II. On the Matter and Form of the Sacraments

What and how many kinds is the matter of the sacraments? - The matter of a sacrament is some thing, or quasi-thing, or some action, determined from the institution of Christ for confecting the sacrament. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 5. - This matter is distinguished into remote and proximate. Remote matter is the thing itself to be used in the sacrament, e.g., water in baptism, chrism in confirmation, etc. Proximate matter is the application and use of the thing in the sacramental action, e.g., washing in baptism, anointing in confirmation, bread and wine insofar as they are subjected to the words of consecration in the Eucharist. Therefore proximate matter is matter which, together with the form, constitutes the sensible efficacious sign of grace. A thing or action of this kind has the character of matter in a sacrament, because it is more indifferent and has less perfect signification, and therefore must be determined to signify by something else.

What is the form of the sacraments? - The form of the sacraments is certain words determined from the institution of Christ for perfecting the sacrament by perfecting the signification of the thing or matter. For what things demonstrate more obscurely, words signify more clearly. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 6.

Can a sacrament be confected without matter or without form? - Matter and form are altogether necessary for the validity of a sacrament; therefore, if either is lacking, the sacraments cannot be confected. The reason is that a sacrament is and has its power from the institution of Christ. Therefore it cannot be confected except in that mode in which Christ instituted it. This is furthermore established from Florence, Decree for the Armenians, from tradition, and from the practice of the Church. C. Non ut 5 de Bapt.

Must matter and form be certain? - In confecting a sacrament outside the case of necessity, certain matter and form must be used, insofar as they can be had. The reason is that probability of invalidity does not remove the danger, which is both against the reverence owed to the sacrament, and often against charity toward the neighbor, and often also against justice. This is furthermore established from proposition 1 condemned by Innocent XI.

Outside the case of necessity. For since the sacraments exist for men, they can and must be conferred, although certainty concerning the validity of the sacrament is not had, whenever there is present not only extreme necessity, but also grave necessity or utility, especially if it is prudently feared that, the present occasion being passed over, they will no longer be conferred afterwards. The reason is that since irreverence or contempt is situated in some human action which of itself is insulting, all irreverence and contempt of the sacrament indeed ceases if a cause is present which by the common opinion of men removes every appearance of contempt. Insofar as they can be had: for where it is a question, for example, of a disposition necessary for the sacrament of penance, scarcely any judgment can be had about it other than prudent and probable.

Often it is against charity and against justice to use uncertain form or matter; for neither would be the case if the one receiving consented. But although then harm to the neighbor and any malice against charity and justice would be absent, nevertheless irreverence toward the sacrament and sacrilege both of the minister and of the recipient would not be absent; for holy things are to be treated holily. But the harm which can be brought upon the neighbor by uncertain matter or form can be most grave, as in the baptism of an infant; simply grave, as in extreme unction of the dying; light, as in absolution of venial sins; and also none, as in the ordination of a woman.

What has been said about doubtful matter and form is likewise to be said about a subject perhaps incapable. But the matter is explored concerning baptism and penance, and the truer opinion is concerning confirmation and extreme unction. Roman Ritual on the Sacrament of baptism and extreme unction. - L. 28, 162, 432 IV, 449; Lugo, de Poenit. d. 14, n. 110, 111; La Croix 105.

You will resolve: When danger of death is urgent, baptism and penance can and must be conferred even with the lowest degree of probability. Therefore one dying is to be baptized even with rose-water, or on the foot, Roman Ritual on Baptism of children, or on the fingers or hair. But confirmation and extreme unction can and must be conferred if it is truly probable that neither matter nor form is lacking, and scandal is absent; for scandal also must be removed, while the eternal salvation of another is preserved. - From the Roman Ritual, on the Sacrament of extreme unction, a sick person is to be anointed concerning whom it is doubted whether he still lives. From St. Alphonsus 719, likewise a child concerning whose use of reason there is doubt is to be anointed under condition. In that danger it is also lawful to confer extreme unction with oil of catechumens. And if one about to die cannot confess and communicate, it is lawful to confer on him even extreme unction with the lowest degree of probability, e.g., if he has been destitute of senses in the act of sin, in drunkenness, in a fight; since then the sacrament becomes one of necessity. Likewise in the same danger it is lawful to confer confirmation with blessed oil without balsam.

But not by imposition of hands alone, because of the novelty of the thing and the wonder and scandal of bystanders. - L. 82, 103, 107, 111, 162, 702, d. 2, 408, 732, 751.

It is never lawful to confer order, especially the priesthood, with doubt about its value, because no necessity and utility of the recipient is had in it, and on the contrary there is had a most grave danger to the Christian republic. - Cf. 345, 348.

Does a change of matter and form invalidate the sacrament? - There can be a twofold change in the matter and form of the sacraments: substantial and accidental. A substantial change will be in the matter if this is physically corrupted, so that it seems to have lost its former nature; or if it can no longer serve its natural use; or if according to the common estimation of men it cannot be called the same as that which was determined by Christ: e.g., if wine has become vinegar, if ink is made from water, if wine and water are mixed in equal quantity. For it is judged neither wine nor water, but a mixture from water and wine, which can serve neither baptism nor the Eucharist. - But a change will be accidental if the matter, neither physically nor morally speaking, loses its former nature, nor ceases to serve its natural use: e.g., if in a small quantity you mix water with wine or wine with water, the wine does not invalidate the Eucharist, nor the water baptism. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 4; Lugo, de Euchar. d. 4, n. 4; La Croix 261; L. 103, 207, q. 2.

A substantial change will be in the form if the sense of the words intended by Christ is so changed that it no longer signifies either the sacramental action which is perfected by the minister or the sacramental effect, e.g., if someone in baptism says: I absolve you; I wish to baptize you.

The change will be accidental if the form still signifies the same thing, e.g.: This is my body, with a grammatical error. Generally, errors of grammar change the form only accidentally; for the signification is regularly judged the same.

Every substantial change in the matter and form of a sacrament invalidates it, because it is no longer the rite instituted by Christ, but another. But if it is voluntary, it constitutes grave sin; for it brings grave injury upon the author of the rite. But no accidental change in the matter and form invalidates the sacrament, because the same rite still remains; yet it induces grave or light sin according as it is notable or of little moment. - La Croix 40, 46; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 8; q. 74, a. 3, 4, 5; q. 77, a. 8; Suppl. q. 29, a. 9 ad 3; 4 d. 2, a. 2, q. 2, 3, 4.

In how many ways can the form be changed? - The form can be changed: By addition; and the form is void if it changes the sense, or contains error against the form itself, e.g., I absolve you from your involuntary sins; I baptize you in the name of the Father greater, and of the Son lesser, and of the Holy Spirit created. If the sense is not changed, nor is error had against the form itself, the form is valid, e.g., I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit with this cold water, although it is hot. La Croix 64. If equivocation is had, the matter depends on the intention of the one pronouncing, e.g., I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. If the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary is added from mere devotion, the form is valid; but if it is added so that baptism is conferred also in that name, it is not valid. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 8.

By detraction; and the form again is void if words are taken away which signify the sacramental action, e.g., these words, I baptize you, or the subject, e.g., by saying I baptize; but otherwise if the pronoun of the minister is omitted, for it is tacitly present, e.g., I baptize you in the name, etc.

By corruption of words, which also voids the form, unless perhaps it happens either by a natural defect, e.g., in the tongue-tied, or by some natural haste, or by lack of skill, if nevertheless it does not altogether remove the sense; since in these cases corrupted words by common use are received and understood as complete, e.g., I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Daughter and of the Holy Spirit, with wrong endings, which form is valid because it does not remove the sense and is received as correct, since it is understood as corrupted, not diverse; or, I baptize you in the name of the Mother and of the Daughter and of the Holy Spirit, which form is not valid, because it altogether removes the sense and is received as altogether another and diverse one. Thus also it is not valid if it is said, I am baptized you, etc. Ordination is valid if the Bishop, through error, when several are touching the instruments at the same time in priestly ordination, pronounces the form in the singular: Receive, etc. Holy Office, January 16, 1901; Monitor Ecclesiasticus v. 12, p. 482 f. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 7; L. 110; de Cons. Dist. 86.

By transmutation of words; if they are altogether synonymous, the form is valid; if they are not synonymous, the form is not valid; if they are doubtful, the form will also be doubtful. Thus in baptism, I wash or I lave for I baptize, is valid; for it is a synonymous word. But I anoint is not valid, because it is not synonymous. Likewise I regenerate is not valid, or is doubtful; for it is not plainly synonymous, since it signifies the sacramental effect, but does not also signify the sacramental action. In penance, I cleanse you, for I absolve, more truly is not valid, for it is not synonymous. Likewise, Christ baptizes you, etc., absolves you, etc., more truly seems not to be valid, because the action of the minister is not expressed.

By translation of words from one language into another, which does not render the form void; for the signification is altogether the same, even if various idioms are used in one and the same form, e.g., io ti battezzo, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. L. 109; La Croix 30.

By transposition of words, which of itself makes only an accidental change; for the same signification altogether remains, e.g., if you say: You I baptize in the name, etc. L. 110. Yet transposition of words can altogether pervert the sense, or render it ambiguous, and then the form will be invalid or doubtful, as in the consecration of bread: mine is this body; this body is mine; this mine is body; this body, is mine. Yet the form would be valid if it were said: this, body is mine. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 8 ad 3; Lugo d. 2, n. 112.

By interruption of words; if this is notable, it harms the form, St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 8 ad 3; if small, it does not harm. St. Thomas ibid. Which interruption is long, which brief, must be judged by prudent estimation. Lugo d. 2, n. 112; Sporer n. 91. Commonly a brief interruption is judged to be one Our Father or Hail Mary.

But concerning a brief interruption of the syllables of the same word, some judge that it harms the form, others that it does not harm, others that it harms if the interruption was made by another word interjected; but by no means if it was made by some action interjected, e.g., breathing, coughing, yawning. L. n. 11; La Croix 33.

By substitution of other signs in place of words, e.g., nods, writing, etc., which, excepting matrimony, which consists in a contract, voids the form; for the form is in words. Florence, Decree for the Armenians; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 6; La Croix 37.

You will resolve: The form is valid, although it is not lawful, if a small interruption is made, e.g., I baptize you, and there is interposed: this water is too cold; or: sacristan, turn the page; in the name of the Father, etc. L. 11.

What sort of union must there be between matter and form? - In order that a sacrament be valid, there must be between matter and form, e.g., between the pouring of water and the pronunciation of the words, such conjunction that, according to the moral estimation of men, with the nature of each sacrament considered, one is understood to be referred to the other.

The reason is that from matter and form one sign must coalesce. But in a moral composite, such as a sacrament is, moral unity suffices, excepting the Eucharist, which altogether requires them to exist physically together, since the pronoun this, here, cannot be verified unless the matter is present. Nor indeed does it matter which is placed first, excepting penance.

L. 8. - It suffices in baptism, confirmation, extreme unction, and order, if, when one of them has been placed, whether matter or form precedes, the other is placed immediately or soon afterwards, e.g., if someone in the conferral of the order of priesthood touches the chalice and paten after the Bishop has pronounced the words: Receive power, etc. Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 33, n. 2. Soon afterwards: for a brief delay interposed does not harm, namely a delay which is shorter than one Our Father. L. 8. Cf. Lugo, de Sacr. d. 2, n. 99. - In matrimony, the consent of one can follow the consent of the other as long as this is judged morally to remain, as in other contracts. Busembaum 10. In penance, absolution can be deferred for a rather long time, just as in judgment a sentence after the examination of the cause. Busembaum ibid. "In penance," says St. Alphonsus 9, "that union suffices which the judicial act requires, since some distance of time is accustomed to intervene between accusation and sentence, although in this sacrament such distance ought not to be as great as occurs in forensic judgment. But Croix l. 6, n. 8, with Tamburini, says that a penitent is validly absolved after an hour from Confession." The reason is that this judgment is far simpler than forensic judgment is accustomed to be, and because the sentence has the character of form with respect to the acts of the penitent, which are as if matter. Therefore with that same long distance which is accustomed to be in forensic judgments between their various acts, there would no longer be a moral union of them in this judgment. Cf. 748. - Roman Ritual on the Form of baptism; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 6 ad 2; Suarez d. 2, s. 2.

Note: If a sacrament consists of several parts, as the Eucharist, extreme unction, order, with a notable delay interposed between them, so that the action of the minister can no longer seem one, one must altogether cease in the Eucharist, begin again from the beginning in extreme unction, and in order always cautiously supply what was incautiously omitted. L. 724; St. Thomas Suppl. q. 29, a. 2 ad 3. Cf. 336.

Must matter and form be united and applied by one and the same minister, and with regard to the same subject? - R. In the affirmative. The reason is that if one placed the matter and another the form, or the same minister applied matter and form to one subject and another subject, the words of the form would be false: I baptize you, etc.; for while another poured the water, he himself would not baptize; or while he himself poured the water upon one, he would nevertheless assert that he baptizes another. - L. 114; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 67, a. 6.

What if several ministers confect a sacrament, or the sacrament is conferred on several subjects? - R. To the first: If two ministers, for example, place the whole matter and form, whether of the whole sacrament, as if they baptize or consecrate together, or of a part of the sacrament, if the sacrament consists of several parts, as are the Eucharist, extreme unction, order, the sacrament is valid, because nothing is lacking in the being of the sacrament. But in the former case he confects the sacrament who first completes the sign; and if each completes the sign at the same moment of time, each, as far as in himself lies, confects the sacrament. L. 120; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 67, a. 6; q. 82, a. 2. But this is grave, excepting the ordination of priests. In the latter case also it is grave, excepting grave necessity.

In the East, on one altar several priests sometimes consecrate the same bread and the same wine. Then as many Masses are said as there are priests, and the fruit of the Mass is multiplied as many times. Benedict XIV, de Sacrif. Miss. l. 3, c. 16, n. 10.

R. To the second: A sacrament which one and the same minister confers upon several at the same time is valid beyond doubt, because then the form is virtually multiple. This has place, for example, in baptism and in penance, namely when someone under one form baptizes several, absolves several. It is indeed lawful in the case of extreme necessity, e.g., in fire, shipwreck, etc., Roman Ritual on Baptism of children; but in other cases, whether it is grave or light is disputed; for a notable change does not certainly appear. "Yet all say that he would not be excused at least from venial sin" without necessity. L. 29.

How are the words of the form to be pronounced? - Since sacraments are signs, and by signifying grace they effect and sanctify, the words of the form are of themselves consecratory both of the matter and of the subject. Consequently they are to be pronounced in a consecratory manner, in the present time, whether indicative, as in baptism; or imperative, as in ordination; or deprecative, as in extreme unction. If the words are uttered in another mode, namely merely historically, or promissorily, or interrogatively, or by way of sermon for instructing or exciting, the form is void. And thus this form is not valid: you are absolved from your sins; I will absolve you from your sins; do I absolve you from your sins? Würzburg Theologians 109 ff.; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78, a. 1.

Are the sacraments to be repeated in doubt about the valid application of matter and form? - A threefold rule must be established as regards practice: 1. Sacraments can be repeated whenever there is a prudent doubt about their value. The reason is that if perhaps the sacrament were not valid, those who approach to receive it would be deprived of its fruit. But that prudent fear of so great an inconvenience is a sufficient reason why a sacrament be repeated is clear from the very well-known axiom: Sacraments exist for men. Roman Ritual on Baptism of children, c. 3, n. 3; Rubrics of the Missal, tit. 5, n. 2; L. 28, 136.

2. Sacraments generally cannot be repeated without grave sin when a prudent doubt about their value is not present. The reason is that they would be repeated without cause, and therefore grave injury would be inflicted on them. Catechism of the Council of Trent on Baptism n. 57. - 3. Sacraments must be repeated whenever, when a prudent doubt about their value has arisen, charity, justice, and religion demand it, that is, whenever from justice, charity, and religion they ought to have been confected or administered. The reason is that the nullity of the sacrament, if perhaps it were present, would turn to the harm of the neighbor and sometimes to contempt or irreverence of Religion. But then they are to be repeated only conditionally, so that the reverence of the sacrament may be provided for. - L. 27 f.

You will resolve: 1. Sacraments that are more necessary and that are conferred only once are more easily to be repeated, namely baptism and order, even if much greater probability stands for the value of the sacrament against reasons of the lowest degree of probability in the opposite direction. - 2. Absolution is to be repeated with a penitent guilty of mortal sin if there is prudent doubt about the due pronouncing of the form. But if the penitent has not brought necessary matter of Confession, it will not be necessary to repeat the form, since Communion can be permitted to him even without absolution. - 3. A minister who doubts lightly and does not know why he fears, or only does not reflectively remember that he has pronounced the words of the form, of himself sins mortally if he repeats the form, or even repeats one word three or four times. The reason is that he changes the form and introduces a new rite concerning the gravest action of all. Besides, he exhibits Christ, whom he represents, as speaking ridiculously. Yet in practice the scrupulous who repeat the form are usually excused from mortal sin, indeed often even from venial sin, because, too agitated by scruples and perplexity, or without advertence, they act so foolishly. - 4.

If in Mass after consecration a doubt arises for you concerning the due pronouncing of the form, or concerning total omission, you neither ought nor can repeat anything, since otherwise you are not accustomed to omit these things; for one must judge from things commonly occurring, unless however you doubt very probably, as the Rubric says. - L. 224, 107 q. IV.

What as regards celebration of Mass in particular? - It is to be noted from St. Thomas "that although a priest does not recollect that he said some of those things which he ought to have said, nevertheless he ought not to be disturbed in mind because of this; for one who says many things does not recollect all things which he said, unless perhaps he apprehends something in saying under the aspect of already said; for thus something is made memorable. Hence if someone attentively thinks about that which he says, but nevertheless does not think that he says it, he afterwards does not much recollect that he said it; for thus something is made subject to memory, insofar as it is received under the aspect of past.... Yet if it is probably established for the priest that he has omitted some things, if indeed they are not of the necessity of the sacrament, I do not think that because of this he ought to resume by changing the order of the sacrifice, but he ought to proceed further. But if he is made certain that he has omitted something of those things which are of the necessity of the sacrament, namely the form of consecration, since the form of consecration is of the necessity of the sacrament just as the matter also is, the same seems to be done as was said in the defect of matter, namely that it be resumed from the form of consecration and the rest be repeated in order, lest the order of the sacrifice be changed." 3 p., q. 83, a. 6 ad 5. This doctrine of St. Thomas agrees with the rubric of the Roman Missal, de Defectibus in celebr. etc., tit. 5, de Defectibus formae, n. 2: "If the celebrant does not remember that he said those things which are commonly said in the consecration, he ought not on account of this be disturbed. Yet if it is certainly established for him that he omitted something of those things which are of the necessity of the sacrament, i.e., the form of consecration or a part, let him resume the form itself and pursue the rest in order. But if he very probably doubts that he omitted something, let him repeat the form at least under tacit condition. But if they are not of the necessity of the sacrament, let him not resume, but let him proceed further." Note the difference which is had according to the rubric cited here for the twofold case in which it is certainly established for the priest that he has omitted something of those things which are of the necessity of the sacrament, or he only very probably doubts that he has omitted something of this kind. For in the first case it is said that "let him resume the form itself and pursue the rest in order." But in the other case it is said: "let him repeat the form at least under tacit condition."

Now as regards the first case, in which the priest must resume the form itself and pursue the rest in order, a question can be raised: 1. Whether he must resume and pursue the rest in order in the case in which it is certainly established for him that he omitted the form of one consecration only, or also in the case in which this is certainly established for him concerning both forms of consecration. 2. From where he begins to resume. 3. What that means: let him pursue the rest in order; whether all things after the form has been resumed are to be repeated in order, or whether he must pursue in order all things which remain from that point of the Mass at which the priest has detected his error.

As regards the first question, if an essential defect occurs in the form of only one consecration, certainly the consecration is to be repeated, even if that defect occurs from the malice of the minister, and after the consumption of the species not duly consecrated, the matter being placed which was not consecrated, and, if it was from malice, by repenting of the former fault. The reason is: 1. that the sacrifice may be perfected; 2. because the Rubric is to be understood at least concerning the case of an essential defect of one consecration; 3. because there is the same reason of unsuitable matter as of matter without form. Moreover according to the Rubric tit. 3, n. 5 and 6, it is said: "If the celebrant should notice after consecration that the host is corrupted, or is not wheaten, even after the consumption of that host, let him place another, make the oblation, and begin from the consecration, namely from those words, Who the day before, etc. But if this happens after the consumption of the blood, new bread and wine with water must again be placed, and the oblation first having been made, the priest is to consecrate, beginning from those words, Who the day before, etc., and at once consume both, and pursue the Mass, lest the sacrament remain imperfect." Likewise tit. 4, n. 4 and 5, it is said: "If the celebrant after the words of consecration notices that wine had not been placed, but water, the water having been deposited in some vessel, let him again put wine with water in the chalice and consecrate, resuming from the aforesaid words, In like manner, etc. If he notices this after the consumption of the Body or of water of this kind, let him place another host again to be consecrated, and wine with water in the chalice, offer both, and consecrate and consume, etc." Or, the Rubric adds ibid., "if Mass is celebrated in a public place where several are present, to avoid scandal he will be able to place wine with water, and, the oblation having been made as above, consecrate and at once consume, and pursue the rest." Therefore the same is to be done if the essential defect should occur not by reason of matter, but by reason of form.

If an essential defect occurs in the form of both consecrations, and is noticed before the consumption of either species, it seems that each matter is again to be consecrated. The reason is that it is said absolutely in the Rubric, and altogether generally, that the form is to be resumed "if it is certainly established for him that he omitted something of those things which are of the necessity of the sacrament, i.e., the form of consecration, or a part"; nor is any distinction made between a defect of only one consecration and of both. Suarez, de Sacram. d. 85, s. 1, par. Secundo etiam constat, etc., thinks the same. "If the celebrant," says the distinguished Doctor, before consumption "from defect of intention or form consecrated neither species, he will be held secretly to repeat and to consecrate before he consumes, and as soon as he can, not by force of a precept of perfecting a sacrifice substantially begun, because this in reality does not yet oblige; but by force of the precept of not pretending something false in this ministry, and consequently of not persevering in the fiction begun; nor of consuming drink and food by way of a sacrament which is not a true sacrament, nor of giving others occasion of adoring mere bread and wine." But if the same essential defect of both forms is noticed after consumption, it does not seem that the consecration is to be repeated. And indeed the reason which the Rubric adduces for supplying a defect of either matter after consumption is "lest the sacrament remain imperfect," tit. 3, n. 6, "because the precept concerning the perfection of the sacrament is of greater weight than that it be consumed by fasting persons," ibid. n. 5. Now when the essential defect of both consecrations has occurred, no sacrament was really made, neither perfect nor imperfect, but the whole was feigned; and therefore then the precept concerning integrating or perfecting the sacrament does not oblige. From another side, the precept of not consuming the sacrament when the fast has been broken obliges. Therefore in that case this precept seems to be observed before the other. And the distinguished Doctor l. c. affirms the same.

As regards the second proposed question, there are various opinions. But the more common opinion is that only those words are to be repeated which constitute the whole form, which according to the Rubric, tit. 5, n. 1, are: This is, etc. This is the chalice, etc. The reason is that the Rubric says: let him resume the form itself. Yet the same Rubric 10, n. 3, seems to indicate that it is to be resumed from the words Who the day before, etc.; In like manner, etc. - Suarez l. c., par. II; but you will ask finally; Gavantus and Merati on the cited rubric.

As regards the third proposed question, St. Thomas l. c. seems at least to suggest that the priest must pursue the rest in order in such a way that he repeats them in order. But according to the Rubric, nothing seems to be repeated from accidentals which are not of the necessity of the sacrament. The reason is that the rubric does not say: let him resume the form and the rest in order, but it distinguishes very carefully and says: let him resume the form, and let him pursue the rest in order, namely let him pursue from that point of the Mass at which he has arrived. And thus if the matter happens immediately before or after consumption, as is said in the same Rubric in the defect of matter, so also in this defect of form, let him consecrate and at once consume, tit. 3, n. 5, 6. Besides the cited Rubric absolutely says: "but if they are not of the necessity of the sacrament, let him not resume, but let him proceed further." Therefore whether only essentials, or essentials and accidentals together, have been omitted, it will suffice to repeat only the essentials. Suarez l. c., par. Sed quaeres tandem, etc., also thinks thus.

Finally note, as regards accidental defects, that the general rule is: after they have already been committed, regularly speaking, they are not to be supplied by repeating something, or by saying or doing in a reversed order that which had to be done earlier. Regularly, because if sometimes the delay were so small that, no other action having been interposed or prayer said, the priest notices the defect committed, then repetition could be made and the defect supplied. For in that case the order of the sacrifice is not inverted, but on the contrary care is taken that all things be perfected in due order. But except from this rule an accidental defect indeed, but a very grave one, if the bread is leavened, or if water is not mixed with the wine; although this cannot be supplied after consecration, nevertheless before consecration it must altogether be guarded against. - Rubric de defect. etc., tit. 4, n. 7; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 6 ad 4; Suarez, de Sacr. d. 83, s. 2; Reuter, Neo-Confess. p. 3, c. 13, n. 268; La Croix l. 6, p. 2, n. 443 ff.; Diana tr. 1, de Celebr. missar., r. 236.

These things which have been said about the celebration of Mass can be adapted to the other sacraments. Therefore, if someone does not remember that he omitted something, or if he does not remember that he said or did something from those things which had to be said or done, he ought not be disturbed, and let him pursue the rest in order. If he certainly or very probably remembers that he omitted something, if he does not remember it at once, it is not necessary to resume everything again, nor to supply anything in a reversed order; but let him resume or supply what is substantial, and pursue the rest in order. But if something has been omitted concerning which it is disputed whether it is substantial or accidental, what was incautiously omitted is to be cautiously supplied. C. 3 in fine de Presb. non bapt. Are all things then to be repeated entirely? One must see what part was omitted which must be supplied. If the part is separated from and independent of the others, as the last imposition of hands in the priesthood, only this is to be supplied, Holy Office, May 27, 1840. If it is not independent of or separated from the others, as the second imposition of hands, or the handing over of instruments in the priesthood, and chrismation in confirmation, the whole essential rite certainly is to be supplied. S. Penitentiary, March 31, 1888; S. C. C., May 28, 1796. And even an accidental rite omitted is to be supplied if it is a rite of greater moment, as for example in baptism the omitted ceremonies are to be supplied. Cf. Enchiridion Morale 440. - St. Thomas Suppl. q. 29, a. 2 ad 3.