Chapter II. On the Matter and Form of the Sacraments

196. • DEFINITIONS. Matter is the sensible thing to be determined to the nature of a sacrament by the form. Hence matter is that which in the Sacrament is more indifferent, and has a less perfect signification; and therefore it must be determined by another thing for signifying.

Matter is twofold: one remote, and the other proximate. The former is the sensible thing itself which is employed in the Sacrament, or the thing about which the sacramental action is exercised. The latter is the very application or use of the remote matter in the sacramental action.

But form is the part of the Sacrament which determines the matter for effecting the sacrament, and which ordinarily consists in words pronounced by the Minister.

197. Principles. - I. Matter and form are altogether necessary for the validity of a Sacrament; therefore, with either one lacking, Sacraments cannot be confected. The reason is that a Sacrament cannot be confected except in that mode in which Christ instituted it, who alone is the author of the Sacraments. It is of faith. This is clear besides from dogmatic definitions, especially from the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union, etc.

II. In confecting a Sacrament outside a case of necessity, matter and form ought morally to be employed, as far as they can be had ¹, certain. The reason is that, unless necessity urges, it is not permitted to use probability which does not remove the danger of invalidity.

¹ ** To this pertains the first of the propositions proscribed by Innocent XI: It is not illicit in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion concerning the validity of the sacrament, the safer opinion having been left aside, unless law, agreement, or danger of incurring grave harm forbids it. Hence an opinion merely probable is not to be used in the conferral of baptism, of priestly Order, or of episcopal Order.

But the Author aptly adds, as far as it can be had; for where there is question, for example, of the disposition necessary for the sacrament of penance, scarcely anything else can be had concerning it than a certain prudent and probable judgment.

III. Matter and form must be united or applied by the same Minister and toward the same subject. The reason is that if one were to place the matter, and another the form, the words of the form would not be verified; for the Minister who, for example, would say: I baptize thee, while another poured the water, would pronounce what is false, since he himself would not baptize.

IV. ² In order that a sacrament be valid, there must be between the matter and the form, for example between the pouring of water and the pronouncing of the words, so great a conjunction that according to the moral estimation of men, with the nature of each sacrament considered, one affects the other, that is, that the words are judged to fall upon such a thing and to constitute with it one total sign. St. Alphonsus (Lib. 6, n. 8) with Busembaum.

² ** Those things are supplied which Gury seems to promise in the title of the paragraph, but in reality omitted.

From this: 1º In Baptism, Confirmation, Unction, and Order, such a conjunction is required that while the minister pronounces the words, he is morally judged also to wash, etc. Busembaum, ibid. ³.

³ ** Lugo (De Sacram., Disp. 2, n. 99), when about to explain how in the ordination of a Priest moral conjunction is had between the form and the first imposition of hands, which is done while no form is pronounced, discusses this matter thus: The imposition of hands is not so distant from the utterance of the form which afterwards follows, that they are not judged to have sufficient moral nearness; for there ought not to be physical coexistence, as is clear in Deacons, to whom the form is said to all at once, and afterwards they successively touch the book; wherefore if one hundred Deacons were ordained together, without doubt there would be great physical distance between the utterance of the form and the contact of the book with respect to the last; but nevertheless there is sufficient moral presence, because the same action is morally continued without moral interruption. So also after hands are imposed upon Priests, up to those words Receive power, etc., the same moral action is continued, by anointing them and preparing them so that they may more fittingly receive the grace of the Holy Spirit. But afterwards the matter is more explicated and another part of the same matter is applied together with the form: wherefore that distance, whatever it may be, is not so much between matter and form as between part and part of the matter, which certainly need not physically coexist with one another... Wherefore when it is a question of creating a Priest, that whole action by which insignia, vestments, instruments, and other things are solemnly given to him is judged to be one and the same action, just as the coronation of a Pontiff or of a King is drawn out for a long time, and divided into several actions, and interrupted by various solemnities, yet is reckoned the same action.

2º In Penance absolution can be deferred for a sufficiently long time, as in trials a sentence follows after examination of the cause. Busembaum, ibid. ⁴.

⁴ ** St. Alphonsus adds in this place (Lib. 6, n. 9): In this Sacrament such distance ought not to be so great as happens in a forensic trial. If these words merely indicated that it is not necessary that absolution be deferred as long as the sentences of judges sometimes are wont to be deferred in a forensic cause, they would express the most common and certain doctrine. But then the holy Doctor subjoins: But Croix, Lib. 6, n. 8, says with Tamburini, that a penitent is validly absolved after an hour from confession. From these words you might almost gather that according to the mind of the holy Doctor the due conjunction between matter and form is not preserved if such a delay intervenes as sometimes occurs in a forensic trial. And since here the question concerns that conjunction between those two parts of the sacrament which pertains to validity, the matter is certainly of grave moment. - Therefore the words of the holy Doctor are to be understood discreetly. For otherwise the most common opinion of all Doctors is that which Reiffenstuel expresses thus (Tr. 4, Dist. 1, Q. 2, n. 29): In the Sacrament of Penance a much greater distance can be admitted between the accusation of the penitent and the absolution of the priest: since this sacrament is performed by way of judgment; but in judgment accusation is presupposed to absolution, nor is it required that the sentence of the judge be conjoined in time with the accusation of the accused himself. And although all the Doctors use this reason, namely that this sacrament is performed by way of judgment, nevertheless there is found no trace of that limitation which St. Alphonsus suggests. Indeed the Salmanticenses (Tr. 1, Cap. 4, nn. 20 and 28) concede, and even contend, that the conjunction or moral coexistence is fittingly preserved if one who confessed on one day is absolved on another day. But Coninck (ad Q. 60, art. 6, n. 41) writes: In Confession absolution could be deferred for a sufficiently long time; just as in a trial absolution or condemnation is often wont to follow the examination of the cause after a long time. And Henriquez (Lib. 1, Cap. 9, n. 11): In the Sacrament of Penance, because it is a judgment, the matter, which is a human act, is called sufficiently present, although the confession of sins precedes the form by many days. Wherefore Roncaglia refers the reader to those things which are commonly handed down by the Doctors about deferring absolution for penitents. For thus he says (Tr. 16, C. 3, Q. 2, Resp. 2): But because Penance was instituted by way of judgment, in which it is not necessary that the sentence be altogether simultaneous with the confession of the crime, hence it is that absolution can be deferred after the confession has been heard, as will be said in its place. And in reality, whatever delay of absolution you may finally imagine, the two parts of the Sacrament will always have to be judged sufficiently conjoined, as often as it is morally understood that this one judgment is being performed. Thus well Suarez (In 3 Part, Tom. 3, Disp. 2, Sect. 2): In that sacrament that simultaneity suffices which is morally enough that the same judgment be understood to be performed and confirmed by the sentence.

But that which Croix reports from Tamburini (Lib. 6, P. 1, n. 8) is nothing. For Tamburini (De Sacr., Lib. 4, C. 1, § 1, n. 6) merely wishes to indicate the difference which is had concerning the conjunction of matter and form, if there is question of the Sacrament of Penance and of Extreme Unction. Namely, with two cases proposed, he says that an interval of one hour in no way stands in the way in the Sacrament of Penance, but does stand in the way if there is question of Extreme Unction.

3º In matrimony the consent of one can follow the consent of the other so long as this latter consent is judged morally to remain, as in other contracts. Busembaum, ibid.

198. • A twofold change is given both in matter and in form, namely substantial and accidental.

A substantial change will be in the matter if, according to the use and estimation of men, this cannot be called the same as that which was determined by Christ; but in the form, if the sense of the words intended by Christ is changed into another. But an accidental change is called one which concerns only the qualities of the thing, or which does not change the sense of the words. - St. Ligorius, n. 11.

199. Principles. - I. Every substantial change in the matter and form of a Sacrament invalidates the Sacrament, because it is no longer the rite instituted by Christ; and if it is voluntary, it constitutes grave sin, because it inflicts a grave injury upon the author of the rite.

II. No accidental change in the matter and form invalidates a Sacrament; nevertheless it induces grave or light sin, according as it is, or is not, notable.

The form of the Sacraments can be changed in many ways, namely by subtraction of a syllable or of words, addition, variation of language or of words, transposition of words, corruption of the same, for example by changing letters, and interruption. These are shown in the following little verses:

Do not take anything from the form, do not add anything, do not vary anything; Beware of transmuting, corrupting the words, delaying.

But the change will much more easily be substantial at the beginning than at the end of the words, because the sense will more easily be changed for hearers, for example in the name of the mother instead of of the father. In practice beware especially of precipitation.

200. • A threefold rule is to be established:

I. The Sacraments can be repeated whenever there is a prudent doubt concerning their validity. 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 the prudent fear of so great an inconvenience is a sufficient reason why the Sacrament be repeated is clear from the very well-known axiom: The Sacraments are for men.

II. Sacraments generally cannot be repeated without grave sin when there is not present a prudent doubt concerning their validity. The reason is that they would be repeated without cause, and therefore a grave injury would be inflicted upon them.

III. Sacraments ought to be repeated whenever, upon a prudent doubt having arisen concerning their validity, charity, justice, and religion require it, namely whenever the nullity of the Sacrament, if perhaps it were present, would turn to the harm of neighbor and sometimes to the contempt or irreverence of Religion. But then they are to be repeated only conditionally, so that reverence for the Sacrament may be provided for. - Voit, n. 29 and following. - See St. Ligorius, n. 27 and following.

201. You will resolve. - The Sacraments that are more necessary, and that are conferred only once, namely Baptism and Order, are more readily to be repeated, even if a much greater probability militates for the validity of the sacrament against reasons doubtful or slenderly probable in the opposite direction. - Thus commonly.

2º Absolution is to be repeated with a penitent guilty of mortal sin if there is prudent doubt concerning the due pronouncing of the form. But if the penitent is not in the state of mortal sin ⁵, it will not be necessary to repeat the form, since Communion can be permitted to him even without absolution.

⁵ ** Perhaps you would say better: If the penitent has not brought necessary matter; for it certainly can happen that someone is in the state of grace, and nevertheless has matter which must necessarily be subjected to the keys, for example a grave fault omitted in the preceding confession from forgetfulness, which indeed had then been remitted indirectly, but nevertheless still needs absolution.

3º A Minister who lightly doubts, and does not know why he fears, or merely does not reflexively remember that he pronounced the words of the form, sins mortally per se 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. Moreover he presents Christ, whom he represents, as speaking ridiculously. In practice, however, scrupulous persons who repeat the form are for the most part excused from mortal sin, indeed often even from venial sin, because, being too agitated by scruples, from perplexity or without advertence, they act thus foolishly. - Thus Voit, n. 27. - Elbel, n. 14. - Gobat, tract. 3, n. 94, etc.

4º If in Mass after consecration a doubt arises for you concerning the due pronouncing of the form, or concerning total omission, you ought and can repeat nothing, since otherwise you are not accustomed to omit these things: for one must judge from what commonly happens, unless, however, you doubt very probably, as the Rubric speaks. - See St. Ligorius, n. 224.