Sacrament

← Encyclopedia

A sacrament is a rite that Christian tradition holds to be an outward sign of an inward grace: a visible, repeatable act — washing, anointing, a shared meal — through which an unseen gift is understood to pass from God to the one who receives it. The classic Western formula, that a sacrament is the visible form of an invisible grace, descends from Augustine, and it carries the whole difficulty of the idea in a single phrase. The sign is plain; what it is said to do is not. Augustine sharpened it once more, commenting on the Gospel of John: take the word away from the water and it is only water; let the word come to the element and a sacrament results — itself a kind of visible word (verbum visibile). The thing seen and the word spoken over it fuse into a third thing that is neither, and the whole later argument is an argument over what that third thing is and does.

A word with two pasts

The Latin sacramentum began as something more ordinary. It named a pledge — a sum of money deposited in a temple by the two parties to a lawsuit, forfeit by the loser; and, above all, the oath by which a Roman soldier bound himself to his commander, the sacramentum militiae that placed the man under sacred obligation and made him sacer, consecrated, answerable to the gods if he broke faith. When the Latin church reached for a word, it had to render the Greek mystērion — “mystery,” the term the Greek scriptures and the Greek-speaking churches already used both for God’s hidden plan of salvation and for the holy acts that carried it. The choice fell to Tertullian of Carthage near the end of the second century, a soldier’s son and a trained lawyer, who saw in the baptismal vow the counterpart of the military oath: the candidate enlists, swears allegiance, comes under a binding consecration. Two strands of meaning thus run through the word from the start — a binding oath, and a hidden thing made present — and both survive in how the rites were later understood. The recipient is bound; and something concealed becomes, for a moment, available. The Greek churches kept the older word; to this day the Eastern Orthodox speak not of sacraments but of the mysteria, the mysteries, and the difference of vocabulary marks a difference of temper that runs deep.

Fixing the number at seven

For most of Christian history the number of sacraments was unsettled, because the category had no fixed edge. Almost any act in which a material thing carried a sacred sense could be called a sacramentum — the term covered creeds, the sign of the cross, blessings, the consecration of churches, the washing of feet. Hugh of Saint Victor, in the twelfth century, could count nearly thirty. The contraction to seven was the work of the schools: it was Peter Lombard, in Book IV of his Sentences (c. 1150), who fixed the list that became standard — baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, the anointing of the sick, holy orders, and marriage — and who tightened the definition with it. A sacrament, the Lombard insisted, is not merely a sign of a sacred thing but the cause of the grace it signifies: it confers what it represents. That move, from sign to instrument, is the hinge on which the whole Latin doctrine turns. The seven were ratified for the Catholic Church only much later, by the Council of Trent in 1547, whose seventh session anathematized anyone who held the sacraments to be more or fewer than seven, or held any one of them not to be truly and properly a sacrament. The number was a defensive settlement, drawn under the pressure of the schism that had already begun.

Each of the seven addresses a passage or a station of a life: birth into the community by baptism, the sealing of the Spirit at confirmation, the recurring meal of the Eucharist, set within the church’s liturgy and taken in communion — the cleansing of penance, the strengthening of the sick under anointing, and the two that consecrate a state of life, holy orders and matrimony. The Eastern Orthodox churches recognize the same seven, and adopted the count under Western influence in the later Middle Ages, but they have never been much concerned to fix it: the deeper Orthodox instinct treats the whole life of the Church as one continuous mystery, in which the blessing of water, the tonsuring of a monk, the burial of the dead, and the great feast of the altar are not sharply divided into seven and the rest. To rank and number is a Latin habit; the East prefers the uncounted.

What the rite is held to do

What the rites accomplish was debated with a precision that can seem disproportionate to the plainness of the acts, until one recalls what was at stake: whether the holy could be relied upon. Two questions divided the theologians. The first was whether grace was conferred by the act itself, correctly performed, or whether it depended on the inner faith of the one who received it — and on the worthiness of the one who administered it. The Latin answer, hammered out by Augustine against the Donatists of North Africa and codified by the schoolmen, was that a rightly performed sacrament gives grace ex opere operato, “from the work worked.” A baptism is a true baptism though the priest be a scoundrel and the water poured by a heretic; the gift does not hang on the holiness of the human hands, because the true minister is Christ. What the recipient must supply is not the cause of grace but the absence of an obstacle to it — no wall thrown up against a gift already given. Trent fastened this in a single canon: anyone who said grace was not conferred by the work worked, but that faith in the divine promise alone sufficed, was anathema. The formula is the system’s guarantee of objectivity, its refusal to let the sacred become hostage to the moods of priest or penitent.

The second question was the harder: in what sense the bread and wine of the Eucharist are the body and blood of Christ. The medieval West answered with the doctrine that the whole substance of the bread becomes the substance of the body, and of the wine the blood, while the appearances — color, weight, taste — remain; a change of what the thing is beneath an unchanged surface. This was the most metaphysically ambitious claim the sacramental system ever made, and it is the claim that broke the Western church apart.

The Reformation cut

The sixteenth-century reformers, reading the same scriptures, cut the number sharply. Most kept only two — baptism and the Lord’s Supper — the rites they found instituted by Christ in plain words, and struck the other five from the list, demoting them to useful ceremonies or abolishing them outright. But unanimity stopped at the count. On the Supper the Reformed and Lutheran wings divided so bitterly that the Protestant front never closed. Martin Luther held that Christ is truly present in and under the bread and wine, the words of institution to be believed against all reason. Huldrych Zwingli of Zürich held the elements to be signs and the rite a memorial of a sacrifice past — the bread signifies the body, no more. John Calvin sought a path between: no change in the elements, but a true feeding on the living Christ by the power of the Spirit, the believer lifted to where Christ is rather than Christ drawn down into the bread. The Marburg Colloquy of 1529 set Luther and Zwingli face to face and ended in deadlock over the single word is. The disagreement that should have been a detail became the fault line of a continent.

Beneath all of these ran a more radical current that doubted whether the holy needed outward rites at all. Spiritualists and many in the radical wing of the Reformation located grace entirely in the inward event — the Spirit speaking directly to the soul — and let the visible signs fall away as husks. The antitrinitarian physician Michael Servetus, burned at Geneva in 1553 with Calvin’s assent, denied infant baptism among much else and stands at the edge of this current, where the whole apparatus of sign and element was held to be at best a crutch and at worst an idol. The argument was never only about ceremony. It was about where the holy was thought to touch the world: in a priest’s authorized hands, in the believer’s heart, or in the material thing itself.

The wider pattern: mystery and theurgy

The intuition behind the sacrament reaches past Christianity. The mystery religions of the ancient Mediterranean — Eleusis, the Bacchic rites, the cults of Isis and the Great Mother — turned on initiatory acts that were held to change the initiate’s standing toward the gods and toward death, and whose central rite was shown only to the consecrated and never divulged; the very word mystērion that the Latin church translated as sacramentum came from this world. Later, the Neoplatonists defended theurgy — “divine work” — as a sacramental discipline: Iamblichus argued against the purely contemplative path that the fallen soul cannot think its own way home, and that the gods have lodged tokens of themselves in stones, plants, and consecrated objects, so that a rite worked through matter becomes the channel by which the gods, not argument, raise the soul. The bridge between the two worlds was built by the writer who passed in the East under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, around the year 500, who carried the language of theurgy directly into Christian theology and applied the word theourgia to the church’s own rites — reading baptism and the Eucharist as the material symbols through which God accommodates an unseen illumination to embodied creatures. The shared conviction across all of these is that a physical act, rightly done, can carry something that physical acts do not by themselves explain — that grace reaches people through matter, through water, oil, bread, and gesture, and not around it.

This is also the line that separates the sacrament proper from the sacramental — the blessed object or lesser rite, the holy water or signed cross, instituted by the Church rather than by Christ and held to dispose the soul toward grace rather than to confer it. The distinction is fine and has never been quite secure in practice, where a vial of blessed water shades easily into a thing of power. But the sacrament claims more, and claims it differently.

The texts and the disputes among the scholars

The phrase that governs the whole tradition is Augustine’s, set down in his Tractates on the Gospel of John (early fifth century), where the eightieth tractate gives the formula of the visible word — the word joined to the element makes the sacrament — that every later theology of sign and grace begins from; his anti-Donatist writings supply the doctrine that a sacrament’s validity does not depend on the minister’s holiness. The medieval contraction to seven and the redefinition of a sacrament as the cause and not merely the sign of grace are the work of Peter Lombard’s Sentences; Thomas M. Finn’s study “The Sacramental World in the Sentences of Peter Lombard” (Theological Studies 69, 2008) traces how the Lombard’s fourth book became the textbook on which the entire scholastic edifice of sacramental theory was raised. The Catholic settlement is the Council of Trent’s seventh session (1547), whose canons on the sacraments in general fixed both the number seven and the ex opere operato principle against the reformers, and whose later sessions defined the Eucharistic change; the older Catholic synthesis is gathered in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the sacraments (1912), and the modern one in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992). The Reformation-era quarrel over the Supper is laid out comparatively in Philip Schaff’s chapter “The Eucharistic Theories Compared” in his History of the Christian Church, which sets Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin side by side on the meaning of the one contested verb. The deepest study of the crossing-point with Neoplatonism remains the work on Pseudo-Dionysius — Andrew Louth’s essay on pagan theurgy and Christian sacramentalism in Denys, and Gregory Shaw’s on Neoplatonic theurgy and the Areopagite — surveyed in the Stanford Encyclopedia’s entry on Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, which weighs how far the church’s mysteries are a baptism of the theurgist’s art and how far a repudiation of it.

What the Christian sacrament adds to the older intuition is the insistence that the sign was instituted — that it is not a human device for reaching upward but a fixed point at which grace was promised to come down.

→ Related: Liturgy · Ritual · John The Baptist · Neoplatonism · Augustine Of Hippo · Baptism · Communion · Catholic Mass · Confirmation In The Catholic Church · Anointing Of The Sick · Holy Orders · Marriage In The Catholic Church · Sacramental · Holy Water · Eastern Orthodox Christianity · The Reformation · Reformed Christianity · Michael Servetus · Christianity · Mystery Religions · Theurgy · Grace In Christianity