Using probable matter or form

Except in case of necessity it is not lawful in the administration of the sacraments to use only probable matter or a probably valid form. An opinion contrary to this doctrine was condemned by Innocent XI, March 2, 1679. Justice and charity, which demand that the minister confer a sacrament validly, and do nothing to imperil its validity, require that he should use only certain matter and the certainly valid form as far as possible. Reverence also for the sacrament and for Christ, who instituted it, makes it necessary to take all due care that when a sacrament is administered it should be properly and validly administered. If, however, in a particular case only doubtful matter is at hand, and unless the sacrament is at once administered, the subject may be altogether deprived of it, then such doubtful matter may be used, since the reasons to the contrary then cease to be valid, because the sacraments were made for the benefit of man, not man for the sacraments.

48. Therefore it is not lawful to follow a probable opinion, but we must wholly choose the safer in all those things which are necessary, by necessity of means, to salvation, where the fact itself, or the truth of the thing, alone is considered. Hence we must embrace the safer religion. Proposition 4 condemned by Innocent XI; L. I, n. 43. - In the conferral of the sacraments the minister is bound to follow the safer sentence, unless necessity is present or the Church supplies; for again there is question of the truth of the thing. But the sacraments would not be had unless those things were really placed which Christ instituted for their validity. Proposition 1 condemned by Innocent XI. Unless necessity is present: "for in extreme necessity we can well use any opinion whatever, not only probable but even slightly probable, for the validity of the sacrament... provided the sacrament is conferred under condition; because the condition sufficiently repairs the injury to the sacrament if perhaps it is conferred invalidly; and, on the contrary, necessity is a sufficient and just cause for conferring the sacraments conditionally." L. I, n. 49. Unless the Church supplies: for "we can licitly use a probable opinion where the Church is presumed to supply, as can happen in the sacrament of matrimony for convalidating a contract only probably valid, if perhaps that contract is null because of an impediment which the Church removes by supplying, and in the sacrament of penance for supplying the jurisdiction of the confessor, if perhaps it is lacking." L. I, n. 50.

Must matter and form be certain? - In confecting a sacrament outside the case of necessity, certain matter and form must be used, insofar as they can be had. The reason is that probability of invalidity does not remove the danger, which is both against the reverence owed to the sacrament, and often against charity toward the neighbor, and often also against justice. This is furthermore established from proposition 1 condemned by Innocent XI.

Outside the case of necessity. For since the sacraments exist for men, they can and must be conferred, although certainty concerning the validity of the sacrament is not had, whenever there is present not only extreme necessity, but also grave necessity or utility, especially if it is prudently feared that, the present occasion being passed over, they will no longer be conferred afterwards. The reason is that since irreverence or contempt is situated in some human action which of itself is insulting, all irreverence and contempt of the sacrament indeed ceases if a cause is present which by the common opinion of men removes every appearance of contempt. Insofar as they can be had: for where it is a question, for example, of a disposition necessary for the sacrament of penance, scarcely any judgment can be had about it other than prudent and probable.

Often it is against charity and against justice to use uncertain form or matter; for neither would be the case if the one receiving consented. But although then harm to the neighbor and any malice against charity and justice would be absent, nevertheless irreverence toward the sacrament and sacrilege both of the minister and of the recipient would not be absent; for holy things are to be treated holily. But the harm which can be brought upon the neighbor by uncertain matter or form can be most grave, as in the baptism of an infant; simply grave, as in extreme unction of the dying; light, as in absolution of venial sins; and also none, as in the ordination of a woman.

What has been said about doubtful matter and form is likewise to be said about a subject perhaps incapable. But the matter is explored concerning baptism and penance, and the truer opinion is concerning confirmation and extreme unction. Roman Ritual on the Sacrament of baptism and extreme unction. - L. 28, 162, 432 IV, 449; Lugo, de Poenit. d. 14, n. 110, 111; La Croix 105.

You will resolve: When danger of death is urgent, baptism and penance can and must be conferred even with the lowest degree of probability. Therefore one dying is to be baptized even with rose-water, or on the foot, Roman Ritual on Baptism of children, or on the fingers or hair. But confirmation and extreme unction can and must be conferred if it is truly probable that neither matter nor form is lacking, and scandal is absent; for scandal also must be removed, while the eternal salvation of another is preserved. - From the Roman Ritual, on the Sacrament of extreme unction, a sick person is to be anointed concerning whom it is doubted whether he still lives. From St. Alphonsus 719, likewise a child concerning whose use of reason there is doubt is to be anointed under condition. In that danger it is also lawful to confer extreme unction with oil of catechumens. And if one about to die cannot confess and communicate, it is lawful to confer on him even extreme unction with the lowest degree of probability, e.g., if he has been destitute of senses in the act of sin, in drunkenness, in a fight; since then the sacrament becomes one of necessity. Likewise in the same danger it is lawful to confer confirmation with blessed oil without balsam.

But not by imposition of hands alone, because of the novelty of the thing and the wonder and scandal of bystanders. - L. 82, 103, 107, 111, 162, 702, d. 2, 408, 732, 751.

It is never lawful to confer order, especially the priesthood, with doubt about its value, because no necessity and utility of the recipient is had in it, and on the contrary there is had a most grave danger to the Christian republic. - Cf. 345, 348.

196. • DEFINITIONS. Matter is the sensible thing to be determined to the nature of a sacrament by the form. Hence matter is that which in the Sacrament is more indifferent, and has a less perfect signification; and therefore it must be determined by another thing for signifying.

Matter is twofold: one remote, and the other proximate. The former is the sensible thing itself which is employed in the Sacrament, or the thing about which the sacramental action is exercised. The latter is the very application or use of the remote matter in the sacramental action.

But form is the part of the Sacrament which determines the matter for effecting the sacrament, and which ordinarily consists in words pronounced by the Minister.

197. Principles. - I. Matter and form are altogether necessary for the validity of a Sacrament; therefore, with either one lacking, Sacraments cannot be confected. The reason is that a Sacrament cannot be confected except in that mode in which Christ instituted it, who alone is the author of the Sacraments. It is of faith. This is clear besides from dogmatic definitions, especially from the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union, etc.

II. In confecting a Sacrament outside a case of necessity, matter and form ought morally to be employed, as far as they can be had ¹, certain. The reason is that, unless necessity urges, it is not permitted to use probability which does not remove the danger of invalidity.

¹ ** To this pertains the first of the propositions proscribed by Innocent XI: It is not illicit in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion concerning the validity of the sacrament, the safer opinion having been left aside, unless law, agreement, or danger of incurring grave harm forbids it. Hence an opinion merely probable is not to be used in the conferral of baptism, of priestly Order, or of episcopal Order.

But the Author aptly adds, as far as it can be had; for where there is question, for example, of the disposition necessary for the sacrament of penance, scarcely anything else can be had concerning it than a certain prudent and probable judgment.

III. Matter and form must be united or applied by the same Minister and toward the same subject. The reason is that if one were to place the matter, and another the form, the words of the form would not be verified; for the Minister who, for example, would say: I baptize thee, while another poured the water, would pronounce what is false, since he himself would not baptize.

IV. ² In order that a sacrament be valid, there must be between the matter and the form, for example between the pouring of water and the pronouncing of the words, 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 to constitute with it one total sign. St. Alphonsus (Lib. 6, n. 8) with Busembaum.

² ** Those things are supplied which Gury seems to promise in the title of the paragraph, but in reality omitted.

From this: 1º In Baptism, Confirmation, Unction, and Order, such a conjunction is required that while the minister pronounces the words, he is morally judged also to wash, etc. Busembaum, ibid. ³.

³ ** Lugo (De Sacram., Disp. 2, n. 99), when about to explain how in the ordination of a Priest moral conjunction is had between the form and the first imposition of hands, which is done while no form is pronounced, discusses this matter thus: The imposition of hands is not so distant from the utterance of the form which afterwards follows, that they are not judged to have sufficient moral nearness; for there ought not to be physical coexistence, as is clear in Deacons, to whom the form is said to all at once, and afterwards they successively touch the book; wherefore if one hundred Deacons were ordained together, without doubt there would be great physical distance between the utterance of the form and the contact of the book with respect to the last; but nevertheless there is sufficient moral presence, because the same action is morally continued without moral interruption. So also after hands are imposed upon Priests, up to those words Receive power, etc., the same moral action is continued, by anointing them and preparing them so that they may more fittingly receive the grace of the Holy Spirit. But afterwards the matter is more explicated and another part of the same matter is applied together with the form: wherefore that distance, whatever it may be, is not so much between matter and form as between part and part of the matter, which certainly need not physically coexist with one another... Wherefore when it is a question of creating a Priest, that whole action by which insignia, vestments, instruments, and other things are solemnly given to him is judged to be one and the same action, just as the coronation of a Pontiff or of a King is drawn out for a long time, and divided into several actions, and interrupted by various solemnities, yet is reckoned the same action.

2º In Penance absolution can be deferred for a sufficiently long time, as in trials a sentence follows after examination of the cause. Busembaum, ibid. ⁴.

⁴ ** St. Alphonsus adds in this place (Lib. 6, n. 9): In this Sacrament such distance ought not to be so great as happens in a forensic trial. If these words merely indicated that it is not necessary that absolution be deferred as long as the sentences of judges sometimes are wont to be deferred in a forensic cause, they would express the most common and certain doctrine. But then the holy Doctor subjoins: But Croix, Lib. 6, n. 8, says with Tamburini, that a penitent is validly absolved after an hour from confession. From these words you might almost gather that according to the mind of the holy Doctor the due conjunction between matter and form is not preserved if such a delay intervenes as sometimes occurs in a forensic trial. And since here the question concerns that conjunction between those two parts of the sacrament which pertains to validity, the matter is certainly of grave moment. - Therefore the words of the holy Doctor are to be understood discreetly. For otherwise the most common opinion of all Doctors is that which Reiffenstuel expresses thus (Tr. 4, Dist. 1, Q. 2, n. 29): In the Sacrament of Penance a much greater distance can be admitted between the accusation of the penitent and the absolution of the priest: since this sacrament is performed by way of judgment; but in judgment accusation is presupposed to absolution, nor is it required that the sentence of the judge be conjoined in time with the accusation of the accused himself. And although all the Doctors use this reason, namely that this sacrament is performed by way of judgment, nevertheless there is found no trace of that limitation which St. Alphonsus suggests. Indeed the Salmanticenses (Tr. 1, Cap. 4, nn. 20 and 28) concede, and even contend, that the conjunction or moral coexistence is fittingly preserved if one who confessed on one day is absolved on another day. But Coninck (ad Q. 60, art. 6, n. 41) writes: In Confession absolution could be deferred for a sufficiently long time; just as in a trial absolution or condemnation is often wont to follow the examination of the cause after a long time. And Henriquez (Lib. 1, Cap. 9, n. 11): In the Sacrament of Penance, because it is a judgment, the matter, which is a human act, is called sufficiently present, although the confession of sins precedes the form by many days. Wherefore Roncaglia refers the reader to those things which are commonly handed down by the Doctors about deferring absolution for penitents. For thus he says (Tr. 16, C. 3, Q. 2, Resp. 2): But because Penance was instituted by way of judgment, in which it is not necessary that the sentence be altogether simultaneous with the confession of the crime, hence it is that absolution can be deferred after the confession has been heard, as will be said in its place. And in reality, whatever delay of absolution you may finally imagine, the two parts of the Sacrament will always have to be judged sufficiently conjoined, as often as it is morally understood that this one judgment is being performed. Thus well Suarez (In 3 Part, Tom. 3, Disp. 2, Sect. 2): In that sacrament that simultaneity suffices which is morally enough that the same judgment be understood to be performed and confirmed by the sentence.

But that which Croix reports from Tamburini (Lib. 6, P. 1, n. 8) is nothing. For Tamburini (De Sacr., Lib. 4, C. 1, § 1, n. 6) merely wishes to indicate the difference which is had concerning the conjunction of matter and form, if there is question of the Sacrament of Penance and of Extreme Unction. Namely, with two cases proposed, he says that an interval of one hour in no way stands in the way in the Sacrament of Penance, but does stand in the way if there is question of Extreme Unction.

3º In matrimony the consent of one can follow the consent of the other so long as this latter consent is judged morally to remain, as in other contracts. Busembaum, ibid.

198. • A twofold change is given both in matter and in form, namely substantial and accidental.

A substantial change will be in the matter if, according to the use and estimation of men, this cannot be called the same as that which was determined by Christ; but in the form, if the sense of the words intended by Christ is changed into another. But an accidental change is called one which concerns only the qualities of the thing, or which does not change the sense of the words. - St. Ligorius, n. 11.

199. Principles. - I. Every substantial change in the matter and form of a Sacrament invalidates the Sacrament, because it is no longer the rite instituted by Christ; and if it is voluntary, it constitutes grave sin, because it inflicts a grave injury upon the author of the rite.

II. No accidental change in the matter and form invalidates a Sacrament; nevertheless it induces grave or light sin, according as it is, or is not, notable.

The form of the Sacraments can be changed in many ways, namely by subtraction of a syllable or of words, addition, variation of language or of words, transposition of words, corruption of the same, for example by changing letters, and interruption. These are shown in the following little verses:

Do not take anything from the form, do not add anything, do not vary anything; Beware of transmuting, corrupting the words, delaying.

But the change will much more easily be substantial at the beginning than at the end of the words, because the sense will more easily be changed for hearers, for example in the name of the mother instead of of the father. In practice beware especially of precipitation.

200. • A threefold rule is to be established:

I. The Sacraments can be repeated whenever there is a prudent doubt concerning their validity. The reason is that if perhaps the Sacrament were not valid, those who approach to receive it would be deprived of its fruit. But that the prudent fear of so great an inconvenience is a sufficient reason why the Sacrament be repeated is clear from the very well-known axiom: The Sacraments are for men.

II. Sacraments generally cannot be repeated without grave sin when there is not present a prudent doubt concerning their validity. The reason is that they would be repeated without cause, and therefore a grave injury would be inflicted upon them.

III. Sacraments ought to be repeated whenever, upon a prudent doubt having arisen concerning their validity, charity, justice, and religion require it, namely whenever the nullity of the Sacrament, if perhaps it were present, would turn to the harm of neighbor and sometimes to the contempt or irreverence of Religion. But then they are to be repeated only conditionally, so that reverence for the Sacrament may be provided for. - Voit, n. 29 and following. - See St. Ligorius, n. 27 and following.

201. You will resolve. - The Sacraments that are more necessary, and that are conferred only once, namely Baptism and Order, are more readily to be repeated, even if a much greater probability militates for the validity of the sacrament against reasons doubtful or slenderly probable in the opposite direction. - Thus commonly.

2º Absolution is to be repeated with a penitent guilty of mortal sin if there is prudent doubt concerning the due pronouncing of the form. But if the penitent is not in the state of mortal sin ⁵, it will not be necessary to repeat the form, since Communion can be permitted to him even without absolution.

⁵ ** Perhaps you would say better: If the penitent has not brought necessary matter; for it certainly can happen that someone is in the state of grace, and nevertheless has matter which must necessarily be subjected to the keys, for example a grave fault omitted in the preceding confession from forgetfulness, which indeed had then been remitted indirectly, but nevertheless still needs absolution.

3º A Minister who lightly doubts, and does not know why he fears, or merely does not reflexively remember that he pronounced the words of the form, sins mortally per se if he repeats the form, or even repeats one word three or four times. The reason is that he changes the form, and introduces a new rite concerning the gravest action of all. Moreover he presents Christ, whom he represents, as speaking ridiculously. In practice, however, scrupulous persons who repeat the form are for the most part excused from mortal sin, indeed often even from venial sin, because, being too agitated by scruples, from perplexity or without advertence, they act thus foolishly. - Thus Voit, n. 27. - Elbel, n. 14. - Gobat, tract. 3, n. 94, etc.

4º If in Mass after consecration a doubt arises for you concerning the due pronouncing of the form, or concerning total omission, you ought and can repeat nothing, since otherwise you are not accustomed to omit these things: for one must judge from what commonly happens, unless, however, you doubt very probably, as the Rubric speaks. - See St. Ligorius, n. 224.

18. Principle: Outside a case of urgent spiritual necessity, it is a grave sin to employ matter that is not morally certain.⁵³

Explanation. Since the validity of the sacraments depends upon matter and form, there is a grave obligation to employ certain and prescribed matter and form in conferring the sacraments. Therefore, whenever there is question of matter and form, and consequently of the validity of the sacraments, it is not lawful to follow even the more probable opinion, or to employ doubtful form or matter. The reason is that otherwise the sacrament would be frivolously exposed to the danger of nullity, which indeed would inflict grave irreverence upon God. Hence the following proposition was condemned by Innocent XI: "It is not illicit in conferring the sacraments to follow a probable opinion concerning the validity of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned, unless law, agreement, or danger of incurring grave harm forbids it. Hence a merely probable opinion is not to be employed in the conferral of baptism, priestly or episcopal order."⁵⁴

I said, however: outside a case of urgent spiritual necessity. For the sacraments are for men, not men for the sacraments. Therefore, it must be presumed that Christ the Lord, on account of His infinite charity toward us, wills that provision be made for the salvation of men even with danger of the nullity of the sacrament, when this cannot be done otherwise. Hence, for example, when clean water is lacking, baptism can, and indeed must, be administered with coffee to a child about to die; sacramental absolution can be imparted to a dying man deprived of his senses, even if the priest doubts his disposition and even whether he received baptism. The same holds for extreme unction, which can licitly be administered with chrism (when the oil of the sick is lacking), when the dying man, perhaps existing in mortal sin, cannot receive the sacrament of penance. In a word: whenever even the least probability is present that a sacrament can be administered validly, it can and must be administered (conditionally), if otherwise the man is in urgent danger of eternal salvation. Outside urgent necessity, however, it is not lawful to administer the sacraments in this manner. Hence a priest cannot consecrate doubtful matter in order to give Communion to a dying man, since he can be saved even without Communion.

How a confessor ought to act if he doubts the sufficient contrition of the penitent, see below in the treatise on penance.

⁵³ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 29.

⁵⁴ Denz., n. 1151. Cf. the explanation of this condemned proposition in Concina, De sacr. in gen. l. 1, diss. unic., c. 1, where it is also asserted that this condemned proposition was defended by more than seventy probabilists.

85. Scholion. On probabilism in administering the sacraments. Outside a case of grave necessity it is not lawful to follow a probable opinion, leaving aside the safer one, when the validity of the sacraments is at issue, as is evident from proposition 1 condemned by Innocent XI: "It is not illicit in conferring the sacraments to follow a probable opinion concerning the validity of the sacrament, leaving aside the safer one...."³¹⁸

But I say, first: outside a case of grave necessity. For the sacraments are for men, and therefore whenever the spiritual salvation of a man is gravely endangered, the minister not only can but must administer the sacrament, at least conditionally; for example, he must absolve a man deprived of his senses, although perhaps he is already dead or otherwise indisposed.

I say, second: when the validity of the sacraments is at issue, for if the Church is rightly presumed to supply those things which are required for the validity of a sacrament, the matter stands otherwise. Therefore, for example, in the sacrament of penance it is sometimes lawful to give absolution with probable jurisdiction, which, if it did not suffice, the Church would supply. Likewise, if there is question of a diriment impediment to matrimony introduced by ecclesiastical law, which the Church is able to relax for a legitimate cause, it is sometimes lawful to employ a solidly probable opinion, because then the sacraments are not treated irreverently nor exposed to the danger of nullity. For the whole reason why it is not lawful in conferring the sacraments to employ a probable opinion while leaving aside the safer one is the reverence owed to the sacraments, lest, namely, they be exposed to the danger of nullity without a most grave cause.³¹⁹

³¹⁸ Denz., n. 1151.

³¹⁹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 1, nn. 49-50 and l. 6, n. 57.

St. Thomas III, q. 60, a. 7 and 8.

19. Notions. - It must be noted beforehand:

1. that the determination of matter and form was not left to the choice of men, as is clear from the preceding article, but was made by Christ or, perhaps partially, by the Church, but in such a way that they cannot be changed by the minister;

2. that in matter and form there is distinguished the essential part, without which the essence of the sacrament does not subsist and the sacrament is not valid; and the perfecting or merely integral part, which concurs in constituting the sacrament, without which nevertheless it is valid, but imperfect or incomplete, for example satisfaction in fact with respect to Penance, the anointing of the feet in Extreme Unction, the words: in the name of the Father... for the form of absolution.

20. Principles. - I. A change made deliberately by the minister with the intention of changing the essentials of the sacramental rite renders the sacrament invalid, even if a legitimate rite remains, because the minister does not seem to have the intention of doing what the Church does.

II. Every essential change in matter or form renders the sacrament invalid. An essential change is present:

1. When the matter which is employed, according to the common usage and estimation of men, does not agree in the same ratio and name with the essential matter which the Church employs, even if perhaps physically it does not differ, for example if wine or ice is taken in place of water.

This can happen¹ a) by defect of completion, if the matter is not yet perfect for natural use, for example raw bread;

¹ On these things cf. Cappello, cited work I, n. 22.

b) by corruption, if the matter has lost its former nature, for example moldy bread or vinegar;

c) by admixture of another matter, so that from the very nature of the thing or from the estimation of men there is held to be a certain new matter, and not the former matter, for example if barley is mixed with wheat in great quantity.

2. When the very sense of the form is corrupted.

This happens: a) if the words have a sense diverse from the sense intended by the Church, for example if someone were to say: hic (adverbially) est corpus; I baptize in the name of the mother;

b) if they are pronounced with a great interruption, so that morally they do not seem to cohere: the interruption of syllables much more easily changes the sense than the interruption of words; whence in practice the word begun is to be repeated unless there is a very slight interruption;

c) if they are pronounced separately by several persons, or by him who does not place the matter when this is to be applied to the subject;

d) if the essentials are omitted partially, for example for Baptism: te, in the name of the Father.

III. On the contrary, an accidental change does not render the sacrament invalid. An accidental change is present:

1. When the matter, according to the common estimation, remains the same, but some accident of it is changed contrary to the precept of the Church or the reverence of the sacrament, for example if someone without necessity baptizes in water not blessed or turbid.

2. When a change in the form leaves the due sense.

This happens in several ways: a) by a mere change of language or by the use of several languages in the same form;

b) by transmutation of words into words that are altogether synonymous from common usage, for example: I wash thee, I cleanse thee;

c) by mere transposition of words or inversion of order, for example: I baptize thee, this is My body;

d) by a small interruption in pronunciation, provided the form remains morally one, for example if someone says: I baptize thee, be silent! in the name..., or if for a few moments he coughs or sneezes between the words;

e) by an addition which does not change the sense, for example: in the name of the Father the creator...; I commend thee to the Blessed Virgin Mary and I baptize thee...;

f) by subtraction of a word or syllable which is not of the essence: I, for;

g) by a small corruption or mutilation of a word from haste or stammering, for example: in nomine Patrias, et Filias..., copus, calis, e e ego.

IV. If the form is ambiguous or equivocal, so that, according to the common manner of speaking, it has a double sense, it depends on the intention of the minister whether the change is substantial or accidental, according as the form is uttered in the due sense or in a false sense.

Thus, for example: In the name of the Father and of the Daughter is a valid form if it is said thus from ignorance of the Latin tongue, but if it is said in order to introduce heresy it is invalid; - in the name of the greater Father and of the lesser Son... is valid in a Catholic sense, invalid in an Arian sense; - I baptize thee in the name of the Father, I baptize thee in the name of the Son, I baptize thee in the name of the Holy Spirit, if it is said to signify that the essence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is not the same, is invalid; otherwise it is valid, as among certain sects which have the right intention of uttering it (Holy Office, January 11, 1882).

21. Corollaries. - From this follow the conclusions:²

² Cappello, cited place.

1. An error of the minister, if it is merely internal, does not invalidate the form, provided a right intention is present; but if it is manifested exteriorly, it must be seen whether the essential words of the form remain whole or not: in the first case the sacrament is valid, in the other invalid.

2. A depraved intention of the minister can induce a substantial change of the form, when the minister deliberately uses substantially erroneous or equivocal words.

3. It is not necessary that the words of the form present of themselves the sense intended by Christ; it is required and suffices that from the way in which they are here and now uttered, according to the common manner of receiving them, they suggest such a sense to the hearers.

4. Grammatical errors, generally speaking, do not induce a substantial change of the form, unless a plainly diverse sense arises from them, or unless the words result not merely corrupted but wholly diverse, as if you were to say: I am baptized in the name... This also holds concerning corruption by defect of tongue, or by ignorance or haste.

22. A change of the matter or form of the sacraments is a sin of sacrilege. - For it includes irreverence toward the sacraments; and indeed:

1. An essential change is a mortal sin from its whole genus, because a) it always contains grave irreverence toward the sacrament, of which it is a simulation and mockery, and toward Christ, in whose name one ministering thus would act and would do nothing; b) besides, it is a grave sin against charity toward neighbor, because he is defrauded of a notable spiritual good; and c) against justice, at least if the administration of the sacrament falls upon the minister from office, indeed always, because by the very fact that he voluntarily undertakes in himself the administration of the sacrament, by tacit contract he obliges himself to administer it validly and rightly, as far as he can.

2. An accidental change, outside a case of necessity, is a sin of sacrilege, mortal from its own genus, because there is in the Church a grave precept, laid down from reverence toward the sacraments, imposed upon ministers, that they not administer the sacraments except with the solemnity, language, grammatical form, and ceremonies instituted by the Church observed (Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 13); which precept, however, admits lightness of matter.

Hence a) if the change is notable, the sin will be grave; b) if the change is slight, the sin will be venial, as if some priest in private Baptism used the vernacular language, or from negligence corrupted the form somewhat; unless, however, he acted thus from contempt, with danger of erring in the substance, or with grave scandal of the faithful.

23. Practical rules. - I. Outside necessity, it is never lawful to use doubtful or probable matter or form, indeed even matter or form probably valid.

For the value of the sacraments depends on Him who instituted or determined the matter and form; but the doubt or probability, even greater probability, of an opinion cannot bring it about that matter and form which were not instituted have been instituted, that inept matter and form become apt, that, for example, that which is not water become water; therefore one who uses them exposes himself to the danger not of confecting but of simulating a sacrament, and at the same time of inflicting detriment on his neighbor. Whence just as he who makes a sacrament null sins mortally against religion and charity or justice, so also he who exposes himself to the same danger. Hence the proposition which asserted that it is lawful in conferring the sacraments to follow a probable opinion concerning the value of the sacrament, with the safer opinion abandoned, was condemned by Innocent XI.³

³ Proposition 1 among the condemned: "It is not illicit in conferring the sacraments to follow a probable opinion concerning the value of the sacrament, with the safer one abandoned, unless law, convention, or danger of incurring grave harm forbids it; hence an opinion only probable must not be used in the conferral of Baptism, priestly Order, or episcopal Order."

II. In a case of urgent necessity or of great utility, when it cannot be done otherwise, it is lawful to use doubtful matter or form, at least for a sacrament of necessity. Thus, for example, an infant in danger of death must be baptized in doubtful matter if no other is present; a dying man doubtfully disposed is to be absolved.⁴

⁴ Except the Eucharist, for which, on account of the danger of idolatry, it is never lawful to employ probably invalid matter, unless perhaps for completing the sacrifice.

The reason is that in such a case the minister does not expose himself to the danger, but rather permits it, and he does not do injury to his neighbor, since he bestows upon him what he can bestow. In this case, so that the reverence of the sacrament may be cared for in some way, and irreverence, as far as possible, be repaired, the sacrament is to be administered under a condition: if I can, or if thou art capable; which condition then sufficiently repairs the irreverence of the sacrament (cf. n. 84, 3 A).

VI. It is not unlawful in conferring the sacraments to follow a probable opinion concerning the validity of the sacrament, the safer being left aside, unless law, agreement, or the danger of incurring grave loss forbid it. Hence a merely probable opinion is not to be used in the conferring of Baptism, of priestly Orders, or of the episcopate. This is the 1st.

X. QUESTION VII. Is it lawful in performing the sacraments to use doubtful matter or form? ANSWER. In sacraments which are necessary by necessity of means to salvation, such as are Baptism and Penance, the use of doubtful matter or form is lawful when extreme necessity urges, as theologians commonly teach. But outside the case of extreme necessity such use is unlawful; nay, even with extreme necessity urging, such use is unlawful in those sacraments which are not necessary by necessity of means to salvation.

1. It is not unlawful in conferring the sacraments to follow a probable opinion concerning the validity of the sacrament, the safer being left aside, unless law, agreement, or the danger of incurring grave loss forbid it. Hence a merely probable opinion is not to be used in the conferring of Baptism, of priestly Orders, or of the episcopate.