced on clay tablets or any other writing material. From an examination of these itineraries, it can be inferred that at a certain point they became standardized. Complete distance indications in miles from the starting station to the destination (e.g., Cadiz–Rome; Santiago de Compostela–Rome) are followed, in spatial order, by the *mutationes* and *stationes* with their respective distances.
Among the numerous itineraries connecting the Latin world, two stand out: the *Itineraria Antonini Augusti*—one of the provinces and the other of ports and harbors for navigators. In each, distances are measured in miles; and, for anyone familiar with manuscripts, it is no surprise that the figures given must be treated with great caution. The itineraries are listed without order, and the entire document, far from representing an official compilation, appears to have been hastily compiled by a private individual from a *mappa mundi*, with the criterion of grouping minor itineraries around a central point of radiation.
As mentioned, there are *mappae mundi*. It is known that during the Empire, when few corners of the world did not feel Roman hegemony, the Romans displayed colored geographical maps in porticoes, depicting the Empire and indicating the locations, extents, and distances of places. From these colored *mappae* derive itineraries such as the *Tabula Peutingeriana*, the itineraries of the Anonymous of Ravenna, and the *Geographica* of Guido da Pisa.
The first, named after its owner, C. Peutinger, consists of a parchment scroll now in the Vienna Library, where it has been divided into eleven skins. It may date back to a 3rd-century exemplar. A road network is highlighted in red, with spatial indications typical of all itineraries; however, the draftsman uses symbols to indicate cities or other landmarks.
The Anonymous of Ravenna compiled his *Cosmographia* around the 8th century, basing it on various maps drawn by different cosmographers. He was a monk writing to a fellow monk, and since he found the maps inconsistent with one another, he adhered to the most informed cartographers, giving precedence to natives of the regions depicted. For each region, he records cities, rivers, and lakes, followed by a list of islands arranged according to the continents to which they belong. He warns his fellow monk not to be surprised if *civitates vel flumina nuper aliter appellentur* due to the migrations of peoples, showing that the source maps had been completed before the barbarian invasions.
Guido da Pisa, writing in the 12th century when geographical studies were recognized as socially important, composed his work *in humanae vitae communionem*, so that man might know he lives not for himself alone but for others. He focuses particularly on Italy and the Mediterranean regions, extending as far as the western borders of Spain and the northern parts of England.
I. OF THE HOLY LAND — From the earliest Christian generations, there arose a desire to visit the places witnessing biblical and especially Gospel events. Eusebius’s *Ecclesiastical History* (PG 20, 396 and 542) mentions various pilgrims, such as Melito of Sardis (c. 170) and St. Alexander of Cappadocia (3rd century), who came to Palestine even during the period of persecution. The pilgrimage movement naturally intensified with the Edict of Toleration and has remained constant, though at times hindered by the Arabs. Pilgrims made known in Europe the existence of shrines, their condition, brought back relics, sought to reproduce them in their own lands, and contributed to the development of certain devotions such as the Way of the Cross (v.). The writings of pilgrims, known as itineraries, are often of considerable importance for understanding biblical (v. Biblical Archaeology) and Christian traditions and the state of shrines, since they frequently provide the only testimony on these matters. The number of itineraries that have come down to us is vast, so that only a few of the principal ones can be enumerated.