Section — Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis
§ 3. On The Union Of Matter And Form
16. Necessity and quality of the union. Just as matter and form must be united together for the constitution of a physical body, so it is also in the sacraments. Since, however, a sacrament is a moral being, a perfectly physical union is not required for its validity, but a moral union between matter and form suffices. I say, however, for its validity, for a greater union is often required for the liceity of administration, as will be said below concerning the individual sacraments.
Rule. This moral union is considered present when, with the nature of each sacrament considered, according to the common estimation of men the words truly affect the matter and together with it constitute one sign.46
46 Cf. St. Thomas, S. theol. 3, q. 60, a. 8 ad 3.
17. Resolutions. 1. The greatest union and coexistence, which therefore is called a physical union by many authors, is required in the consecration of the Eucharist, in which the pronouns hoc and hic ("this") demonstrate that the matter is physically present from the beginning when the form of consecration is pronounced. Moreover, since this sacrament consists in a permanent thing and not in a transient action, it is scarcely possible that matter and form not be simultaneous.
A lesser union and coexistence of form and matter is required for the validity of baptism, confirmation, extreme unction, and order. Hence these sacraments are certainly valid if at least a partial, although minimal, physical coexistence between the form and the proximate matter was present. Thus, for example, baptism is valid if the one baptizing poured water over the person to be baptized and, when the last drop of water is flowing, suddenly begins to say: "I baptize you, etc." Likewise, extreme unction is valid if the priest, while pronouncing the final word of the form, at length begins to anoint. Thus the common opinion. According to an opinion at least theoretically probable, these sacraments were validly conferred even if there is a very brief interval between the application of the matter and the form. The reason is that, although the forms of the aforesaid sacraments signify present time, "I baptize," "I sign," etc., nevertheless morally speaking the present time admits some latitude, and that which immediately preceded or immediately follows is considered still present. Thus, for example, one who says, "I drink to your health," is also considered truthful even if he is not drinking now but is about to drink immediately. Authors do not agree how great an interval destroys the validity of these sacraments. Billuart47 thinks that an interposed delay of one Hail Mary does not destroy validity; but St. Alphonsus48 opines that a delay of one Our Father invalidates these sacraments. But the Holy Office, in an Instruction given on 2 May 1858 to the Apostolic Vicar of Abyssinia, declares that baptism, and all other sacraments following upon a baptism thus conferred, are to be repeated conditionally if the form is pronounced when the washing has already been entirely completed, or conversely if one proceeds to the washing when the pronouncement of the form has been completed.49 This Instruction of the Holy Office indeed seems to be observed in practice everywhere. But the contrary opinion of Lugo,50 asserting that in this case the sacrament need not necessarily be repeated, no longer seems safe in practice. Thus also St. Alphonsus, who, although in the place cited he seems to approve the opinion of Lugo and others, nevertheless in Exam. ordinandorum, n. 6, calls it not probable in practice.
A still lesser union of form and matter is required for the validity of penance and matrimony. For in penance the proximate matter, namely, contrition and confession, must altogether precede absolution, and it suffices that contrition virtually coexist with absolution, which can even be deferred for a short while, namely, according to some, for three or four hours.51 In the sacrament of matrimony, in which the contract cannot be separated from the sacrament, the form of the sacrament is the acceptance of the consent of the other party. As long as this consent morally perseveres, for so long can the acceptance of the other party supervene, even after several months, and then at length the sacrament is constituted. Therefore, a still lesser simultaneity between form and matter is required. Such a mode of receiving the sacrament can occur when matrimony is contracted through a proxy.52
47 De sacr. diss. 1, a. 6, § 3.
48 Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 9.
49 Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 1159.
50 De poenit. disp. 7, n. 275. Certain authors, such as Gaudé in the notes to the new edition of the Theology of St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 9, cite in favor of Lugo's opinion several decisions of the Holy Office, namely, those of 12 September 1877, 17 March 1897, 30 November and 14 December 1898, by which certain priestly ordinations were declared valid; but these decisions are not to the point: 1. because it is not yet established among authors what the essential form and matter of the sacrament of order are, whether the imposition of the hand, the presentation of the instruments, or both together; 2. because in the cases proposed the doubt did not properly concern the required simultaneity of matter and form, at least if the decision of 17 March 1897 of the following tenor is excepted: "When the petitioner received the sacred order of the priesthood, four or five were to be ordained together, all of whom eagerly strove to touch the instruments at the same time. He remembers that he first touched them, but when the formula was pronounced, although he tried to touch them again, he was prevented by the hands of the others." The response of the Holy Office, confirmed by Leo XIII, read: "Let the petitioner rest content" (Analect. eccl. V [1897], 203). In that case the form was pronounced after the touching of the chalice; but because it is not established what the form of this sacrament is, neither does this decision destroy the decision of the same Holy Office of 2 May 1858 cited above.
51 Cf. Billuart, l.c., a. 4, § 2.
52 Cf. below in the treatise on matrimony, n. 660.