Chapter II. On the Other Requisites

In order that a sacrament be validly confected, besides intention these things are required:

I. The minister must place the external rite in a human manner, or by a human act. For it cannot be admitted that Christ instituted a sacrament in such a way that it can be confected by an act which is not human; as if someone wholly drunk or sleeping were to baptize. For the rest, in the case, at least practically, the required intention will also be lacking (St. Alphonsus, VI, 16).

II. The same minister must apply the matter and pronounce the form. If there is discussion of Baptism, this seems certain, both because otherwise the words of the form are not verified, and because the Sacred Congregation of the Discipline of the Sacraments¹ declared Baptism conferred in another way invalid, adding these words: Catholic doctrine holds most certainly that the matter must be placed by one and the same minister and at the same time the form of Baptism must be uttered; otherwise the form I baptize you, I wash you would labor under falsity (St. Thomas, III, q. 67, a. 6, ad 3). The same seems almost certain with regard to Confirmation, Extreme Unction, and Order, considering namely both the analogy with Baptism and the doctrine of theologians and the practice of the Church. There is added that otherwise the moral union in the sacrament does not seem to be sufficiently preserved. Except the sacrament of Penance, whose nature requires the contrary. With regard to the sacrament of the Eucharist, the question cannot be posed. For the rest, note:

1. Different ministers can validly minister a sacrament which consists of parts, if you grant that this occurs; concerning which consult the treatise on Extreme Unction, provided that the individual parts are placed whole by one and the same minister, that is, with their own matter and form. This is clear from what will be said in the treatise on Extreme Unction. Nevertheless, since that is gravely contrary to the rite, it is forbidden under grave obligation outside a case of necessity.

2. Even if a sacrament does not consist of parts, nevertheless several ministers can validly confect one and the same sacrament, provided that each places everything which is required for the sacrament. This is urged first, with regard to other sacraments, from the analogy with the sacrament of the Eucharist, which can certainly be confected by several at the same time. The reason is that the individual ministers do not confect the sacrament except in the person of Christ, and therefore in and with Christ they are one. Then, since the individuals, as we suppose, possess the power of confecting the sacrament and exhibit all the requisites, it does not appear that anything is lacking to the conferral of the individuals (cf. St. Thomas, III, q. 67, a. 6; q. 82, a. 2, ad 2; St. Alphonsus, VI, 120, 232; can. 803). But this also is gravely illicit, except the consecration in the ordination of priests and the consecration of Bishops.

Even if several confect a sacrament, nevertheless it will be one sacrament, because Christ, who is the one principal minister, effects one thing through several (St. Thomas, III, q. 67, a. 6).

3. Finally, one and the same person can confer a sacrament on several at the same time, for example baptize or absolve several. Yet this too is illicit outside a case of necessity (St. Alphonsus, VI, 29).

¹ 17 November 1916 (A.A.S. 1916, p. 479); cf. Roman Ritual, title 2, chapter 1, n. 10.

III. The minister must confer the sacrament on a subject distinct from himself. This is drawn both from the common doctrine of theologians and the constant practice of the Church, and from the form of several sacraments. There is added that Innocent III declared null the Baptism which a certain Jew had ministered to himself in danger of death, adding this reason: "Since there ought to be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, saying to the Apostles: Go, baptize all nations in the name, etc." (St. Thomas, q. 66, a. 5, ad 4; q. 82, a. 4, ad 2).¹ Except the Most Holy Eucharist and Matrimony.

¹ Cf. Decretals, IV, III, 42.

IV. The minister must duly unite matter and form, because they must constitute one sign. A moral union suffices, or rather that union by which the words of the form, according to common estimation, affect the matter and so constitute one thing with it (St. Alphonsus, VI, 9). Now:

1. In Baptism, Confirmation, Order, and Extreme Unction it certainly suffices that matter and form coexist in some part of themselves, or that one be begun before the other is completed. Likewise, it seems to suffice that the form be pronounced immediately before or immediately after the application of the matter. The reason is that even on this supposition the words "I baptize you," etc., "I sign you," etc., still seem to signify the actual application of the matter. There is added that the Holy Office several times resolved that the sacrament of the priesthood was not to be repeated in the case in which the Bishop had had his extended hand over the ordinands immediately before the prayer Oremus;¹ likewise in the case in which the ordinand had touched the instruments after the form had been uttered.² These resolutions seem also to be applicable to Baptism, Confirmation, and Extreme Unction. Nevertheless, the reason for doubting with regard to these three sacraments, especially with regard to Baptism, is taken from the fact that the Holy Office on 2 May 1858 declared that Baptism is always to be repeated under condition whenever "after the washing has been wholly completed, the form is pronounced, or conversely, when the pronouncing of the form has been completed, one proceeds to the washing."³ For the rest, a very brief delay would render the sacrament doubtful, but the delay of one Our Father would render it null (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.). For liceity it is required that matter and form perfectly coexist.⁴

2. In Penance, because it was instituted after the manner of a judgment, a greater interval can intervene.

3. In Matrimony there is always had union of matter and form when the consent of one is placed, the consent of the other not having been retracted; for it has and follows the nature of a contract (St. Alphonsus, VI, 9).

4. In the Eucharist there is discussion rather of the presence of the matter than of its union with the form; here, however, it is required that the matter be physically present, because otherwise the words "this" and "here" are not verified (St. Alphonsus, VI, 9).

¹ 12 September 1877; 30 November 1898; 14 December 1898.

² 17 March 1897.

³ Note, however, that at the time the response was given, the value of Baptism conferred in this way was doubted more than today. Considering this together with the declarations afterwards issued concerning Order, it is permissible to doubt whether the Sacred Congregation, if again consulted, would give the same response.

⁴ Roman Ritual, title 2, chapter 1, n. 8; title 5, chapter 1, n. 18.

V. The minister must use neither matter nor form substantially vitiated. Now:

1. A substantial change of matter is had when a thing is used which, according to common estimation, differs from the thing which the Church uses, as if in Baptism you should use wine instead of water. If, however, the matter is the same thing in reality, either wholly or as to the greater quantity, but is called by a different name and is used for a different use, it is rather doubtfully valid than certainly invalid, as if someone were to baptize with moisture flowing from a vine (St. Alphonsus, VI, 11).

2. A substantial change of form is had when the words, according to common estimation, have a meaning different from that which must be expressed according to the mind of Christ (St. Alphonsus, VI, 11, 221). If the change is made into words which can be taken in a twofold sense, namely a sacramental one and a foreign one, the change is substantial or accidental according as the minister intends the foreign or the sacramental sense; since even in the common intercourse of men an ambiguous sense must be determined by the speaker himself. Besides, it can happen that a change which, considering only the grammatical sense, is substantial, is in fact accidental or substantial according as it proceeds from inadvertence or ignorance, or from a heretical mind. Thus if someone in consecration, from inadvertence, were to say, "Here" in place of "This is My Body," the consecration would be valid; otherwise if he intended the word "here" in the sense of Luther, or adverbially (St. Alphonsus, VI, 110). For the rest, a change of form can occur:

a) By substitution of words, as if in Baptism it were said: I wash you, etc. But it is accidental or substantial according as the substituted words are synonymous or not synonymous.

b) By transposition, as if someone says: I baptize you, etc. This will generally be accidental.

c) By omission, as if in consecration the word for is omitted. It must be seen whether or not an essential word is omitted, namely one by which the due sense is taken away.

d) By corruption, as can happen because of stammering, haste, or inexperience, as if someone says: This is my boby. In the case the change is generally accidental.

e) By addition, as if in Baptism it is said: I baptize you in the name of the Father, who created you, etc. Further, a change of this kind is more easily substantial if what is false is added than if what is true is added; likewise if the change is made with a heretical mind than otherwise.

f) By interruption. Further:

a) Interruption of the words of the form is substantial or accidental according as it is or is not so great that the words before those hearing no longer effect the complete sense intended by Christ.

b) Interruption of the syllables of the same word, if it occurs by the interposition of several words or of one word, as if it were said: I bap- (be silent) -tize you, etc., renders the value doubtful. Otherwise if it occurs by a cough or a similar way and is very brief (St. Alphonsus, VI, 11, 221).

3. A substantial change, as one which renders the sacrament invalid, is a grave sin; an accidental change is gravely or lightly forbidden according as it greatly or lightly opposes the use and precept of the Church.

VI. The minister must utter the sacramental form by voice, that is, by the organs ordered to speaking. Therefore vocal pronunciation is required. Besides, at least practically, the pronunciation ought to be audible of itself, because it is doubtful whether pronunciation which of itself is not audible can be called vocal (St. Alphonsus, VI, 414).