Section — Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis
§ 2. On The Immutability Of Matter And Form
10. If matter and form pertain to the essence of a sacrament, as is evident from the preceding paragraph, it follows that they are not only altogether necessary for the validity of the sacrament, but also immutable or invariable, so that whenever either one is substantially changed, the sacrament is not validly constituted. For the essences of things are immutable.
The Church has always taught that the matter and form of the sacraments are invariable as to substance. Thus the Council of Trent40 declares "that this power has perpetually existed in the Church, that in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being preserved, she might establish or change those things which she judged more expedient for the benefit of the recipients or for the veneration of the sacraments themselves, according to the diversity of things, times, and places." From these words it can be deduced that a twofold change of matter and form is found: one substantial, the other accidental.
11. 1. A substantial change of matter is present if, according to the common estimation of men, the matter is considered another thing in name and signification, even if perhaps it does not differ in physical species.
Hence, although, for example, a raw mass of flour does not differ in physical species from bread, or ice from water, nevertheless theologically a substantial change is considered present with respect to the sacraments of the Eucharist and baptism. For if a prudent man is asked concerning flour or ice, "Is this bread or water?" he immediately answers negatively. Therefore, certain theologians rightly distinguish a substantial change into physical and theological. A physical substantial change is present whenever from one matter there comes to be another essentially diverse matter, as, for example, ashes come to be from burned wood. But a theological substantial change is that which, according to the common estimation of men, renders the matter unfit to signify in a sacrament that for which it was instituted. Not only a physical but also a theological substantial change of matter invalidates a sacrament. Thus, for example, certain liquid colors are nothing other than water to which colored matter, say green, black, etc., has been added. Nevertheless, such liquid colors41 are matter unfit for baptism because they cannot signify the washing to be performed in baptism. For no one washes his face with green color.
41 Commonly Wasserfarben, détrempe [watercolors, distemper].
12. 2. An accidental change of matter is present if, according to the common estimation of men, the matter remains the same in species, although it is changed in quality or in other accidents.
For example, hot and cold water, muddy water and water mixed with fragrances, pure wine and wine with which a small quantity of another liquid has been mixed: all these are only accidental changes.
13. 3. A substantial change of form is present when the due and per se intended sense of the words by which the effect of the sacrament is signified is no longer preserved.
For the substance of the form consists in the right sense, since the form must signify the effects of the different sacraments willed by Christ. Thus, for example, the sense of the form of baptism is washing from original sin. Therefore, there is no substantial change if, in place of "I baptize you, etc.," someone says, "I wash you in the name of the Father, etc." On the contrary, there would be a substantial change if someone, thinking the intervention of the Blessed Virgin Mary necessary, were to baptize under the form: "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and of the Blessed Virgin Mary."42 For judging whether in some case a substantial change of form was present or not, not only the objective sense of the words but also the subjective intention of the minister is of great service.43 If he intends to pronounce a false form, a substantial change is present more readily than if he has a right intention. We have a celebrated example of this in the response of Pope Zachary to St. Boniface in the eighth century: someone, through ignorance of the Latin language but with the best intention, baptized under this form: "Ego te baptizo in nomine Patria et Filia et Spiritus sancta." The Pope declared this baptism valid, provided the minister had not pronounced such a form from a heretical intention.44
42 Thus St. Thomas (S. theol. 3, q. 60, a. 8), who nevertheless adds: "But if it is understood thus ... not as though something is effected in baptism in the name of the Blessed Virgin, but so that her intercession may profit the baptized person for preserving baptismal grace, the perfection of baptism is not removed."
43 Cf. Leo XIII, Constitution on Anglican Ordinations, 15 September 1896.
14. 4. An accidental change of form is present if words other than those prescribed in the Ritual are indeed employed, but the same sense of the form remains. Cf. the example just adduced concerning the form of baptism.
Eight modes are customarily adduced by which it can happen that the form of the sacraments is changed:
On the part of the language, for example, if someone pronounces the words of consecration in the vernacular language. Such a change is accidental because the sense of the form is not changed.
If the prescribed words are changed into synonyms, for example, if "I wash" is said in place of "I baptize." Such a change also is accidental for the same reason.
By corrupting or mutilating the words of the form; for example, if someone stammers, or if someone says Patrias in place of Patris, copus in place of corpus, calis in place of calix, es in place of est, etc. If, notwithstanding the corruption and with the circumstances considered, the sense of the form is easily understood and a right intention is present, such a change is accidental; otherwise it is substantial. Hence those nations which cannot easily pronounce the letters h or x, and consequently in the consecration say, "oc est corpus meum," or "ic est calis, etc.," validly constitute the sacrament.
By adding something to the words of the form, for example: "I baptize you in the name of the almighty Father and of the only-begotten Son and of the Paraclete Spirit and in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary." These or similar additions are considered substantial changes if they notably change the sense of the form; otherwise they are accidental.
By subtracting something from the prescribed words of the form; for example, if someone omits in baptism the word "I," or in the consecration the word "for." If the sense of the form is not notably changed by such a subtraction, as happens in the examples adduced, it is an accidental change; otherwise it is a substantial change.
By transposition of the words, for example: "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, I baptize you." For the most part only an accidental change arises from this, because the sense of the form is not notably changed.
By partial repetition of the form, for example, a scrupulous person says while consecrating: "For this, this, this is, is, is My Body, Body." Such a change is accidental, since the sense of the form is understood sufficiently easily.
By disjunction of matter and form, or by injuring the union, which will be treated especially in the following paragraph.
Certain authors express, in the following little verses, although not so completely, the modes by which a change of form is prohibited:
Take nothing from the form, add nothing, vary nothing;
Beware of transposing, corrupting the words, or delaying.
15. Principle. a) He who makes a substantial change of matter or form renders the sacrament invalid and, if he acts knowingly, sins most gravely; b) but he who makes an accidental change of matter or form does not render the sacrament invalid, but sins more or less if he acts knowingly and without a sufficient cause.
a) That a substantial change of matter or form, even if made inadvertently, renders a sacrament invalid is evident from what has been said, since thereby the essential elements of the sacrament are destroyed. Hence, for example, not even in extreme necessity can baptism be validly administered with milk.
He who knowingly, deliberately, and freely perpetrates such a substantial change commits a mortal sin containing a fourfold malice; namely, he sins: a) against religion, because he commits a grave sacrilege by abusing a sacred thing and, in a certain manner, mocking Christ, since contrary to His institution he employs signs unfit for conferring grace; b) against a grave precept of the Church prohibiting every substantial change in the sacraments; c) against charity, because he deprives his neighbor of the precious gift of grace annexed to valid sacraments; d) against justice, and this is certain if the minister is bound by justice to administer the sacraments, as, for example, a parish priest. Probably the same must be said even if the minister is not bound by justice to administer the sacraments, because by the very fact that he voluntarily undertakes the administration of a sacrament, he enters into a tacit contract to administer it validly and rightly. I said, however, that one changing it knowingly and freely sins gravely; for if such a substantial change occurs from ignorance, it can be without any sin, for example, if a layman through ignorance invalidly administers private baptism. But a priest who by office is bound both to know and diligently to observe the prescribed rite of the sacraments can with difficulty be excused from sin if, on account of ignorance or insufficient advertence, he makes a substantial change of matter or form.
b) An accidental change of matter or form indeed does not render a sacrament invalid, since its essence remains preserved; but he who knowingly, deliberately, and freely makes such a change sins more or less, since he violates a precept of the Church and treats a sacred thing irreverently. Whether such a change is a grave or light sin cannot be determined by a general rule, but must be left to the judgment of a prudent man. Thus rightly Billuart.45 Hence several theologians teach that it is only a venial sin if someone knowingly and negligently omits in baptism the word "I," or in the consecration the word "for." But a change, although accidental, made in the matter or form of a sacrament becomes a grave fault: a) if it is made from contempt; b) with proximate danger of erring in substantial matters; c) with scandal of the faithful; d) from a depraved intention of the minister.
45 De sacr. diss. 1, a. 6, § 2.