Question — Noldin, Summa of Moral Theology
Question Second. On the Matter and Form of the Sacraments
11. Notions. Sacraments consist of matter and form, which, since they are essential parts of a sacrament, if either one is lacking, no sacrament exists: for a sacrament cannot be confected without that which constitutes the essence of the sacrament.
a. The matter of a sacrament is a sensible thing to be determined to the notion of a sacrament by the form. A twofold matter is distinguished: remote matter is the sensible thing itself which is employed in confecting the sacrament, as water in baptism, bread in the eucharist; proximate matter is the application or use of the remote matter in the sacramental action, e.g., washing, anointing.
b. The form is that part of the sacrament which determines the matter to the sacrament; the form ordinarily consists in words uttered by the minister.
In order that sacraments be rightly conferred, several conditions are required as to matter and form, of which some regard matter and form together, others only the form.
12. Conditions required on the part of matter and form: matter and form must be a. certain; b. united together; c. applied by the same minister; d. applied without change.
1. Certain, that is, certainly valid outside a case of necessity; for the reverence due to the sacraments demands that they not be exposed to the danger of invalidity; but a sacrament is exposed to the danger of nullity if either the matter or the form is not certain but doubtful, or only probably valid: for probability does not remove the danger of invalidity. Hence outside a case of necessity to use doubtful matter is sacrilege. Outside a case of necessity: for since the sacraments are for men, it is permitted to expose them to the danger of nullity whenever necessity or the great utility of men demands it.
Therefore it is not permitted to use doubtful matter where certain matter can be had; but where certain matter cannot be had, doubtful matter must be used if the necessity of administering the sacrament is present, if, for example, baptism must be conferred upon an infant placed in danger of death; and doubtful matter can be used if a great utility of the receiver is present; thus the sacrament of extreme unction can be conferred upon a dying man with the oil of catechumens.
13. 2. United together by a unity or simultaneity not indeed physical (except in the eucharist), but at least moral, namely in such a way that according to the moral estimation of men, the nature of each sacrament being considered, the words are judged to affect the matter and to constitute one sign with it: for since matter and form constitute one essence of the sacrament, they must be applied together; but since this essence is a moral composite, it suffices that the component parts be morally united, so that, for example, the minister who pronounces the form is judged, in the judgment of prudent men, to wash, to anoint, etc.
Hence even if the form somewhat precedes or follows the matter, yet in such a way that they coincide in part, the sacrament is certainly valid; if, after the washing or anointing has been done, after some minutes at last the words are uttered, the sacrament is certainly invalid; but if matter and form are applied in such a way that the matter has already been entirely placed when the form is begun, or on the contrary that the form has already been entirely uttered when the matter begins to be applied, according to the mind of certain ancient authors the sacrament is indeed doubtful; nevertheless there is no reason for doubting the validity of the sacrament, if the matter or the form precedes and immediately after it the other part is placed.1 This opinion seems morally certain to St. Alphonsus (n. 9), who notes from other authors that the delay of one Our Father interposed between the matter and form of baptism renders the sacrament invalid. In practice (excepting penance and matrimony) care must be taken that matter and form are at least so united that one is begun before the other is finished.
1 Cf. Suarez, disp. 2, sect. 2, n. 6.
14. 3. Applied by the same minister: for the administration of a sacrament is one sacramental action to be placed in the name of Christ, which is composed of two parts, from the application of the matter and from the utterance of the form; but it would not be one action if it were divided between two ministers. Moreover, if one applied the matter and another pronounced the form, the words of the form, e.g., I baptize you, would not be true, since the same one would not be placing the whole sacramental action.
a. Whether a sacrament is absolutely invalid if the sacramental action is placed by two persons is not entirely certain; therefore there are some who permit this in a case of necessity, so that, for example, in conferring baptism one pours the water, another pronounces the form: for each acts not in his own name, but in the name of Christ, in whom both parts have unity. Moreover, the words are uttered in the person of Christ; and words so uttered have a true sense.1
b. If several ministers confect a sacrament, so that several place the entire matter and form, for example, several baptize the same child at the same time, consecrate the same matter, the sacrament is indeed valid, but, excepting the consecration in the ordination of priests, gravely illicit. And if the sacrament consists of several parts, as the eucharist, extreme unction, order, and several persons so confect the sacrament that one places one part and another another part, the sacrament likewise is valid, but outside a case of necessity gravely illicit.
1 Cf. Suarez, De baptismo, disp. 23, sect. 3, n. 14.
15. 4. Without change. One change is substantial, another accidental.
As to matter, a change is called substantial if the thing is no longer, either in fact or in name, that which Christ determined, as if wine were taken in baptism instead of water; but a change is called accidental if, while the essence of the thing instituted by Christ is preserved, only its qualities are changed, as if a little wine were mixed with water, or a little water with wine.
As to form, a change is called substantial if the sense of the words is changed into another sense, as if in consecration it were said: This is my work; and accidental, if the words, although varied, nevertheless retain the same sense, as if in baptism it were said: I wash you, or if the words were transposed: You I baptize.
a. A substantial change of matter or form renders the sacrament invalid, and if it is voluntary, constitutes grave sin. The reason for the first is that the sacrament instituted by Christ is no longer had where this change occurs, whether it is voluntary or involuntary. But the reason for the second is that the reverence due to the author of the sacraments is most gravely injured.
b. An accidental change of matter or form does not render the sacrament invalid, but only illicit; and if it is voluntary, it constitutes grave or light sin according as the change is notable or not notable. Therefore he who notably corrupts the form or utters it inarticulately certainly sins gravely.
In order that it may be judged whether changed forms are valid or invalid, these things must be attended to:
alpha. A private error of the minister, which is added in a distinct proposition, if in other respects the essentials are present, does not render the sacrament invalid, as if someone baptized with this form: I baptize you in the name of the Father, whom I think greater, and of the Son, whom I think lesser, and of the Holy Spirit, whom I think equal, because the sacrament is conferred in the name of Christ and from the intention of the Church. But an error which vitiates the form itself renders the sacrament invalid, e.g., I baptize you in the name of the Father greater and of the Son lesser and of the Holy Spirit equal, or in the name of the uncreated Father and of the created Son and of the created Holy Spirit, because the sense intended by Christ is essentially changed.
beta. If the sense of the form is ambiguous, its value depends upon the intention of the minister, and therefore the form is invalid if the minister explicitly intends to confer the sacrament with an erroneous form: e.g., this form: I baptize you in the name of F. and S. and H. Sp. and of the blessed Virgin Mary is valid, if the last words are added only from a certain devotion, but is invalid if one intends also to baptize in the name of the blessed Virgin, because the form is essentially changed. For the sense of the form must be judged not only from what the words signify of themselves, but also from what the minister intends to signify, because the utterance of the form must be a truly human act.
gamma. It is not necessary that the words have of themselves the signification intended by Christ, but it suffices that from the manner in which they are uttered here and now they convey that sense to the hearers. Hence if the words of the form are corrupted by a natural defect of the tongue, by hesitation or haste, or by the minister's lack of skill, the sacrament is valid, provided the sense of the form is not wholly vitiated; because the words, although corrupted for this reason, are nevertheless rightly understood by the hearers. Therefore this form is valid: hoc est corpus meus; indeed this form is held valid: baptizo te in nomine Patris et Filia et Spiritu Sancta, if the corruption comes from ignorance, and likewise if it has not been made deliberately; but this other one is not valid: ego te baptizo in nomine Matris et Filii et Sp. S.
16. Conditions required on the part of the form. The pronunciation of the form must be vocal, uttered without interruption and without repetition.
1. Vocal, that is, the form of the sacraments must be pronounced by the organs destined for speaking in such a way that the minister can hear himself: for that pronunciation is not sensible which cannot in any way be perceived by hearing; but the sacrament would be exposed to the danger of nullity if the pronunciation of the form were not sensible.
2. Without interruption. There can occur an interruption of the words or of the syllables of the form. Now if the interruption is so great that the words no longer produce one integral sense for the hearers, the sacrament is invalid; but if the interruption is so slight that the following words morally cohere with the preceding and produce one sense for the hearers, the sacrament will be valid.
a. If one baptizing, after saying I baptize you, should interject, turn the page, or should sneeze slightly, or cough, or spit, he could proceed to the following words without needing to repeat the earlier ones. If a confessor, after saying I absolve you, noticing that the penitent has gone away from the sacred tribunal, should call him back and, with these words interposed, What is this? Why did you not wait? Return and kneel until I shall have absolved you, should add from your sins, he absolves validly, because any prudent person assisting at such an administration would have understood the sense of the form.1 But if someone, after saying this is the body, begins to be shaken by coughing for several minutes and afterward adds my, this no longer morally coheres with the preceding words.
b. But the interruption of syllables much more easily destroys the sense, so that even a slight interruption renders the sacrament doubtful; therefore it is advisable to repeat the word begun, unless the interruption is very slight. Thus he invalidly confects the sacrament who, after saying hoc est cor, coughs two or three times and then adds pus meum; likewise he who, after saying ego te bap-, interposes the water is too cold and afterward adds tizo in nomine, etc.
3. Without repetition. It can happen that over the same matter the entire form is repeated, or several of its words; but each is per se a grave sin. The reason for the first is that the sacramental form is uttered in vain, and thus a grave irreverence is committed against the sacrament and its author; the reason for the second is that the sacramental form is changed and Christ is exhibited as speaking in a ridiculous manner.
a. Therefore he who repeats the form from an irrational doubt, from an empty suspicion (even conditionally), certainly sins against the sacrament. Scrupulous persons, however, who sometimes repeat the form under a condition, are excused from sin, either by reason of perplexity, which impedes prudent deliberation, or by reason of the end, namely that of rendering their own conscience tranquil. But those who frequently and almost from custom repeat the form certainly cannot be excused from light fault, and, if sufficient advertence is present, even from mortal fault, especially where, because of the inept repetition, the sacrament is exposed to the danger of nullity.2
b. Without a reasonable cause to repeat one word or one syllable does not exceed venial sin.3 But he who should utter the form in this manner: hoc, hoc, hoc, est, est, enim, corpus, corpus, corpus, meum, meum, would indeed consecrate validly, but would per se commit grave sin.
1 Cf. Elbel-Bierbaum, Theologia moralis^2 (Paderborn: Typogr. bonif., 1894), III, pr. 1, n. 13.
2 Sporer-Bierbaum III, pr. 1, n. 96 ss.
3 Gobat, Experientia theologica, tr. 1, n. 42.