Article — Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis
Article I: On the Cause Determining Matter and Form
St. Thomas III, q. 60, a. 5 and 7.
16. Principle I. God determined the sacramental signs. - This is certain.
It is proved: It does not belong to someone to determine that which is in the power of another, but only that which is in his own power. But the sanctification of man is not in man's own power, but in the power of God sanctifying. Therefore it does not belong to man by his own judgment to determine the signs by which he is sanctified, but this must be determined by divine institution.
God could determine signs in various ways: a) by Himself, with no man intervening, as He did in the Old Law, which Moses merely promulgated; b) He can deputize a man to determine a sign which afterward He holds ratified: thus, before the Mosaic law, men are said quite generally to have determined certain sacraments by interior instinct; c) He can leave the determination of the sign to the human will of Christ, and thus He acted in the New Law.
It is proved: 1. From the sources of revelation: for certain sacraments it is established from the Scriptures, namely for Baptism (John III, 5; Mt. XXVIII, 19), for the Eucharist (Mt. XXVI, 26), and for Penance (John XX, 22-23); - for the others from tradition, whose witness is the Council of Trent, sess. 21, c. 2, teaching that the very substance of the sacraments was not left to the choice of the Church; therefore it was determined by the institutor, whom c. 1 and sess. 7, can. 1, says to be Christ.
- By reason of fittingness: Christ as man merited for us the grace given through the sacraments; whence it was fitting that He Himself by His human will should determine the signs by which it is conferred.
18. Principle III. Christ did not determine matter and form in the individual, but only as to substance; indeed, more probably, He did not always determine them determinately in the ultimate species, but, for certain sacraments, only generally and confusedly.
The first part is proved: For Christ does not require special water, for example rain water, or wine, for example white wine, or oil, for example Palestinian oil; but whatever is truly oil, wine, water, etc., suffices for the sacrament. Likewise He did not determine the form as to the material sound of the words, as to language or grammatical expression, but only as to the essential signification. Therefore He did not determine matter and form in the individual, but only as to substance.
The second part is proved: Christ does not seem to have determined matter and form in the same way in all the sacraments:
- most perfectly He determined them for the Eucharist and Baptism;
- less perfectly for the sacrament of Penance, which He only established as to be exercised by way of judgment; and for Extreme Unction, which we have insinuated and sketched, Mk. VI, 13;
- likewise for Matrimony, which He simply elevated to the dignity of a sacrament, leaving to the choice of the Church and of the contracting parties the determination of the signs by which they would express consent;
- probably in a very general way for Confirmation and especially for Order: He determined only that signs and words suitable for expressing the character and the grace proper to Confirmation, or the power of Order, should be employed by the Church; but the Church determined different signs for different times and places, and thus is explained the diversity of matter and form in the valid ordinations of the Latin and Greek Church. "Whence we believe," says Innocent IV, in c. Presbyter, de sacr. iterandis, "that unless forms had afterward been discovered, it would suffice for the ordainer to say: 'Be a priest,' or other equivalent words; but in subsequent times the Church ordained the forms which are observed." And the Council of Florence, in the decree for the Armenians, indicates for Confirmation and Order another matter and form than were in use at first.1
1 That decree, although it is not an infallible document, nevertheless is not merely practical or disciplinary, as it has seemed to some; but a dogmatic decree which explains the doctrine of the Roman Church on the Sacraments, and which the Pontiff, in the name of the Council and of the Roman Church, handed down to the Church of the Armenians: in which it cannot easily be admitted that an error crept in.
Nor say: The Council of Trent declared that the Church cannot change the substance of the sacraments; but substance is constituted by essential elements, namely, matter and form, without which the sacrament cannot exist. - It can be answered: in the matter and form of the sacraments, according to the manner of speaking of the Council, only those things are substantial which Christ instituted; whence if He determined certain matters and forms in a general way, the substance of these sacraments is not changed through the greater specific determination made by the Church, provided that the general signification defined by Christ is retained.
And indeed, in the sacraments attention must be given to that which is more principal and formal, namely, signification, by which something is formally constituted as a sign, which is the metaphysical form of the sacrament, and to the efficacy of this sign for conferring special grace in order to the end of each sacrament. But if this was determined by Christ, it can truly be said that He instituted the substance of the sacrament; nor is more required by the Council, as is established from the opinion of those who were present at the council, such as Ruard Tapper2 and Ravesteyn3 of Louvain.
2 Explanation of the 20 Articles of the Venerable Faculty of Sacred Theology of Louvain, a. 1.
3 Apology of the Decrees of the Council of Trent.