III. О таинствах как средствах освящения человека

§ 137. The concept of the sacraments. Divine establishment and number of sacraments The meaning of the word "sacrament" and its use. – History of the concept of “sacrament”. – Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed teachings on the sacraments. – The Anglican Church about the sacraments. – The Orthodox concept of the sacraments, their divine establishment. – Sacraments in the broad and narrow sense of the word. - Question about the number of sacraments. The Lord Jesus Christ, having founded the church as a visible instrument for the sanctification of man, gave it special, visible means through which the grace of God is communicated personally and directly to each believer, who assimilates the salvation of Christ. These are special sacred rites, seven in number, called sacraments. I. The word “sacrament” (μυστήριον, from μύω - I close my eyes, I close my mouth) denotes the idea of ​​the mysterious, the hidden, inaccessible to others. In St. In Scripture this word is found often, but is used not to designate sacred rites called sacraments, but in other senses, for example, to designate the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 13:11), the mysteries of faith (1 Tim 3:9; 1 Cor 13:2); the mysteries of the incarnation (1 Tim 3:16), the mysteries of redemption (Col.1:26; Eph.3:9), etc. But in the Christian Church from the first centuries of Christianity (from the time of Clement Al. and Origen), it began to come into use (and in the West from the time of Tertullian - sacramentum) and to designate sacraments in the proper sense. By the name of the sacraments, the Orthodox Church understands such sacred rites, established by I. Christ Himself for the salvation of believers and performed by the legal hierarchy, which contain in a visible sign and under a visible sign communicate the invisible grace of God, and moreover, in such a way that in each sacrament known, specific gifts of grace are brought down to the believers (Rev. Spanish 99; Cat. 10 ch.; Last eastern patr. 15). The essence of the sacraments, therefore, is that the grace of God in them is so connected with an external sign or visible side that the gifts of grace are given through the visible side or visible image, and not directly by God upon receiving or upon receiving this sign. Such inseparability of external and visible sacred rites with the grace-filled power of God is completely incomprehensible to us. The name of these sacred rites as sacraments, therefore, fully corresponds to their incomprehensible essence. The Roman Catholic Church also contains the same concept of the essence of the sacraments. But in the Protestant societies that separated from it, the general church teaching on the essence of the sacraments was subject to distortion and even denial. Reformers of the 16th century resolutely rebelled against the doctrine that in the sacraments grace must be communicated under a visible sign. This idea of ​​the sacraments was not reconciled with the basic teaching of Protestantism about justifying faith, according to the power and as a result of which saving grace is necessarily granted to a person by the direct action of God on the soul of a person. Following the principle of justifying faith, it made the perception of grace through the sacraments completely dependent on the inner mood of the persons receiving the sacrament, or even completely rejected the significance of the sacraments as conductors of grace. This view is carried out, although not in the same extreme form, in the main forms of Protestantism - Lutheranism and Reformedness. The first representatives of the Reformation - Luther and Melanchthon - and at the very beginning of their reform activity, rejecting the meaning of the sacraments as instruments of grace (ex opere operato), argued that the sacraments are only reminders (μνημόσυνα) of our state of grace, visible seals (σφραγίδες) of our presence in the Church of Christ, signs (signa) of our communion with Christ, intended to strengthen and nurture our faith, but not containing the grace of justification (Conf. aug. I, 13). Grace is given to a person not through the sacraments, but through faith and under the condition of faith, the direct action of God on the soul of a person. “It is not the sacrament, but faith in the sacrament that justifies” was one of Luther’s first provisions. This understanding of the sacraments led contemporaries of the Reformation to the conclusion that the sacraments were not needed at all, that one could be saved without them, if only there was faith. This forced the reformers to modify their original view of the sacraments. They began to defend their inextricable connection with grace. This last view of the sacraments was included in all the symbolic books of Lutheranism. Its essence is as follows. A sacrament is not a simple, meaningless sign; it is holy in itself and contains sanctifying power, regardless of the spiritual disposition of the person who receives it. It acquires this meaning due to its connection with the word of God, which, in the form of a divine commandment to perform one or another sacrament, is added to a visible sign in the sacrament and contains the promise of grace (the promise of forgiveness of sins). This word, Luther argued, is the most important part of the sacraments, for it is the main instrument of grace. Because it is always connected with the sacraments - and the sacraments constantly bring us grace, are its instruments, or otherwise - they contain within themselves and in themselves (objectively) sanctifying grace-filled power. But since the sacraments receive their grace-filled power from the word, they do not impart any special gifts of grace in comparison with the word, but convey the same forgiveness of sins that is obtained through the word (Bol. cat. IV. 52-53). It is obvious that the modified Lutheran view of the sacraments remained no less far from church teaching than the original one. For if the word, regardless of the sacraments, is the same conductor and the same gifts of grace as in the sacraments, then the sacraments are not necessary means of human sanctification. By themselves, regardless of the word, they have no meaning. If there is any advantage of them over the word, then it, according to Luther, is that in them forgiveness of sins is not offered to everyone in general, as in the word, but to each individual. Consequently, the acceptance of the sacraments by each person is important because it strengthens a person’s faith in his own salvation, in his receipt of the grace of justification. This is the whole advantage of the sacraments over the word. But for those who do not have sufficient personal faith, the sacrament, valid in itself, due to the word connected with it, remains a simple external sign that does not communicate grace. Thus, even with a modified view of the sacraments, the entire matter of salvation and justification of a person is still confined solely to his personal faith. Reformation also holds similar views on the sacraments, but only the Reformed teaching on the sacraments is more stable than the Lutheran and more consistent. Thus, Zwingli refuses to recognize the significance of the sacraments even as means of strengthening our faith. In such a view, in his opinion, too much is still absorbed into the sacraments themselves to the detriment of faith. If the sacraments have the meaning of replenishing weak faith, then it cannot be said that only faith saves a person, but faith and the sacraments. He claims that the sacraments are nothing more than conventional signs of the union of people among themselves. By receiving the sacraments, a person thereby gives external evidence of his firm Christian faith and at the same time convinces the entire Christian church community of the existence of this faith in him. Calvin was ready to assimilate the sacraments as agents of grace, but only for those who from eternity were predestined to salvation. But besides those predestined for salvation, there are also people deprived of salvation, and these latter, being excluded from participation in divine grace, cannot at the same time be deprived of participation in external sacraments. Hence, if grace were inextricably linked with the performance of the sacrament and acted on everyone approaching it, then it could easily happen that the unpredestined, so to speak, against the will of God, would seize divine grace. In view of this, Calvin had of necessity to separate the effects of grace from the sacraments. He argued that for those who do not belong to the predestined, “baptism, for example, is only an external washing without any internal beneficial influence.” In the symbolic books of the Reformation it is said that the sacraments are signs and seals (signa et sigilla) of the grace of God in Christ, established from above to signify and impress it on the conscience of God’s elect and for their mutual witnessing of their faith, piety and obedience to God (Heid. kat. qu. 65–69; Genev. cat. De sacram.; Helv. I, 19–23 et cet.). Having rejected the God-given teaching about the essence of the sacraments, Protestants rejected the God-established way of communicating grace, which assimilates the salvation of Christ to people - they rejected the grace itself, the communication of which the Lord wanted to connect with the performance of the sacraments. The Church of England does not appear to have accepted the Protestant view of the essence of the sacraments. The Anglican Catechism gives the following definition of a sacrament: a sacrament is “an external and visible sign of the internal and spiritual grace given to us, established by Christ Himself, as the means through which we receive it, and the deposit that assures us of it.” Understanding the sacraments in the sense of real (objective) means that bring down grace is completely Orthodox 62. II. The sacraments are divine, not human institutions. God's establishment is an essential feature included in the concept of the sacraments. God is the only source and distributor of grace-filled gifts; therefore, no one other than the Lord Himself could establish such means of blessing a person as the sacraments. More specifically, just as the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit is given from I. Christ, so He also established those sacred actions through which it is given - partly before His resurrection, partly after His resurrection for fourty days, when He appeared to His disciples and talked with them about the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3). It is impossible to recognize as correct the division of the sacraments into those established by I. Christ Himself and those established by the apostles. The apostles do not recognize themselves as founders, but only as servants of Christ and builders of the mysteries of God (1 Cor. 3:5; 4, 1). They did not introduce or establish anything for which they did not have a command from the Lord. Why did the Lord desire to combine the saving actions of grace in the sacraments with visible actions, when the Spirit of God breathes wherever He wants? Since God was pleased to accomplish the salvation of man through the incarnation of the Son of God, apparently, as if in tongues of fire, the Holy Spirit was sent down to the church, then divine love would have changed the method of its actions on man if it had offered purely spiritual means for man to assimilate the salvation of Christ, if it had not established the sacraments. And if we recognize the incarnation of the Son of God as a manifestation of the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 3:7), then we should imagine no different in the ways chosen by the same divine wisdom for people to assimilate the salvation of Christ - the sacraments in which, in an incomprehensible way for us, grace is united with a sensory sign, the earthly with the divine. And indeed, God’s choice of spiritual and sensory means to communicate to people the grace of redemption is in full accordance with the two-part nature of human nature and its needs. “If you were incorporeal,” says St. Chrysostom, “then Christ would impart gifts to you incorporeally; but since your soul is united with the body, the spiritual communicates to you through the sensory” (on Matt. Demon LXXII, 4). As a spiritual-physical being, man also has a need for healing and sanctification of not only the soul, but also the body. It is important for God to establish spiritual and sensual means of grace and for convincing a person of the certainty of granting him grace. If there were such a division between grace and a sensible sign in the sacraments - when, for example, grace was given to some worthy ones, while others received only a visible sign (as Protestants teach), - not a single person could say with certainty that he received grace. And such uncertainty and doubt about the reality of the gifts received would condemn a believer with a suspicious conscience to constant moral torment. Finally, through the visible means of communicating grace, other important goals are achieved in the church: believers are visibly sanctified as members of the Church of Christ and separated from unbelievers, which contributes to their closest union with each other into the single body of Christ, they are tangibly reminded of the truths of faith and the duties of members of the church, and the possibility of preparing for a worthy reception of the grace of redemption is opened. III. “We believe,” teach the Eastern patriarchs, “that in the church there are seven sacraments of the Gospel. We have neither less nor more than this number of sacraments in the church. The number of sacraments beyond seven was invented by foolish heretics. The sevenfold number of sacraments is established in Holy Scripture, as well as other dogmas of the Orthodox faith” (Posl. Eastern Patr. Ch. 15). These are precisely the sacraments contained and taught in the Orthodox Church: baptism, confirmation, repentance, communion, priesthood, marriage, consecration of oil. In each of the sacraments certain, specific gifts of grace are taught. If the sanctification of man by grace were accomplished through the communication of grace in each of the sacraments, not in a specific, particular form of sanctification, then there would have to be one sacrament, and not different. Nevertheless, the sacraments in their entirety, embracing the whole life of a person, correspond to our most important needs and requirements in spiritual life, as well as the needs of the entire church of Christ. That the sacraments of the church were established by I. Christ precisely “seven”, no more and no less - such a formula about the number of sacraments appeared in the church relatively late (by the 12th century in the west and by the 13th century in the east). However, the claim of Protestants that the sevenfold number of sacraments is not a revealed truth, but is a consequence of the historical development of ritual in the church (allegedly invented by Peter Lombard) is unfounded. Scripture contains more or less clear evidence of all seven sacraments. And if Scripture does not directly say that “there are seven sacraments,” then it is also not said anywhere that there are only two or three sacraments. The Church has always had and has always recognized seven sacred rites that impart special grace - therefore, she considered them sacraments, although due to the circumstances of the time she did not formulate for a long time in brief and precise expressions of her eternal teaching. All seven sacraments are also recognized in non-Orthodox societies that separated from the Catholic Church in ancient times. Thus, among the Nestorians and Eutychians there are seven sacraments. The same number of sacraments has invariably been and is recognized by the Western Church. Such agreement regarding the number of sacraments of Christians who differ regarding other objects of faith shows that the belief in the sevenfold number of sacraments is based on the apostolic tradition, and not a later innovation in the church. The belief of the entire Christian world in the sevenfold number of sacraments by the Reformation of the 16th century. declared to be a fallacy. In fact, I. Christ allegedly established in His church not seven sacraments, but only two - baptism and the Eucharist, with which he connected the promise of grace; the other sacraments are simple rites raised by the church to the level of sacraments - true, pious and useful, but without a divinely established visible sign and promise of grace. But such a doctrine about the number of sacraments was formed in Protestantism independently of St. Scripture, nor from Tradition, but follows from a one-sided teaching about the essence and purpose of the sacraments. The power of the sacraments, according to the meaning of Protestant teaching, lies in the fact that they serve as signs and evidence of the grace of God, which grants forgiveness of sins depending on faith in the word of God, and strengthen faith in the promise of grace proclaimed by the word. But if the purpose of the sacraments is to strengthen faith in the forgiveness of sins, then this consistently resulted in a reduction in the number of sacraments. Thus, marriage could no longer be among the sacraments, because it does not correspond to the purpose of the sacraments - it cannot serve as a guarantee of the forgiveness of sins. Confirmation was unnecessary, for in baptism the assurance of forgiveness of sins was given; it would be a repetition of baptism. Communion makes the blessing of oil unnecessary, when, in the event of a person’s imminent death, there is a need to assure one of God’s forgiving mercy, and healing from illnesses is given by the power of faith, without any sacrament. There should not be a priesthood as a sacrament, for the priesthood is the property of each and every believer. At first, Protestantism was inclined to keep repentance among the sacraments, but then memories of the Roman Catholic abuses of secret confession and the permissive power (especially indulgences) led Protestants to the fact that they began to reject the sacrament of repentance. The doctrine of the number of sacraments of the German reformers of the 16th century. adopted by the Anglican Church. “Two sacraments,” says the Members of the Faith, “are instituted by Christ our Lord in the gospel, namely, baptism and the Lord’s supper. Those five that are usually called sacraments, namely: anointing, repentance, priesthood, marriage and consecration of oil, should not be considered sacraments of the gospel, since they arose partly from a perverse imitation of the apostles, and partly they are states of life permitted in Scripture. They do not have the same sacramental nature as baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for they do not have any visible sign or rite established by God” (XXV ch.). § 138. Validity and effectiveness of the sacraments An explanation of the concept of the validity of the sacraments, the history of this issue and modern teaching, both Orthodox and non-Orthodox. - The effectiveness of the sacraments. – Conditions under which the sacrament acts for salvation and not for condemnation. - The difference between sacraments and rituals. By the reality of the sacraments we mean that a known sacrament is truly a sacrament, and not a simple rite, that is, it contains and communicates the grace of God to the one approaching the sacrament in a visible sign; under the effectiveness of the sacrament - this or that effect on a person of grace, communicated under a visible sign when receiving the sacrament, - for salvation or condemnation. I. According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, the sacrament is valid and the grace of God undoubtedly descends on a person when the sacrament is performed correctly. The correctness of performing the sacrament lies in the fact that when performing it, the requirements prescribed by the church regarding the performer and the manner of celebration are strictly observed. The celebrant of the sacrament can only be a properly elected and lawfully ordained bishop and presbyter. Legal ordination is that which is performed by a bishop who, by direct and continuous succession, has received the power to appoint celebrants of the mysteries of God from the apostles themselves. Succession from the apostles and the continuity of this succession serves as a sign of true hierarchy and testifies to the right of a person to perform the sacraments (Right. Confession 100; Last Eastern Patr. Members 10 and 17; Catich. 10 Members). An exception to this rule is made in some special cases for the sake of the sacrament of baptism. But, making the validity of the sacrament dependent on the legitimacy of the performer of the sacrament, the Orthodox Church rejects the opinion that among the legitimate performers, only those who are worthy ministers and builders of the sacraments perform valid sacraments, and sacraments performed by clergy, for example, of an unworthy life, or without due reverence, without faith, do not have the power of sacraments. This opinion was expressed in ancient times (by the Donatists, Novatians, Montanists), and is repeated at the present time. In the Roman Catholic Church, many make the validity of a sacrament performed by a legitimate clergyman dependent on whether he had the proper intention to perform it. By the intention of the altar server we mean not only his external intention (intentio externa), i.e., the intention to perform the sacrament, to accurately fulfill all the ritual establishments of the sacrament required by the church, but also the internal intention (intentio interna), - in the sense of a deep internal decisive intention to perform the sacrament, that is, to bring down the Holy One in the sacrament. Spirit, or to perform precisely the grace-filled actions that, according to divine establishment, are intended for each sacrament (see the bull of N. Leo XIII “Apostol Curae”, 1896, on English ordinations). The need for external intention for the validity of the sacrament, that is, the intention on the part of a minister of the church to perform a sacred act, is also recognized by the Orthodox Church (Rev. Confess. 100). It is clear why intention in this sense is necessary for the validity of the sacrament. There may be cases of reproduction, especially by simple clergymen, in all the details of some sacrament “for example”, in order, in the form of a lesson, to show their novice brother how it is performed. In such cases, even though all the visible aspects of the rites of the sacrament have been completed, of course, there is no sacrament, for there is no intention to perform a sacred rite, a sacrament. But the validity of the sacrament cannot be made dependent on the internal intention in the Catholic sense, or in general on the personal dignity or unworthiness of the clergyman. Of course, a minister of the sacraments must walk worthy of his high calling and be an example of life for believers (1 Tim 4:12). Cursed is everyone who does God's work carelessly (Jer. 48:9). He sins gravely when he performs the sacraments without reverence, especially without faith. However, the very sacraments performed by the altar server before the time of open discovery of his unworthiness to be a clergyman, before he was deprived of the power to officiate, are not devoid of the power and reality inherent in the sacraments; after that, he loses his rights to priestly service, and therefore even if he performed any sacred rites, they cannot have the force of sacraments. The unfoundedness of the opinion that makes the validity of the sacrament dependent on the personal moral qualities of the performer is revealed by the following. The gracious power of the sacraments actually depends on the merits and will of Christ the Savior. He Himself, invisibly acting by the Holy Spirit, communicates grace in the sacraments, He Himself invisibly performs them, and bishops and presbyters, performing sacred acts, perform only natural actions in the sacraments; they are only His servants and visible instruments. The one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit (John 1:33), His Forerunner spoke about Jesus Christ, although the Savior apparently did not baptize Himself, but through His disciples (John 4:2). Moreover, - notes the apostle, - neither plant nor drink, but God gives the increase (1 Cor. 3:7). And from this it follows that the merits or demerits of the clergy cannot have any influence on the validity of the sacrament. “Believe,” teaches St. I. Chrysostom, - that even now the same supper is being celebrated at which He Himself (i.e. I. Christ) reclined. One is no different from the other; it cannot be said that this is done by man, and that was done by Christ; on the contrary, He Himself did and does both. When you see a priest giving you gifts, imagine that it is not the priest who is doing this, but Christ extending his hand to you. Just as at baptism it is not the priest who baptizes you, but God holds your head with an invisible force, and neither an angel, nor an archangel, nor anyone else dares to approach and touch you, so it is in communion” (Ha Matt. Demons L, 3). “Do not say: I must be baptized by a bishop, and a metropolitan at that,” St. admonished his contemporaries. Gregory B., - do not delve into the credibility of the preacher or baptist: they have another Judge who tests the invisible. And for the purification of you, everyone is worthy of faith, if only he is from among those who have received the power for this, who have not been openly condemned and not alienated from the church... Consider this: two rings - gold and iron, and the same royal face is carved on both, and both have seals made on wax. How is one different from the other? - Nothing. Recognize the substance on the wax, if you are wiser than everyone else. Tell me, which is the impression of an iron ring and which of a gold ring? And why is it the same? For although the substance is different, there is no difference in the mark. So let everyone be a baptist for you. For even if one were superior to another in life, the power of baptism is equal, and anyone who is instructed in the same faith can equally lead you to perfection” (Sk. XL, on baptism). Making the validity of the sacrament dependent on the internal dispositions of its performer, given the impossibility of knowing the secrets of his inner life, would mean that none of those approaching the sacrament could have confidence that in a certain case he had actually received the acceptance of saving grace, and believers would inevitably be doomed to constant painful doubts and hesitations in the matter of arranging their salvation. In those cases where the pastors turned out to be unworthy altar servers or performed the sacraments without intention in the Catholic sense, how would the believers be to blame if they were deprived of saving grace through the fault of their unworthy shepherds? As for the method of performing the sacraments, the condition for their validity is the correctness of the sacraments, that is, according to the established order. In the rites of the sacraments, however, not everything is equally important and significant. The validity of the sacrament is determined only by the exact and correct observance of what is essential and important in the rites of the sacraments - that which constitutes the unchanging, God-given affiliation of each sacrament, with which the Lord was pleased to combine the communication of His sanctifying grace to people. The first such condition is the use of a certain substance for the sacrament, specified by the will of the Establisher of the Sacraments (for baptism - water, with three times immersion of the baptized person, for the Eucharist - bread and wine, for anointing - chrism, for the consecration of unction - oil) or a certain visible (material) sign (in the sacrament of the priesthood - the bishop's laying on of hands, in the sacrament of repentance - the sign of the cross absolved from sins; in the sacrament of marriage - a threefold blessing of those entering into marriage). The second condition for the correct performance of the sacraments, on the observance of which the validity of the sacraments depends, is “the calling of St. Spirit and a certain form of words through which the priest sanctifies the sacrament by the power of the Holy Spirit, expressing the intention to sanctify it” (Right. Confession, 100). The invocation of the Holy Spirit and the utterance of established words (the final formula of the sacrament) give external actions during the performance of the sacraments a mysteriously gracious meaning. These two essential conditions of the sacraments, concerning the method of performing the sacraments, are sometimes called: the first - the matter of the sacrament, the second - the form of the sacrament. Thus, the conditions for the validity of the sacraments are: 1) the performance of the sacrament by a person who has the legal right and authority to do so; 2) the use of an established substance or visible sign (the correctness of the sacrament on the part of matter) and 3) the exact and correct use of the final words of the sacrament (the correctness of the form of the sacrament - the invocation of the Holy Spirit and the pronouncing of the final formula of the sacrament). If at least one of them is violated, the performed sacred rite will not be a sacrament, but will only be a simple ritual. II. A real sacrament is at the same time an effective sacrament. Grace in the sacrament is so connected with an external sign that it is contained in the sign itself, and is not given directly by God upon acceptance or upon acceptance of this sign. Therefore, the grace of the sacrament is communicated to the recipient of the sacrament, regardless of his religious and moral state. The reality and effectiveness of the sacraments in this sense (but not salvific value, which is another matter) thus coincide. “We recognize them (the sacraments),” the High Hierarchs of the East teach, “as instruments that necessarily act with grace on those who approach them” (Last Eastern Patr. Part. 15). The Roman Catholic Church also teaches the same, recognizing that the sacraments impart grace ex opere operato, or by virtue of the work done (Conc. trid. Ses. VII, pp. 7-8). The teaching of Protestants, who make the communication of grace in the sacraments dependent on the faith of those who receive them, so that if a person approaches a sacrament with faith, then it communicates grace, but if not used or if accepted without faith, it is simply an external sign that does not communicate grace, follows from an incorrect understanding of the essence of the sacraments. Ap. Paul says about those who partake unworthily: if anyone eats this bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, he will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord... for he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment for himself, not considering the body of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). Those who partake unworthily, according to the apostle, partake of the true body of Christ, and what is more, it acts on them, but only to judgment or condemnation, and not to salvation, so that their unworthiness does not prevent the sacrament from being valid and effective. On this basis, the Church has since ancient times taught baptism, confirmation and communion to infants, in the belief that these sacraments have a saving effect on infants, although they do not yet have their own faith. But although grace is communicated in the sacraments to all who approach them, it does not act on a person in an involuntary way, coercing and restricting his freedom. Therefore, one or another effect of grace taught in the sacraments, saving or condemning, depends on the internal dispositions of those receiving the sacraments. The poisonous one who eats and drinks is unworthy of judging himself by eating and drinking. The Roman Catholic teaching about opus operatum is alien to Orthodoxy, to the extent, of course, that this teaching contains the idea of ​​the salvific action of the sacraments on those who unworthily receive them (about the passive action for salvation on those who “put no obstacles” to the actions of grace) 63 . Necessary conditions for the effect of the sacrament to be salvific are faith in the sacrament on the part of those receiving the sacrament and a sincere desire to receive the sacrament. The difference between sacraments and rituals. – The sacraments must be distinguished from those sacred rites used in the church, which are called rites. The difference between sacraments and rites can be defined by the following features. 1) The sacraments were all established by the Founder of the Church, I. Christ; their establishment by I. Christ is a necessary sign of the sacraments. But this is not a necessary requirement, connected with the very essence of the ritual, that it must certainly be established by I. Christ. Many of the rituals were not only not established by I. Christ or even the apostles, but came into use in post-apostolic times. 2) There are seven sacraments, no more and no less; the church can neither increase nor decrease their number: it remains unchanged for the entire existence of the Church of Christ on earth. There are many rituals, and their number has changed and may change in the future. 3) In the sacraments, the grace of God is necessarily combined with a visible action and is necessarily taught in a visible sign to the one approaching the sacrament, and rituals are only signs of the grace of God; in them there is no such connection between the visible and invisible sides, which is why the necessary communication of the gifts of God’s mercy or the blessing of God is not combined with rituals. 4) Finally, in each of the sacraments, certain, specific gifts of God’s grace are brought down on believers, which assimilates to people the fruits of Christ’s redemptive merits. In rituals, even if grace is given by God, this grace does not have the character of a private, specific type of sanctification. Rituals are performed not with the purpose of bringing down grace on believers, which assimilates the redemptive merits of Christ to people, but with the purpose of calling upon a person, and often on his outer life and activity, in general, the mercy of God, the blessing of God. In the Members of the Faith the relation of grace to the visible sign in the sacraments is not sufficiently clearly and precisely defined. It says: “the sacraments established by Christ are not only distinctive signs (notae) of the Christian faith, but also undoubted evidence and effective signs of grace (efficatia signa gratiae) and God’s favor towards us, through which God invisibly acts in us and not only arouses, but also strengthens our faith in Himself.” This definition of sacrament applies only to baptism and the Eucharist (XXV ch.). The presence of such a teaching in the Roman Catholic Church is rejected by some of the Roman theologians, for example, Bellarmine, Perrone. But in medieval theology, the doctrine of the salvific nature of the sacraments ex opere operate was generally accepted, and Protestants sharply reproached the Roman Church for it. This teaching was not clearly rejected by the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, can. 6). Sn. Right Dogma. God. IV vol. § 141. You might be interested in: