Article II: On the Union of Matter and Form

14. Principle I. For the essence or validity of a sacrament, of itself the moral union or simultaneity of the parts suffices. - For a sacrament is not physically one, but a moral composite, namely, one sign; for this there suffices that union by which, according to the common estimation of men, each part concurs toward one signification. Hence between matter and form there must be 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 with it to constitute one total sign. From this it follows that that union or simultaneity of matter and form is not the same in all the sacraments, because the sacramental signs are of diverse nature.

1. Hence the sacrament of Penance does not require strict union, because it was instituted by way of judgment, in which the sentence does not necessarily follow immediately after the examination of the case; whence someone can be absolved after several hours or days, provided the confessor retains the idea of the state of the penitent.

2. Similarly in Matrimony, because it is a contract: for it suffices that the consent of one be placed while the consent of the other still morally perseveres.

3. On the contrary in the Eucharist total physical simultaneity is required, because the pronouns hoc and hic demonstrate that the matter is present at the time at which the words are pronounced.

4. Finally, for the other sacraments a few authors, among whom is Cajetan, require a certain physical simultaneity because their forms signify the application of matter in the present; but a partial simultaneity, namely, by which the form begins to be uttered before the matter ceases to be applied, or, vice versa, the matter begins to be applied before the form ceases to be uttered. Many others hold that those sacraments are valid if the form is pronounced immediately before or immediately after the matter has been applied, because the present time expressed in the form, for example, I baptize thee, morally speaking admits a certain latitude, just as is clear from the fact that Baptism is certainly valid, even if the washing is not done except under the words: in the name of the Father...

In practice: since in the sacraments it is regularly illicit to use an opinion only probable when there is danger of nullity, one must act according to the first opinion, as moreover is prescribed by the Ritual, and hence it is required at least for liceity; but if the sacrament has been administered otherwise, let it be repeated conditionally.¹

¹ Readers of very recent works would easily think that something in this matter has been changed; and that now it is altogether certain that a sacrament is to be held as valid and not to be repeated conditionally, when it has been administered so that the form is immediately connected with the matter or vice versa.

But this conclusion does not agree with the instruction of the Holy Office, May 2, 1858, which says that Baptism is to be repeated conditionally if, once the washing has been completed, the form is pronounced, or on the contrary, once the utterance of the form has been completed, one proceeds to the washing. And St. Alphonsus, who seems to approve the contrary opinion in Moral Theology, book VI, n. 9, in Examination of Ordinands, n. 6, and in Confessor Directed, n. 3, calls it practically not probable. But they invoke:

1. Several decrees of the Holy Office (September 12, 1877; March 17, 1897; November 30 and December 14, 1898), by which ordinations are declared valid. But, as Prummer notes, they do not decide the question, because it is not established concerning the essential matter and form of Order; - besides, it is particular to this sacrament that first the imposition of hands is made upon individuals, and then only is the prayer uttered over all; but from that which is particular to a certain sacrament a general rule cannot validly be deduced which holds for all. Especially in the decree of March 17, 1897, there was no doubt concerning the simultaneity of matter and form, but the question was concerning the immediate touch of the chalice, which, although the ordinand had previously touched it immediately, nevertheless under the pronunciation of the form he was kept from it by the hands of others: the ordination is declared valid, because mediate touch suffices and was present through the mediation of the hands of others.

2. Also the response of the S. Congregation for the discipline of the Sacraments, November 17, 1916. It is the solution of a certain case proposed concerning the validity of Baptism: "to the proposed doubt: Whether Baptism in the case can be said to be valid, they judged that the answer should be: as proposed, negatively." Before the solution in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis there is placed a certain note of some consultor, in which among various considerations one reads: "It is common doctrine that for the validity of Baptism a physical union of matter and form is not required, but that moral union is enough, which is had both if the washing is done immediately before the form is completed, and if it is done immediately after." Yet these things are not found in the decree itself, nor do they have approval or authority from the Congregation, because they are not the motive on which the decree is founded, since Baptism in the case is nevertheless declared invalid.

A fortiori it cannot be said that the decree of the Holy Office mentioned above from 1858 was revoked by this other Congregation for the discipline of the Sacraments; and consequently it must be said to preserve its value.

15. Principle II. By the same minister there must be made the union or total application of the form to the matter, and in the sacraments in which external matter must be applied to a subject, the matter also must be placed and the form pronounced by the same minister. - For the confecting of a sacrament is one sacramental action to be placed in the name of Christ, which is composed of two parts, namely, from the application of the form to the matter, or also of both to the subject; whence the application must be made by the same minister, nor would it be one action if it were divided between two ministers; - and otherwise the sense of the words of the form would for the most part not be verified, as if one person poured water in baptizing and washed, and another said: I baptize thee.²

² The opinion concerning the probable value of the sacrament in the case in which matter and form at the same time were not placed by one and the same minister is altogether to be rejected, as is also clear concerning Baptism from the decree of the S. Congregation for the Sacraments, November 17, 1916.

Nevertheless 1) for the sacraments in which matter is not to be applied to a subject, the same minister need not place matter and form, but it suffices that he apply the form to the matter. Thus in Penance the priest applies the form, namely absolution, to the matter or acts placed by the penitent; in the Eucharist the priest would validly consecrate the matter, namely the host or chalice, placed on the altar by a deacon; in Matrimony the spouse accepts the body offered by the other party.

2. Several can validly place together the whole matter and form of the whole sacrament, as if several together poured water in baptizing and said: I baptize thee... or we baptize thee (n. 140); and ordained presbyters consecrate together with the bishop.

3. In sacraments which consist of several integral parts, the individual parts can validly be placed by different persons, provided the same person regard the matter and form of each part. Thus, with one priest consecrating the host, another would validly consecrate the chalice; and in Extreme Unction, one priest could perform the first anointing under its due form, another the second, a third the third, etc., as is wont to be done in the Greek Church.