The Matter and Form of the Sacraments

9. Essential parts of a sacrament. Things and words, or, as we are now accustomed to speak, matter and form, intrinsically constitute a sacrament, a sensible sign, as essential parts; and these indeed must be performed by the minister with the intention of doing what the Church does: for by this intention the sacramental action is truly constituted as sacramental, or as signifying and causing sanctifying grace.

Therefore sacraments intrinsically consist of matter and form as of a material and formal cause; but they are perfected by this, that to these there accedes, as an efficient cause (ministerial), the intention of the minister performing the sacramental action. Therefore three things are essentially required for confecting a sacrament: matter, form, and the intention of the minister. For this reason the Council of Florence has these words in the decree for the Armenians: "All sacraments are perfected by three things, namely by things as matter, by words as form, and by the person of the minister conferring the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does; if any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not perfected."¹

¹ Cf. Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum, n. 590.

10. On valid, licit, worthy, and fruitful reception. a. Sacraments are said to be conferred and received validly, when none of those things is lacking which are essentially required for confecting a sacrament: for if these are present, the sacramental action is of itself apt to produce its effect. Therefore, if a sacrament is conferred or received invalidly, no sacrament is really had; and he who knowingly confers or receives a sacrament invalidly commits sacrilege.

b. Sacraments are said to be conferred or received licitly, if all those things are observed by the one conferring or receiving which, from the will of Christ and of the Church, must be observed besides the essentials of the sacrament. Therefore he who confers or receives a sacrament illicitly indeed confers or receives a true sacrament, but in its conferral or reception he commits grave or light sin, according as he neglects a precept of greater or lesser moment.

c. Sacraments are said to be conferred and received worthily, when in the minister and the receiver there are present the dispositions of soul which, from the will of God, are required for the sacrament to be administered or received rightly. Therefore he who knowingly receives or administers a sacrament unworthily commits sacrilege.

d. Sacraments are said to be received fruitfully, if they are received in such a way that their effect is actually obtained. He who receives a sacrament worthily, on his own part also receives it fruitfully.

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.

THE decree of Eugenius IV, for the instruction of the Armenians, lays down that all the sacraments consist essentially of three things: the matter, the form, and the minister who makes the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. And, it adds, if any one of these elements be wanting the sacrament is not made. The sacraments, then, are not simple, but composite signs, which consist of two distinct elements. One of these in technical language is called the matter, because it is that portion of the sacramental sign which is the most indeterminate with respect to conveying the meaning which the sacrament signifies. This matter is called remote when considered by itself; it is called proximate when it is taken and applied by the minister to the making of the sacrament. The second element consists of words, and this part is called the form of the sacrament, because the words determine the matter to the more complete signification expressed by the whole sacramental sign. Thus in Baptism the water, considered by itself, is the remote matter of the sacrament and does not necessarily signify washing; water may be used to slake the thirst, and for many other purposes. The application of the water to the person to be baptized is the proximate matter, and when this is done with the form of words, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” the whole composite rite assumes a religious aspect, and signifies, according to the intention of the minister, the washing away of sin from the soul.

The minister of a sacrament must necessarily use the matter and form which were instituted by Christ, for he alone as God-Man has the power to cause grace to be conveyed to the soul by means of sacred rites.

There must be no change made in the matter and form of the sacraments; not even the Church’s authority suffices for that. If a substantial change be made either in the matter or in the form, the sacrament is destroyed. The matter will be substantially changed if in the estimation of ordinary men it is no longer the same, but something else. Thus, if the wine has become vinegar, it cannot be used as the matter of the Eucharist. The form will be substantially changed if the sense is no longer the same, but different. Thus, ‘“ I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ” is the divinely instituted form for Baptism, and if the minister baptize with the words, “I baptize thee in the name of the Trinity ” it is no sacrament, because of the substantial change. It is not lawful to make any change in the matter and form of the sacraments, but if an accidental and not a substantial change be made, so that the matter and the sense of the form remain the same, the sacrament will not be rendered invalid, as a general rule. However, a change which in itself is slight and accidental may be made substantial by the perverse intention of the minister. For the sense may then be quite different, and that different sense is expressed in the form. Thus Pope Zacharias wrote to St Boniface that Baptism administered with the form, Baptizo te in nomine Patria, et Filia, et Spiritus Sancta, is valid when the mistakes are made through ignorance of Latin, and not through heresy or a perverse intention. If, then, such changes were introduced to give expression to heresy, the sense would be substantially changed and the form would be invalidated. Similarly, if Baptism were given with the form “* T baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” the sacrament would be invalid if the minister intended to baptize in the name of the Blessed Virgin as of one of the Persons in the Godhead; if the addition was made through mistaken devotion to the Mother of God the sacrament would not be invalid. On the principles just stated Leo XIII decided that Anglican ordinations are invalid.

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.

As the matter and the form of a sacrament constitute together one composite sign of grace, there must not be such an interval between them as to destroy their unity. In the holy Eucharist the form requires that the matter should be physically present at the time when the words of consecration are uttered. In the other sacraments it is not necessary that the matter and form should be put at the same time in order that the sacrament may be valid; it is sufficient for the validity if there be a moral union between them so that according to a moral estimate they form one whole. Thus in Baptism, although the rubrics prescribe that the words should be said while the water is poured on the head, yet if a brief interval, say the space of a Pater or of an Ave, separate the matter and the form, the sacrament will still be valid.

The matter and the form should be applied by one and the same minister. Baptism would not be valid if one poured the water while another pronounced the words. In the Eucharist, however, and in Extreme Unction there are more than one form, each with its separate matter, and the sacrament would be valid if one minister consecrated one species or anointed one sense and another finished the rite. This, however, is only lawful in case of necessity, nor is it lawful for many ministers to make one sacrament at the same time, except when newly ordained priests celebrate Mass with the Bishop who has ordained them.

The sacraments should ordinarily be administered absolutely according to the manner in which they were instituted by Christ. If, however, in any particular case it is doubtful whether a sacrament was validly administered and there will be danger of grave spiritual loss to the subject unless it is repeated, it may and should be repeated conditionally. The condition should be expressed when the rubrics require it, as in the case of Baptism and Extreme Unction. Otherwise the condition may be implicit, and it will be sufficient if the minister intend to do his duty according to the institution of Christ and the laws of Holy Mother Church.

The Ritual expressly warns the minister that the conditional form for administering Baptism is not to be used at random or lightly, but with prudence, when after diligent inquiry there is a probable doubt whether the sacrament was validly conferred before. The same principle is to be applied to the conditional administration of the other sacraments.”

Except in the case of Matrimony, which is a contract and follows in this the rules affecting other contracts, a sacrament cannot be validly administered under a condition which regards a future and uncertain event. The reason is because such a condition would of its nature suspend the effect of the sacrament, and when the condition is verified the matter and form no longer exist and cannot now produce their effect. Thus Baptism conferred on a child under the condition, “If you attain the age of reason,” would be null and void. On the other hand, a sacrament conferred under a past or present condition will be valid if the condition be verified; it will be invalid if the condition be not verified. We have already seen when it is lawful to administer a sacrament conditionally. There will bean obligation to do so whenever justice and charity due to our neighbour require it in order to prevent his spiritual loss, or when reverence for the sacraments and for Christ, who instituted them, makes it necessary in order to avoid their invalid administration (Can. 732, sec. 2). ¹: St Thomas, 2-2, q. 186, a. 5; can. 499, sec. 1.

¹ St Thomas, 2-2, q. 186, a. 5; can. 499, sec. 1.

Rules on the Invalid Use of the Matter and Form of the Sacraments.—(a) Since the matter and form are essential constituents without which the Sacraments are not had, it is sacrilegious to invalidate a Sacrament by substantial changes in either of these parts. The matter is changed substantially when it is so modified as currently to be considered and called something different from the element appointed by Christ. Thus, wine is unfit for the Eucharist if corrupted into vinegar, or made unsuitable as a drink (e.g., probably as long as it remains frozen), or notably adulterated (e.g., when it is mixed half and half with water). The form is changed substantially when it is so modified that to a listener it no longer conveys the sense intended by Christ. This happens when the changed form does not express the chief ideas of the correct form, as when it does not determine who is the minister of Penance (e.g., “You are absolved”), or who is the subject of Baptism (e.g., “Ego baptizo in nomine, etc.”), or what is the effect of the Eucharist (e.g., “Hoc non est corpus meum,” “Hoc est corpus,” “Hic meum est corpus”), or the action of the minister of Penance (e.g., “Ego abluo te a peccatis”), or the profession in Baptism of faith in the Trinity (e.g., “Ego te baptizo, Amen”).

(b) Since the matter and form are parts of a single composite sign, it is sacrilegious to invalidate a Sacrament by substantial separations, which destroy the continuity or unity of signification. There is a substantial separation within the form when such long intervals occur between the pronunciation of its syllables or words that it is not in common estimation a united sentence or proposition; for example, if the celebrant says, “Hoc est cor-,” then sneezes two or three times, and (instead of repeating the words) concludes “-pus meum,” or says “Hoc est corpus” and after an interruption of several minutes (instead of repeating) finishes with: “meum.” There is substantial separation between the matter and form, if the former is applied by one minister and the latter is spoken by another, although the form declares that the matter is applied by the speaker of the form: for example, if Titus pours the water while Claudius says: “I baptize thee, etc.” Even when the same minister applies both matter and form, there is a substantial separation between these parts when the form is not spoken at the same time or for the same time that the matter is posited, and thereby, from the special character of the Sacrament, leaves the signification of the sacramental matter unsettled. This happens when the form is spoken too long before or too long after the presence or application of the matter, or when the form is limited by a future condition which will not be verified during the continuance of the matter (see 2668).

Simultaneity of Matter and Form.—The simultaneity of matter and form which validity requires must be either moral or physical according to the character of the Sacrament.

(a) There is physical simultaneity when matter and form are present in the same instants of time. This kind of union is demanded in the Eucharist, for it has the character of a transubstantiation of bread and Wine present at the moments the words of consecration are said over them. There would be no Sacrament if the bread were absent even during a part of the consecration.

(b) There is a moral simultaneity like to the physical contemporaneousness when the matter and form are partly present in the same instants of time, and perhaps also (as some hold) when one follows the other with such close succession that not more than a Pater or Ave could be said between them. This kind of union is the maximum in Penance and Matrimony, for absolution must follow after confession, and conjugal acceptance must follow after conjugal offer. It suffices in Baptism, Confirmation, Extreme Unction, and Orders; for these four Sacraments do not consecrate the matter (and hence some little separation is allowed), but they do signify in the present tense the bestowal of grace through the application of the matter (and hence any separation must be of the slightest).

(c) There is a purely moral simultaneity when the form follows the matter after a somewhat considerable interval of time has elapsed, but with a connection between the two based on human usage which carries the matter on in human estimation over to the time the form is employed. This suffices in Penance and Matrimony. Penance has the character of a judicial process, whose unity is not destroyed by some little delay between the discussion and the sentence; and hence it seems that absolution could be given validly an hour after confession. Matrimony has the character of a contract, whose unity is preserved even in spite of a long interval between the date of consent of the first party and the date of consent of the second party.

Lawfulness of Moral Simultaneity in the Sacraments Other than the Eucharist.—(a) In Baptism, Confirmation, Extreme Unction, and Orders, it would seem on account of the danger of nullity to be a serious sin to exclude all physical simultaneity between matter and form (e.g., to pour all the water and then to begin the words: “I baptize thee, etc.,” or vice versa). In practice the Rubrics should be followed.

(b) In Penance and Matrimony it is more or less sinful to make needless, though not invalidating, delays. In ordinary practice the confessor should absolve as soon as the confession has been heard and the penance accepted, and the bride should express her consent immediately after the bridegroom has expressed his.

Accidental Changes or Separations as to Matter and Form.—(a) These administrations are not invalid, for they preserve the essence of the elements or the sense of the words appointed by Christ. Examples of accidental change of matter are baptismal water to which a relatively very small quantity of wine has been added, or wine for the Eucharist to which a relatively trifling amount of water has been added. The form is accidentally modified if translated into the vernacular or rendered by synonymous words (e.g., “Ego abluo te, etc.”), or if an unimportant word (e.g., “enim”) is added or subtracted, or if the words are transposed or partially repeated or unintentionally mispronounced without detriment to sense (e.g., “Hoc est meum corpus,” “Hoc, hoc, est, est, etc.,” “Hoc est copus meum”). There is accidental separation when slight pauses are made between words, or when an interval not destructive of the sense falls between the use of the matter and the use of the form (see 2655, 2656).

(b) These administrations are unlawful and from their nature mortally sinful, since they are transgressions of a precept of the Church meant to safeguard respect for the Sacraments of Christ, and they are therefore opposed to the virtue of religion (2147). But the sin may be venial by reason of lightness of matter (e.g., omission of the word “enim”), or of imperfection of the act. Scandal, danger of invalidity, contempt, and bad intention would make even a small change a serious sin. In practice the rule to follow is to observe exactly the prescribed matter and form and entire rite, to pronounce the words clearly and slowly, to repeat the form when any involuntary interruption happens between its essential parts, and to unite the matter and form as closely as possible.

Substantial Changes or Separations.—Substantial changes or separations a fortiori are grave sins. They offend against religion (since they make a mockery of the sacred signs appointed by Christ), against obedience (since they disregard a most serious precept of the Church), against charity (since they deprive the recipient of sacramental grace), and against justice (at least when the minister is bound ex officio to confer the Sacrament, since there is then a quasi-contract with the recipient to administer the Sacrament correctly).

Doubtful Matter.—It is sometimes probable but not certain that an element suffices for the matter of a Sacrament (e.g., coffee or tea for Baptism, chrism for Extreme Unction). Hence the question: “Is it lawful to use probable matter in the administration of a Sacrament?”

(a) If certain matter cannot be had and the Sacrament is urgently necessary or very useful, probable matter may be used. For the Sacraments were instituted by Christ to benefit man (“The Sacraments are for men”), and hence it is not irreverent to give to one in need a probably valid Sacrament when a certainly valid Sacrament is impossible. Thus, a dying infant may and should be baptized with coffee, if no pure water can be procured in time; the last anointing may be conferred with chrism, if the oil of the sick cannot be had before a dying man will have expired.

(b) If certain matter can be had, or if the Sacrament is not urgently necessary or useful, probable matter may not be used without grave sin; for there is then no reason of necessity to justify the risk to which the Sacrament and perhaps also the recipient are exposed, Thus, it is not lawful to baptize with coffee when pure water can be secured, or to confirm with chrism not blessed by a bishop a dying man who had just received the last Sacraments, even though other chrism is unobtainable (see 661, 678, 711, and Denziger, n. 1151).

What and how many kinds is the matter of the sacraments? - The matter of a sacrament is some thing, or quasi-thing, or some action, determined from the institution of Christ for confecting the sacrament. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 5. - This matter is distinguished into remote and proximate. Remote matter is the thing itself to be used in the sacrament, e.g., water in baptism, chrism in confirmation, etc. Proximate matter is the application and use of the thing in the sacramental action, e.g., washing in baptism, anointing in confirmation, bread and wine insofar as they are subjected to the words of consecration in the Eucharist. Therefore proximate matter is matter which, together with the form, constitutes the sensible efficacious sign of grace. A thing or action of this kind has the character of matter in a sacrament, because it is more indifferent and has less perfect signification, and therefore must be determined to signify by something else.

What is the form of the sacraments? - The form of the sacraments is certain words determined from the institution of Christ for perfecting the sacrament by perfecting the signification of the thing or matter. For what things demonstrate more obscurely, words signify more clearly. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 6.

Can a sacrament be confected without matter or without form? - Matter and form are altogether necessary for the validity of a sacrament; therefore, if either is lacking, the sacraments cannot be confected. The reason is that a sacrament is and has its power from the institution of Christ. Therefore it cannot be confected except in that mode in which Christ instituted it. This is furthermore established from Florence, Decree for the Armenians, from tradition, and from the practice of the Church. C. Non ut 5 de Bapt.

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.

Does a change of matter and form invalidate the sacrament? - There can be a twofold change in the matter and form of the sacraments: substantial and accidental. A substantial change will be in the matter if this is physically corrupted, so that it seems to have lost its former nature; or if it can no longer serve its natural use; or if according to the common estimation of men it cannot be called the same as that which was determined by Christ: e.g., if wine has become vinegar, if ink is made from water, if wine and water are mixed in equal quantity. For it is judged neither wine nor water, but a mixture from water and wine, which can serve neither baptism nor the Eucharist. - But a change will be accidental if the matter, neither physically nor morally speaking, loses its former nature, nor ceases to serve its natural use: e.g., if in a small quantity you mix water with wine or wine with water, the wine does not invalidate the Eucharist, nor the water baptism. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 4; Lugo, de Euchar. d. 4, n. 4; La Croix 261; L. 103, 207, q. 2.

A substantial change will be in the form if the sense of the words intended by Christ is so changed that it no longer signifies either the sacramental action which is perfected by the minister or the sacramental effect, e.g., if someone in baptism says: I absolve you; I wish to baptize you.

The change will be accidental if the form still signifies the same thing, e.g.: This is my body, with a grammatical error. Generally, errors of grammar change the form only accidentally; for the signification is regularly judged the same.

Every substantial change in the matter and form of a sacrament invalidates it, because it is no longer the rite instituted by Christ, but another. But if it is voluntary, it constitutes grave sin; for it brings grave injury upon the author of the rite. But no accidental change in the matter and form invalidates the sacrament, because the same rite still remains; yet it induces grave or light sin according as it is notable or of little moment. - La Croix 40, 46; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 8; q. 74, a. 3, 4, 5; q. 77, a. 8; Suppl. q. 29, a. 9 ad 3; 4 d. 2, a. 2, q. 2, 3, 4.

In how many ways can the form be changed? - The form can be changed: By addition; and the form is void if it changes the sense, or contains error against the form itself, e.g., I absolve you from your involuntary sins; I baptize you in the name of the Father greater, and of the Son lesser, and of the Holy Spirit created. If the sense is not changed, nor is error had against the form itself, the form is valid, e.g., I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit with this cold water, although it is hot. La Croix 64. If equivocation is had, the matter depends on the intention of the one pronouncing, e.g., I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. If the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary is added from mere devotion, the form is valid; but if it is added so that baptism is conferred also in that name, it is not valid. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 8.

By detraction; and the form again is void if words are taken away which signify the sacramental action, e.g., these words, I baptize you, or the subject, e.g., by saying I baptize; but otherwise if the pronoun of the minister is omitted, for it is tacitly present, e.g., I baptize you in the name, etc.

By corruption of words, which also voids the form, unless perhaps it happens either by a natural defect, e.g., in the tongue-tied, or by some natural haste, or by lack of skill, if nevertheless it does not altogether remove the sense; since in these cases corrupted words by common use are received and understood as complete, e.g., I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Daughter and of the Holy Spirit, with wrong endings, which form is valid because it does not remove the sense and is received as correct, since it is understood as corrupted, not diverse; or, I baptize you in the name of the Mother and of the Daughter and of the Holy Spirit, which form is not valid, because it altogether removes the sense and is received as altogether another and diverse one. Thus also it is not valid if it is said, I am baptized you, etc. Ordination is valid if the Bishop, through error, when several are touching the instruments at the same time in priestly ordination, pronounces the form in the singular: Receive, etc. Holy Office, January 16, 1901; Monitor Ecclesiasticus v. 12, p. 482 f. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 7; L. 110; de Cons. Dist. 86.

By transmutation of words; if they are altogether synonymous, the form is valid; if they are not synonymous, the form is not valid; if they are doubtful, the form will also be doubtful. Thus in baptism, I wash or I lave for I baptize, is valid; for it is a synonymous word. But I anoint is not valid, because it is not synonymous. Likewise I regenerate is not valid, or is doubtful; for it is not plainly synonymous, since it signifies the sacramental effect, but does not also signify the sacramental action. In penance, I cleanse you, for I absolve, more truly is not valid, for it is not synonymous. Likewise, Christ baptizes you, etc., absolves you, etc., more truly seems not to be valid, because the action of the minister is not expressed.

By translation of words from one language into another, which does not render the form void; for the signification is altogether the same, even if various idioms are used in one and the same form, e.g., io ti battezzo, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. L. 109; La Croix 30.

By transposition of words, which of itself makes only an accidental change; for the same signification altogether remains, e.g., if you say: You I baptize in the name, etc. L. 110. Yet transposition of words can altogether pervert the sense, or render it ambiguous, and then the form will be invalid or doubtful, as in the consecration of bread: mine is this body; this body is mine; this mine is body; this body, is mine. Yet the form would be valid if it were said: this, body is mine. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 8 ad 3; Lugo d. 2, n. 112.

By interruption of words; if this is notable, it harms the form, St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 8 ad 3; if small, it does not harm. St. Thomas ibid. Which interruption is long, which brief, must be judged by prudent estimation. Lugo d. 2, n. 112; Sporer n. 91. Commonly a brief interruption is judged to be one Our Father or Hail Mary.

But concerning a brief interruption of the syllables of the same word, some judge that it harms the form, others that it does not harm, others that it harms if the interruption was made by another word interjected; but by no means if it was made by some action interjected, e.g., breathing, coughing, yawning. L. n. 11; La Croix 33.

By substitution of other signs in place of words, e.g., nods, writing, etc., which, excepting matrimony, which consists in a contract, voids the form; for the form is in words. Florence, Decree for the Armenians; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 6; La Croix 37.

You will resolve: The form is valid, although it is not lawful, if a small interruption is made, e.g., I baptize you, and there is interposed: this water is too cold; or: sacristan, turn the page; in the name of the Father, etc. L. 11.

What sort of union must there be between matter and form? - In order that a sacrament be valid, there must be between matter and form, e.g., between the pouring of water and the pronunciation of the words, such conjunction that, according to the moral estimation of men, with the nature of each sacrament considered, one is understood to be referred to the other.

The reason is that from matter and form one sign must coalesce. But in a moral composite, such as a sacrament is, moral unity suffices, excepting the Eucharist, which altogether requires them to exist physically together, since the pronoun this, here, cannot be verified unless the matter is present. Nor indeed does it matter which is placed first, excepting penance.

L. 8. - It suffices in baptism, confirmation, extreme unction, and order, if, when one of them has been placed, whether matter or form precedes, the other is placed immediately or soon afterwards, e.g., if someone in the conferral of the order of priesthood touches the chalice and paten after the Bishop has pronounced the words: Receive power, etc. Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 33, n. 2. Soon afterwards: for a brief delay interposed does not harm, namely a delay which is shorter than one Our Father. L. 8. Cf. Lugo, de Sacr. d. 2, n. 99. - In matrimony, the consent of one can follow the consent of the other as long as this is judged morally to remain, as in other contracts. Busembaum 10. In penance, absolution can be deferred for a rather long time, just as in judgment a sentence after the examination of the cause. Busembaum ibid. "In penance," says St. Alphonsus 9, "that union suffices which the judicial act requires, since some distance of time is accustomed to intervene between accusation and sentence, although in this sacrament such distance ought not to be as great as occurs in forensic judgment. But Croix l. 6, n. 8, with Tamburini, says that a penitent is validly absolved after an hour from Confession." The reason is that this judgment is far simpler than forensic judgment is accustomed to be, and because the sentence has the character of form with respect to the acts of the penitent, which are as if matter. Therefore with that same long distance which is accustomed to be in forensic judgments between their various acts, there would no longer be a moral union of them in this judgment. Cf. 748. - Roman Ritual on the Form of baptism; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 6 ad 2; Suarez d. 2, s. 2.

Note: If a sacrament consists of several parts, as the Eucharist, extreme unction, order, with a notable delay interposed between them, so that the action of the minister can no longer seem one, one must altogether cease in the Eucharist, begin again from the beginning in extreme unction, and in order always cautiously supply what was incautiously omitted. L. 724; St. Thomas Suppl. q. 29, a. 2 ad 3. Cf. 336.

Must matter and form be united and applied by one and the same minister, and with regard to the same subject? - R. In the affirmative. The reason is that if one placed the matter and another the form, or the same minister applied matter and form to one subject and another subject, the words of the form would be false: I baptize you, etc.; for while another poured the water, he himself would not baptize; or while he himself poured the water upon one, he would nevertheless assert that he baptizes another. - L. 114; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 67, a. 6.

What if several ministers confect a sacrament, or the sacrament is conferred on several subjects? - R. To the first: If two ministers, for example, place the whole matter and form, whether of the whole sacrament, as if they baptize or consecrate together, or of a part of the sacrament, if the sacrament consists of several parts, as are the Eucharist, extreme unction, order, the sacrament is valid, because nothing is lacking in the being of the sacrament. But in the former case he confects the sacrament who first completes the sign; and if each completes the sign at the same moment of time, each, as far as in himself lies, confects the sacrament. L. 120; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 67, a. 6; q. 82, a. 2. But this is grave, excepting the ordination of priests. In the latter case also it is grave, excepting grave necessity.

In the East, on one altar several priests sometimes consecrate the same bread and the same wine. Then as many Masses are said as there are priests, and the fruit of the Mass is multiplied as many times. Benedict XIV, de Sacrif. Miss. l. 3, c. 16, n. 10.

R. To the second: A sacrament which one and the same minister confers upon several at the same time is valid beyond doubt, because then the form is virtually multiple. This has place, for example, in baptism and in penance, namely when someone under one form baptizes several, absolves several. It is indeed lawful in the case of extreme necessity, e.g., in fire, shipwreck, etc., Roman Ritual on Baptism of children; but in other cases, whether it is grave or light is disputed; for a notable change does not certainly appear. "Yet all say that he would not be excused at least from venial sin" without necessity. L. 29.

How are the words of the form to be pronounced? - Since sacraments are signs, and by signifying grace they effect and sanctify, the words of the form are of themselves consecratory both of the matter and of the subject. Consequently they are to be pronounced in a consecratory manner, in the present time, whether indicative, as in baptism; or imperative, as in ordination; or deprecative, as in extreme unction. If the words are uttered in another mode, namely merely historically, or promissorily, or interrogatively, or by way of sermon for instructing or exciting, the form is void. And thus this form is not valid: you are absolved from your sins; I will absolve you from your sins; do I absolve you from your sins? Würzburg Theologians 109 ff.; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78, a. 1.

Are the sacraments to be repeated in doubt about the valid application of matter and form? - A threefold rule must be established as regards practice: 1. Sacraments can be repeated whenever there is a prudent doubt about their value. 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 prudent fear of so great an inconvenience is a sufficient reason why a sacrament be repeated is clear from the very well-known axiom: Sacraments exist for men. Roman Ritual on Baptism of children, c. 3, n. 3; Rubrics of the Missal, tit. 5, n. 2; L. 28, 136.

2. Sacraments generally cannot be repeated without grave sin when a prudent doubt about their value is not present. The reason is that they would be repeated without cause, and therefore grave injury would be inflicted on them. Catechism of the Council of Trent on Baptism n. 57. - 3. Sacraments must be repeated whenever, when a prudent doubt about their value has arisen, charity, justice, and religion demand it, that is, whenever from justice, charity, and religion they ought to have been confected or administered. The reason is that the nullity of the sacrament, if perhaps it were present, would turn to the harm of the neighbor and sometimes to contempt or irreverence of Religion. But then they are to be repeated only conditionally, so that the reverence of the sacrament may be provided for. - L. 27 f.

You will resolve: 1. Sacraments that are more necessary and that are conferred only once are more easily to be repeated, namely baptism and order, even if much greater probability stands for the value of the sacrament against reasons of the lowest degree of probability in the opposite direction. - 2. Absolution is to be repeated with a penitent guilty of mortal sin if there is prudent doubt about the due pronouncing of the form. But if the penitent has not brought necessary matter of Confession, it will not be necessary to repeat the form, since Communion can be permitted to him even without absolution. - 3. A minister who doubts lightly and does not know why he fears, or only does not reflectively remember that he has pronounced the words of the form, of himself sins mortally 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. Besides, he exhibits Christ, whom he represents, as speaking ridiculously. Yet in practice the scrupulous who repeat the form are usually excused from mortal sin, indeed often even from venial sin, because, too agitated by scruples and perplexity, or without advertence, they act so foolishly. - 4.

If in Mass after consecration a doubt arises for you concerning the due pronouncing of the form, or concerning total omission, you neither ought nor can repeat anything, since otherwise you are not accustomed to omit these things; for one must judge from things commonly occurring, unless however you doubt very probably, as the Rubric says. - L. 224, 107 q. IV.

What as regards celebration of Mass in particular? - It is to be noted from St. Thomas "that although a priest does not recollect that he said some of those things which he ought to have said, nevertheless he ought not to be disturbed in mind because of this; for one who says many things does not recollect all things which he said, unless perhaps he apprehends something in saying under the aspect of already said; for thus something is made memorable. Hence if someone attentively thinks about that which he says, but nevertheless does not think that he says it, he afterwards does not much recollect that he said it; for thus something is made subject to memory, insofar as it is received under the aspect of past.... Yet if it is probably established for the priest that he has omitted some things, if indeed they are not of the necessity of the sacrament, I do not think that because of this he ought to resume by changing the order of the sacrifice, but he ought to proceed further. But if he is made certain that he has omitted something of those things which are of the necessity of the sacrament, namely the form of consecration, since the form of consecration is of the necessity of the sacrament just as the matter also is, the same seems to be done as was said in the defect of matter, namely that it be resumed from the form of consecration and the rest be repeated in order, lest the order of the sacrifice be changed." 3 p., q. 83, a. 6 ad 5. This doctrine of St. Thomas agrees with the rubric of the Roman Missal, de Defectibus in celebr. etc., tit. 5, de Defectibus formae, n. 2: "If the celebrant does not remember that he said those things which are commonly said in the consecration, he ought not on account of this be disturbed. Yet if it is certainly established for him that he omitted something of those things which are of the necessity of the sacrament, i.e., the form of consecration or a part, let him resume the form itself and pursue the rest in order. But if he very probably doubts that he omitted something, let him repeat the form at least under tacit condition. But if they are not of the necessity of the sacrament, let him not resume, but let him proceed further." Note the difference which is had according to the rubric cited here for the twofold case in which it is certainly established for the priest that he has omitted something of those things which are of the necessity of the sacrament, or he only very probably doubts that he has omitted something of this kind. For in the first case it is said that "let him resume the form itself and pursue the rest in order." But in the other case it is said: "let him repeat the form at least under tacit condition."

Now as regards the first case, in which the priest must resume the form itself and pursue the rest in order, a question can be raised: 1. Whether he must resume and pursue the rest in order in the case in which it is certainly established for him that he omitted the form of one consecration only, or also in the case in which this is certainly established for him concerning both forms of consecration. 2. From where he begins to resume. 3. What that means: let him pursue the rest in order; whether all things after the form has been resumed are to be repeated in order, or whether he must pursue in order all things which remain from that point of the Mass at which the priest has detected his error.

As regards the first question, if an essential defect occurs in the form of only one consecration, certainly the consecration is to be repeated, even if that defect occurs from the malice of the minister, and after the consumption of the species not duly consecrated, the matter being placed which was not consecrated, and, if it was from malice, by repenting of the former fault. The reason is: 1. that the sacrifice may be perfected; 2. because the Rubric is to be understood at least concerning the case of an essential defect of one consecration; 3. because there is the same reason of unsuitable matter as of matter without form. Moreover according to the Rubric tit. 3, n. 5 and 6, it is said: "If the celebrant should notice after consecration that the host is corrupted, or is not wheaten, even after the consumption of that host, let him place another, make the oblation, and begin from the consecration, namely from those words, Who the day before, etc. But if this happens after the consumption of the blood, new bread and wine with water must again be placed, and the oblation first having been made, the priest is to consecrate, beginning from those words, Who the day before, etc., and at once consume both, and pursue the Mass, lest the sacrament remain imperfect." Likewise tit. 4, n. 4 and 5, it is said: "If the celebrant after the words of consecration notices that wine had not been placed, but water, the water having been deposited in some vessel, let him again put wine with water in the chalice and consecrate, resuming from the aforesaid words, In like manner, etc. If he notices this after the consumption of the Body or of water of this kind, let him place another host again to be consecrated, and wine with water in the chalice, offer both, and consecrate and consume, etc." Or, the Rubric adds ibid., "if Mass is celebrated in a public place where several are present, to avoid scandal he will be able to place wine with water, and, the oblation having been made as above, consecrate and at once consume, and pursue the rest." Therefore the same is to be done if the essential defect should occur not by reason of matter, but by reason of form.

If an essential defect occurs in the form of both consecrations, and is noticed before the consumption of either species, it seems that each matter is again to be consecrated. The reason is that it is said absolutely in the Rubric, and altogether generally, that the form is to be resumed "if it is certainly established for him that he omitted something of those things which are of the necessity of the sacrament, i.e., the form of consecration, or a part"; nor is any distinction made between a defect of only one consecration and of both. Suarez, de Sacram. d. 85, s. 1, par. Secundo etiam constat, etc., thinks the same. "If the celebrant," says the distinguished Doctor, before consumption "from defect of intention or form consecrated neither species, he will be held secretly to repeat and to consecrate before he consumes, and as soon as he can, not by force of a precept of perfecting a sacrifice substantially begun, because this in reality does not yet oblige; but by force of the precept of not pretending something false in this ministry, and consequently of not persevering in the fiction begun; nor of consuming drink and food by way of a sacrament which is not a true sacrament, nor of giving others occasion of adoring mere bread and wine." But if the same essential defect of both forms is noticed after consumption, it does not seem that the consecration is to be repeated. And indeed the reason which the Rubric adduces for supplying a defect of either matter after consumption is "lest the sacrament remain imperfect," tit. 3, n. 6, "because the precept concerning the perfection of the sacrament is of greater weight than that it be consumed by fasting persons," ibid. n. 5. Now when the essential defect of both consecrations has occurred, no sacrament was really made, neither perfect nor imperfect, but the whole was feigned; and therefore then the precept concerning integrating or perfecting the sacrament does not oblige. From another side, the precept of not consuming the sacrament when the fast has been broken obliges. Therefore in that case this precept seems to be observed before the other. And the distinguished Doctor l. c. affirms the same.

As regards the second proposed question, there are various opinions. But the more common opinion is that only those words are to be repeated which constitute the whole form, which according to the Rubric, tit. 5, n. 1, are: This is, etc. This is the chalice, etc. The reason is that the Rubric says: let him resume the form itself. Yet the same Rubric 10, n. 3, seems to indicate that it is to be resumed from the words Who the day before, etc.; In like manner, etc. - Suarez l. c., par. II; but you will ask finally; Gavantus and Merati on the cited rubric.

As regards the third proposed question, St. Thomas l. c. seems at least to suggest that the priest must pursue the rest in order in such a way that he repeats them in order. But according to the Rubric, nothing seems to be repeated from accidentals which are not of the necessity of the sacrament. The reason is that the rubric does not say: let him resume the form and the rest in order, but it distinguishes very carefully and says: let him resume the form, and let him pursue the rest in order, namely let him pursue from that point of the Mass at which he has arrived. And thus if the matter happens immediately before or after consumption, as is said in the same Rubric in the defect of matter, so also in this defect of form, let him consecrate and at once consume, tit. 3, n. 5, 6. Besides the cited Rubric absolutely says: "but if they are not of the necessity of the sacrament, let him not resume, but let him proceed further." Therefore whether only essentials, or essentials and accidentals together, have been omitted, it will suffice to repeat only the essentials. Suarez l. c., par. Sed quaeres tandem, etc., also thinks thus.

Finally note, as regards accidental defects, that the general rule is: after they have already been committed, regularly speaking, they are not to be supplied by repeating something, or by saying or doing in a reversed order that which had to be done earlier. Regularly, because if sometimes the delay were so small that, no other action having been interposed or prayer said, the priest notices the defect committed, then repetition could be made and the defect supplied. For in that case the order of the sacrifice is not inverted, but on the contrary care is taken that all things be perfected in due order. But except from this rule an accidental defect indeed, but a very grave one, if the bread is leavened, or if water is not mixed with the wine; although this cannot be supplied after consecration, nevertheless before consecration it must altogether be guarded against. - Rubric de defect. etc., tit. 4, n. 7; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 6 ad 4; Suarez, de Sacr. d. 83, s. 2; Reuter, Neo-Confess. p. 3, c. 13, n. 268; La Croix l. 6, p. 2, n. 443 ff.; Diana tr. 1, de Celebr. missar., r. 236.

These things which have been said about the celebration of Mass can be adapted to the other sacraments. Therefore, if someone does not remember that he omitted something, or if he does not remember that he said or did something from those things which had to be said or done, he ought not be disturbed, and let him pursue the rest in order. If he certainly or very probably remembers that he omitted something, if he does not remember it at once, it is not necessary to resume everything again, nor to supply anything in a reversed order; but let him resume or supply what is substantial, and pursue the rest in order. But if something has been omitted concerning which it is disputed whether it is substantial or accidental, what was incautiously omitted is to be cautiously supplied. C. 3 in fine de Presb. non bapt. Are all things then to be repeated entirely? One must see what part was omitted which must be supplied. If the part is separated from and independent of the others, as the last imposition of hands in the priesthood, only this is to be supplied, Holy Office, May 27, 1840. If it is not independent of or separated from the others, as the second imposition of hands, or the handing over of instruments in the priesthood, and chrismation in confirmation, the whole essential rite certainly is to be supplied. S. Penitentiary, March 31, 1888; S. C. C., May 28, 1796. And even an accidental rite omitted is to be supplied if it is a rite of greater moment, as for example in baptism the omitted ceremonies are to be supplied. Cf. Enchiridion Morale 440. - St. Thomas Suppl. q. 29, a. 2 ad 3.

1. Sidonius, a missionary, once conferred baptism with muddy water, once with water simply blessed. Likewise, he consecrated the Eucharist once in kneaded flour, once in bread made from the tuberous nightshade; once in wine growing sour, once in wine to which carbonate of lime had been mixed. He once administered Extreme Unction with chrism, once with the oil of catechumens.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

R. Baptism conferred with muddy water is valid, because muddy water is true water and can still serve for its own use of washing. Yet it is illicit outside a case of necessity. For water to be used for baptism must be pure and consecrated. — I. M. 396–398; Enchir. Moral. 396.

Baptism conferred with water simply blessed, and not consecrated, is also valid, because true water is not lacking; but it is gravely illicit outside a case of necessity, because a very grave prescribed ceremony is omitted. I. M. 432. But as regards the liceity of blessed water in place of consecrated water, in a case of necessity, these Decrees are had: “Concerning the doubt set forth by the Capuchin missionary in the diocese of Trebigne ... whether baptism is conferred licitly with the use of blessed water, this Supreme Inquisition has been of the opinion that it is conferred validly, but that, in the absence of the font of water prepared for baptism, natural water must be used.” S. O., 6 April 1741; S. C. de P. F., 17 April 1758. “If there is grave necessity, and if baptismal water cannot be consecrated, and if there is lack of holy oil, baptism can licitly be conferred even with blessed water alone. Nevertheless let missionaries beware lest they do this, unless there exists a true and grave cause to be discerned, as is altogether fitting, by the Ordinary of the place.” S. O., 11 December 1250. “When baptismal water is not had, there must be used, when it can be done, blessed water according to the formula in the new editions and in the appendix of the Roman Ritual; otherwise natural water must be used.” S. O., 22 June 1883. I. M. 432; Enchir. Moral. 432.

The Eucharist consecrated in kneaded flour is invalid. Kneaded flour, or raw bread, is neither bread in common acceptance, namely perfect bread, as bread is commonly understood, nor can it serve for the natural use of bread. Wherefore, although raw and baked bread have physically the same nature, nevertheless the common acceptance is not the same, nor is the use the same.

Likewise, the Eucharist consecrated in bread made from the tuberous nightshade, commonly potatoes, is invalid. For the bread which is the matter of the Eucharist is bread from wheat, namely common bread, as it is commonly accepted for common use.

But the Eucharist is validly consecrated in wine growing sour, if the wine has only some beginning of acridity; but it is lightly illicit. Likewise it is validly consecrated, but the consecration is gravely illicit, if the wine is already judged to have entered the limits of corruption, although it has not yet been substantially changed. But the consecration will be invalid if, for example, by contact with the air, it has already become vinegar, since then the wine is already substantially corrupted. I. M. 507.

Finally, the Eucharist consecrated from wine to which bicarbonate of lime has been mixed is invalidly consecrated if that carbonate has been mixed into the wine in such a quantity that the acids proper to the wine have been wholly destroyed by chemical composition. For then a substantial alteration of the wine is had. But it would have to be said otherwise if it had been mixed in slight quantity, so that acids still remain in the wine, especially tartaric, citric, acetic, and tannic acid.

Extreme Unction conferred with chrism and the oil of catechumens is indeed illicit outside a case of necessity; but it is only probably valid, and therefore, if conferred in a case of necessity, it must be repeated conditionally if this can be done. For in confirmation and extreme unction the matter must first be blessed, so that the sacrament may be valid; but it must be blessed by the proper minister, and each in its own rite. Nevertheless, if the matter has been blessed by the proper minister, but by another rite, to many it is probable that the sacrament is valid. Liguori, book 7, no. 163, doubt 2; no. 709, doubt 2; G. 146; I. M. 864; Enchir. Moral. 864.

It is worthwhile here to add what Benedict XIV has in Notification LXXVII concerning wine for Masses. “1. Once the better wine used to be kept for Masses: ‘With diligent care the best wine must be sought,’ said the great Pontiff Innocent III, book 4, chapter 30, Mysteries of the Mass ... And nowadays choice wines are used at tables and banquets, and the vilest wines are kept for the altar.

“2 ... Wine ‘with the point,’ which means wine which is beginning to turn sour and has not become vinegar, is not unsuitable and insufficient matter ... but it is indecent, and it is not used without sin ... Only that priest remains exempt from sin who is obliged to celebrate, and who has no authority to have the wine changed, as happens among regulars; in which circumstances, provided the wine has not become vinegar, but is simply ‘with the point,’ the sin is charged to the superior or the minister who has the duty of providing the wine for Mass ...

“3. Passing to half-wine, it is known to everyone that a kind of half-wine is made by taking the pure wine from the vat, leaving in it the stalks with some little must, for example about half a corba, and adding to it water in greater quantity, such as a corba and a half, and letting it boil for about twenty-four hours. This liquor, which among us is called half-wine, and in other places small-water wine, and in the Latin language lora or lorea, is insufficient and unsuitable matter ...

“5. Then another kind of half-wine is made, which is also called long wine, when, after the pure wine has been drawn off, and a greater quantity of must has been left in the vat, such as three or four corbe, water is added to it either in equal or in somewhat greater quantity, and sometimes with some old wine put into it ... and this kind of half-wine, or long wine ... the authors commonly conclude in stronger terms, is not decent matter, and that there is no place for using it in Mass, except in a case of hard necessity ...”

But, as is drawn from many authors cited by Benedict XIV in the following numbers 6 and 8, concerning the sufficiency of this wine as regards the validity of the sacrifice, judgment will have to be made from the quantity of water mixed in, from the greater or lesser pressing made of the grapes, and from the greater or lesser substance of wine. Wherefore, since the matter is doubtful, it will be wholly illicit to use such wine in the sacrifice of the Mass. Hence in number 7 Benedict XIV continues thus:

“7. And therefore, consistently with the opinion of all the aforesaid theologians, we ordain and will that in the sacristies, for Masses, the first wine be given, excluding any second or half-wine, even though, according to the style of this our city and diocese, and of many others, in making the first wine a quantity of water is poured in; the first wine not ceasing by this infusion to be true wine and to be usual wine, as Passerini well notes in his Commentaries on the third part of St. Thomas, question 74, article 5, commentary 7, no. 10: If only so much water is used as is commonly accustomed to be used according to the custom of the country for this purpose, that it may be better boiled down or preserved, no sin is incurred from the use of such wine in consecration; and whatever may be the case about the reason alleged by him, for such a quantity is small and is converted into wine, certainly the other reason is good: and besides, such wine is the common and usual wine of the country. Quarti, on the Rubrics of the Missal, part 3, title 4, doubt 3: In some places wine is accustomed to be made with an infusion of water in the must, or in the clusters, before they are pressed out. It is asked whether it can validly and licitly be consecrated? I answer by distinguishing: if little water is poured into the must, it is certain that true wine is made; consequently it can be consecrated validly and licitly. It is proved, because it is usual wine, and in many places, where wine is customarily made in the said manner, scarcely any other is found. And speaking of these wines of ours of Bologna, Rosignoli notes in tome 15, de Euchar., question 4, article 2, no. 6, where, after he had said that the true matter is wine from the vine substantially not corrupted or notably changed, he adds: For if they were altered precisely in some manner, as if they were heated, and even if they were moderately cooked, as is customarily done in Piceno and Umbria, if they were mixed with a moderate amount of water, as is accustomed to be done at Bologna, etc., certainly they would not cease to be matter fit for consecration.”

The following decision of the Sacred Congregation also pertains to the matter: “In some regions of Spain there flourishes a very ancient custom by which many priests prepare for themselves wine for the sacrifice of the holy Mass, either by first evaporating the must by fire, or by drying grapes in the rays of the sun; this custom seems to be honored by the declaration of the Holy Office of 22 July 1706 concerning wine made from raisins. — Whether it is licit, for confecting the sacrifice of the holy Mass, to use wine obtained from must which before vinous fermentation has been condensed by fiery evaporation? — R. It is licit, provided that a boiling down of this kind does not exclude alcoholic fermentation, and that the fermentation itself can be obtained naturally and in fact is obtained.” S. O., 7 August 1896.

2. Sabbas, a priest in Spain, when conferring baptism, sometimes used this form: I have baptized thee in the name, etc.; judging it to be altogether the best in the Case, since, after the words I thee had been uttered, he had already through distraction poured all the water on the head of the infant.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

R. “Baptism conferred by a verb of the past tense to signify a past action, and not also the action which is exercised by the minister at the time when he baptizes with the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity and with washing, immersion, or sprinkling of natural water, is not true baptism. — If the one baptizing were to use a verb of the past tense to signify the act which is exercised by the minister himself when he baptizes, and the other requisites were present, it would be baptism, if among that nation or clergy there were a usage of taking that word of the past tense to signify a present action. — It is also baptism if, from ignorance of the language, by breaking the words, without the intention of introducing error or heresy, someone utters the word of the past tense for the present, if there is such likeness between the word of the past and of the present that there is an easy slip from one word into the other, and prudent men commonly judge that the one baptizing supposed the word of the past tense to be corruptly uttered for the present, and, when the word has been uttered, conceive that the present action is sufficiently signified.” S. C. de P. F., 27 March 1631, Collect. of the same Sacred Congregation, no. 519. Hence it is clear that the baptism conferred by Sabbas was invalid because of substantial corruption of the form. The action of pouring the water, already completed, when he was uttering the verb I baptize, was still, morally speaking, present, and it had to be signified by the present verb I baptize; otherwise, since according to the Roman Ritual the water is to be poured when the invocation of the three Persons is made, the minister ought not to say, I baptize thee, but I shall baptize thee. That is, the form essentially must signify the present action of baptizing, which is exercised here and now by the minister. I. M. 320, 413.

3. “The form of baptism of the schismatic Armenians having been reported, which is had in their Rituals as below, namely: Now my hand baptizes in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; or: Now my hand baptizes in the name of the Father; now my hand baptizes in the name of the Son; now my hand baptizes in the name of the Holy Spirit; the Sacred Congregation declared the said form of baptism to be true and legitimate.” S. O., 8 September 1633, Collect. S. C. de P. F., no. 520. Certainly the form of baptism is valid when uttered in the present tense in a consecratory manner, whether indicative or imperative. — I. M. 326.

4. “Cornelius, a priest, was absolving a penitent after the confession had been completed. But after he had uttered the first words, I absolve thee, looking back he noticed that the penitent had already departed from the sacred tribunal; wherefore he called him back, saying: What is this? Why did you not wait? Return and kneel until I have absolved you. But when he had returned, the confessor added the remaining words, namely, from thy sins.

“Another time, when he was baptizing an infant, and had already said, I baptize thee, immediately turning to some boys who were talking, he interrupted the form, crying: Be silent, chatterers; be silent, worst boys, absurd boys! And afterward he proceeded: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spi (here suddenly he sneezes and coughs) rit Holy.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

R. 1. Cornelius absolved validly, because the interruption of the words and the interposition were not so great that the following words, from thy sins, would not be judged, in the moral estimation of men, to be joined with the preceding words, I absolve thee. Nevertheless, if he had repeated the words of absolution as a precaution under condition, he would not have been condemned. But why under condition? Because according to many doctors the words I absolve thee probably suffice for the form of absolution. Therefore probably the penitent was absolved before the interruption; therefore, if the words had been repeated, this would have had to be done under condition. Elbel, no. 13.

2. Cornelius likewise baptized validly; for the interruption vitiated the form only accidentally, because the sense is not taken away where only a small interruption of words is interposed, since it removes neither the intention of the speaker nor the understanding of the words, as St. Thomas says, part 3, question 60, article 8, ad 3. But the interruption was indeed brief, whether in correcting and rebuking the boys, or even in coughing and sneezing. Therefore it can in no way stand in the way of the validity of baptism. Voit, no. 23.

3. Cornelius acted illicitly in calling back the penitent in this way, with the latter’s annoyance and the scandal of others. It was by no means necessary to call him back, since he was certainly morally present. It would therefore have been enough to complete the form of absolution already begun, and no longer to think about the penitent.

4. He also acted illicitly in the baptism, and indeed of itself gravely, by reason of scandal or of grave injury inflicted upon the sacrament. For there was no such urgency that he should rebuke the boys in that way. Was there danger in delay, so that he could not first have completed the sacramental form? Voit, ibid.” Thus Gury, 154, 155.

“A great interruption of words,” says Lugo, d. 2, no. 111, “impedes the validity of the sacrament, because the sense of the sentence is taken away; but a moderate interruption does not impede it, because morally it is the same sentence, and this even if other words are interposed, as if someone says, I baptize thee, and, asking for water, says, give water, and immediately continues, in the name of the Father, etc. But how great and of what kind the interruption or interposition of words must be in order to take away the sense is a moral matter, and depends on the arbitration and judgment of prudent men.” That is, that is prudently judged a great interruption which is prudently judged to take away the sense of the sentence. And St. Thomas, loc. cit.: “If there is so great an interruption of words that the intention of the one pronouncing is intercepted, the sense of the sacrament is taken away, and consequently its truth; but it is not taken away when the interruption is small, which does not remove the intention of the one uttering and the understanding of the words.”

Now the resolution of Father Gury concerning absolution is not without difficulty. For first, if Cornelius absolved validly, as he simply affirms, because a small interruption was present and the understanding of the words remained entire with the intention of the one uttering them, how then could Cornelius repeat the absolution as a precaution? In order that it be said that Cornelius could have done this as a precaution, it is necessary that it be said that Cornelius probably did not absolve, and that probably the form was interrupted. Besides, if Cornelius ought to have repeated the absolution as a precaution, why is this same thing not asserted with more urgent reason concerning baptism? For the delay interposed between the words of the form of baptism and the words of absolution was almost the same. Therefore either in each case the form ought to have been repeated, or in neither. Finally, granted repetition of the form of absolution, it would then have had to be repeated under condition not only because the words I absolve thee alone probably suffice, but also because, since they probably do not suffice, the form in such an opinion would in the Case probably have been interrupted. Thus indeed it would have to be said consequently. But in truth, in each case, it plainly appears that the intention of the one pronouncing was not intercepted; on the contrary, it was continued by the continuation of the form, nor was the understanding of the words taken away in the Case; for any prudent man assisting at such an administration of the sacrament would well have understood the truth of the form. — I. M. 320, 748.

5. “Sidonius, a priest, while saying Mass, when he had come to the words of consecration of the bread, by a slip of the tongue or by distraction said: This is the Chalice, and immediately, noticing the error, mentally retracted the word Chalice, and uttered the remaining part of the form, namely, my Body. Afterward he doubted whether he ought to have repeated the form, and even now, whether he is bound to celebrate another Mass for the stipend accepted.

Question. Was the consecration valid?

R. The matter can be subjected to controversy. At first sight, that form seems invalid, because these words convey no sense. It was not enough that the priest should correct the error mentally, or by intention remove the word Chalice, which had crept in by a slip of the tongue. For the words of the form must be taken materially, and they are worth only as much as they sound. But in the Case they sound nothing. Therefore they are worth nothing, that is, they signify nothing. Therefore the form had to be repeated.

“Nevertheless the reasons which can be adduced for the opposite opinion are by no means to be despised. For words are worth only as much as human usage bears. Now in human usage, if by a slip of the tongue an undue word flows from the mouth, it is immediately corrected by the change of the word alone, and the beginning of the sentence is not repeated. Therefore, when the undue word Chalice had been uttered, the form could sufficiently be corrected by the celebrant by changing only the undue word. Therefore the consecration was valid, at least probably, just as baptism conferred thus is valid: I baptize thee in honor ... in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But because of the doubt, the priest ought to have repeated the form under condition. But when the sacred action had been completed, he ought not to have celebrated another for the stipend accepted. Indeed he would not have to celebrate another Mass even if that prior consecration were certainly invalid, because probably the consecration of one species suffices for the essence of the sacrifice. Thus La Croix, book 6, part 2, no. 15. Nevertheless the more common and more probable opinion holds that each consecration is required for the essence of the sacrifice. St. Liguori, 306.” Thus Father Gury, 148, 149, 254.

But it must be noted first that if Sidonius only mentally retracted the word Chalice, so that externally the slip of the tongue and error could not be noted, then it seems absolutely more probable that the consecration was not valid. For when someone errs in some word and then corrects the word erroneously uttered, this appears externally, and the right sense of the proposition is understood by the hearers. But if someone, disguising the error committed, seriously continues the sentence by correcting the mistaken word, then the correction is not understood, and the erroneous or equivocal sentence remains among the hearers. Besides, it is indeed to be feared lest in the Case it be valid to say that the sacrifice probably was valid for excusing Sidonius from celebrating another Mass. For it does not appear clearly enough here that there is question of the right use of probabilism, since there is not question merely of the subjective liceity of an action, but also of the objective truth of the thing, namely, of the certain fruit of the sacrifice. This can be confirmed by the Response of the Holy Office, 27 January 1897. Cf. I. M., vol. 1, no. 116; A. S. S., vol. 32, p. 562.

6. “Henry, a priest, driven by scruples even to madness, seems to himself never to express the words of consecration sufficiently. Wherefore he is accustomed to say them aloud, while those assisting at the sacred action wonder and are stunned, and he repeats the individual words three or four times in the following manner: This, this, this is, is, is Body, Body, Body my, my, my.

Question. What is to be judged concerning Henry?

R. Henry sinned of itself gravely by treating the form of the Eucharist so injuriously; by accident, however, by reason of madness, he will easily be excused from grave sin.” Thus Father Gury, 158, saying nothing about the validity of such a form. But it is valid. “Thus Clericatus, de Sacram. in gen., decision 8, no. 8. The reason is that that repetition of individual words did not take away the substantial sense of the form, as will easily appear to one weighing it well.” Elbel, 14.

7. To Bishop Titius, after the solemn blessing of the baptismal font had been completed on Holy Saturday, an infant was brought to be baptized. But in conferring baptism it happened by chance that the bishop indeed uttered the words, I baptize thee, etc., yet did not at the same time pour the water, because through the forgetfulness of the sacristan it had not yet been put into the vessel. As soon as the master of ceremonies noticed this, he immediately filled the vessel with water taken from the sacred font, which the bishop poured on the head of the infant, the words of the form not having been repeated.

Another time the same Titius, when through the days of Pentecost in the same cathedral church he was administering the sacrament of confirmation to a multitude of boys, was so disturbed by the noise which the fall of a certain little boy caused, while he was in the act of anointing one of them with chrism, that he completed the anointing on his forehead, yet without uttering the words of the form. At the same time, having turned his face, he asked what had happened; and after he had received notice of the matter and had learned that the crowd excited by that noise had quieted down, he uttered the sacramental words, the anointing not having been repeated, then proceeding to confirm the others.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

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.

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.

Preliminary note. In this article the discussion concerns only the sacraments of the New Law, because the sacraments of the Old Law no longer exist, nor were they constituted by matter and form.²⁹ For nowhere is it read, for example, that determinate words necessarily had to be pronounced in circumcision or in the eating of the paschal lamb. Since this article is rather long, for the sake of clarity it is divided into seven paragraphs: 1. on the notion and necessity of matter and form; 2. on their immutability; 3. on their union; 4. on their certitude; 5. on the application of form to matter; 6. on the repetition of matter or form; 7. on a conditional form.

²⁹ Cf. S. theol. 3, q. 60, a. 6 ad 3.

6. Notion. The external and sensible sign of the sacraments is composed of two elements, namely, matter and form, which must be applied by a legitimate minister. Hence Eugene IV says in the Instruction to the Armenians: "The sacraments are constituted by three things, namely, by things as matter, by words as form, and by the person of the minister conferring the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does; if any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not constituted."³⁰ According to the Council of Trent,³¹ moreover, "the essence of a sacrament is constituted by matter and form." The Roman Catechism³² teaches similarly: "For there are two things from which every sacrament is constituted, of which one has the character of matter and is called the element, while the other has the force of form and is commonly called the word.... In this matter that testimony of St. Augustine,³³ well known and widely repeated among all, is familiar: 'The word comes to the element, and it becomes a sacrament.'"

³⁰ Denz., n. 695.

³¹ Session 14, c. 2, on the sacrament of penance (Denz., n. 895).

³² Part 2, c. 1, q. 8.

³³ In Joann. tr. 80, n. 3 (Migne, Patr. lat. 35, 1840).

7. Twofold acceptation. Matter and form are taken in two senses in sacramental matters:

a) Matter is the whole sensible sign, for example, in baptism the washing with water together with the pronouncement of the words; form is the signification of all these things, namely, sanctifying grace. This acceptation is little used, and consequently we shall not employ it hereafter.³⁴

b) Matter is the thing or act of the sensible sign; form is the words or signs by which those things or acts receive their determinate signification and efficacy; for example, the water and the washing made with water are the matter in the sacrament of baptism, whose form is the words: "I baptize you, etc." We take matter and form in this sense.

³⁴ Form is still taken for sanctifying grace in the expression "an unformed sacrament," which is a sacrament not producing sanctifying grace, although it is valid. Cf. below, n. 33.

8. Origin of this terminology. "It must be observed that these words 'matter and form' with respect to the sacraments were not in use until around the year 1215 and were first employed by William of Auxerre, since they are found nowhere before him, not even in the Master of the Sentences [Peter Lombard]." Thus Billuart,³⁵ together with Christian Pesch, Hurter, Fei, and the common opinion. Certainly the holy Fathers knew that which we call the matter and form of a sacrament, but they designated them by other words; for example, they called matter the sign or element, but form the word. Since the Scholastics, according to Peripatetic philosophy, taught that every created sensible being is composed of matter and form, by analogy they said the same thing concerning the sacraments. Matter is the determinable part, but form determines matter to an individual thing. Thus, in like manner, in the sacraments the sensible thing is indeterminate, that is, not yet determined to signify something special. But the words applied to this matter give it a special signification. This manner of speaking about the matter and form of the sacraments has been universally received in both the Latin and the Eastern Church since the thirteenth century. Only a few theologians, among whom is Durandus of Saint-Pourçain, In 4 Sent., dist. 1, q. 3, rejected this manner of speaking as though hylomorphic. Against them, it is plainly established that this manner of explanation is most apt, especially for discerning whether some sacrament is valid or not. For whenever there is a substantial change of matter or form, the sacrament is not constituted; but, on the contrary, when only an accidental change exists, the validity of the sacrament is not affected. This change will be discussed again in the following paragraph.³⁶

Distinction. Since the time of St. Thomas,³⁷ remote and proximate matter are customarily distinguished in the sacraments.

Remote matter is the sensible thing itself employed in the sacraments, for example, water in baptism and chrism in confirmation.

Proximate matter is a human act, namely, the actual application of the sensible thing or remote matter; for example, the proximate matter in baptism is the washing made with water; in confirmation, the proximate matter is the anointing made with chrism.

The form of a sacrament must be expressed orally in words; nevertheless, in the sacrament of matrimony, whose form is the mutual manifestation and acceptance of matrimonial consent, it can also be expressed in writing or by a nod, at least validly.

³⁵ De sacr. diss. 1, a. 4, § 2.

³⁶ Concerning the progress of theological science in this matter since the thirteenth century, cf. Pourrat, La théol. sacr., chap. 2, § 5. The manner of speaking indeed became different, but the thing itself was already known to the holy Fathers.

³⁷ Cf. S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 2.

9. Necessity of matter and form. The most common opinion of theologians, which is strongly confirmed by the words of Eugene IV, the Council of Trent, and the Roman Catechism cited above, teaches that matter and form are of the very essence of every sacrament of the New Law, and consequently are altogether necessary. Hence St. Thomas³⁸ says: "Every sacrament is distinguished into matter and form as into parts of its essence." I pass over the opinions of Durandus, who denies this, and of certain Scotists, who even after the Councils of Florence and Trent boldly teach that the sacraments are indeed perfected, but are not intrinsically constituted, by matter and form.³⁹

³⁸ Ibid., q. 90, a. 2.

³⁹ Cf. Christian Pesch, Prael. dogm. VI, n. 34.

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.

⁴⁰ Session 21, c. 2 (Denz., n. 931).

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.

⁴⁴ c. 86, dist. 4, De consecr.

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

22. Notion. A conditional form is said to be one which is uttered under a condition expressed either in words or at least in the mind, namely, that the minister does not intend to confer the sacrament unless all things required for its validity are present. The conditional form is employed: a) in the repetition of a sacrament, for example, "If you are not baptized, I baptize you, etc."; b) in the first conferral of a sacrament if, namely, there is an insoluble doubt concerning some essentially required condition, for example, a confessor absolves a man deprived of his senses, concerning whose death there is doubt, saying: "If you are alive, I absolve you, etc."

23. Reason and manner of the conditional form. The reason why the conditional form is employed is the reverence due to the sacrament. For in this manner the minister protests that he in no way wills to administer the sacrament in the name of Christ if an essentially required condition is lacking. It readily appears to anyone considering the matter that in every administration of the sacraments the form is in some manner conditional, because the minister always has the implicit intention: I confect the sacrament, provided all necessary things are present. Sometimes the condition added must, according to the prescription of the Ritual,⁵⁹ be manifested in express words, namely, in baptism and extreme unction. In baptism it is to be said: "If you are not baptized, I baptize you, etc."; in extreme unction the priest is to say: "If you are capable, through this holy anointing, etc." In the other sacraments it suffices to express the condition in the mind alone.

⁵⁹ Tit. 2, c. 1, n. 9; tit. 5, c. 1, n. 12.

24. Liceity. As a general rule for the licit practice of a conditional form it is customary to adduce: It is lawful to confer a sacrament under condition whenever, if conferred absolutely, it would be exposed to the danger of nullity, but if absolutely denied, it would deprive a man of a great good or thrust him into a great danger of eternal salvation.

The condition added is either concerning the present, the past, or the future.

1. It is almost never lawful to add a condition concerning the future; indeed, all sacraments (except matrimony) thus conferred are null.⁶⁰ The reason is that the duty of conferring the sacrament here and now by the application of form to matter is incumbent upon the minister; but he arrogantly assumes to himself a power which he does not have if he wills to suspend the effect of the sacrament until after a future condition has been fulfilled. Hence a sacrament conditionally conferred in this manner is null now and in the future. For now the minister does not have the intention of fully administering it; but in the future there is no longer the moral coexistence of form and matter which is essentially required for the validity of the sacrament, as is evident from what was said above. Matrimony, however, contracted under a condition concerning the future becomes valid after the condition has been fulfilled. This occurs on account of the special nature of matrimony, which is a contract. For since the sacrament of matrimony is completed by the very fact that the legitimate consent of the contracting parties is manifested, this sacrament begins to exist if, after the future condition has been fulfilled, the same consent perseveres. For the most part, however, conditional marriages of this kind are illicit.⁶¹

From what has been said it follows how wrongly those confessors act, or at least how incautiously they speak, who say to a penitent: "I give you absolution under the condition that you will leave this occasion of sinning; otherwise your absolution is invalid." A confessor can indeed say: "Unless you seriously promise me that you will leave the occasion of sinning, I cannot grant you absolution." But if the penitent has seriously promised this here and now, the confessor must give absolution absolutely, without any condition.⁶²

2. A sacrament conferred under a condition concerning the present or the past is valid if the condition is verified; otherwise it is null. For example, if a confessor says to a dying man deprived of his senses, "If you are alive, I absolve you," the absolution is valid if that man (otherwise disposed) is still alive; otherwise it is null. The reason is that the intention of the minister, the union of form and matter, and the other required dispositions of the penitent are present.

⁶⁰ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 26.

⁶¹ Cf. below in the treatise on matrimony, n. 661 sqq.

⁶² Cf. below in the treatise on penance, n. 332.

25. Scholion. On the origin of the conditional form. The conditional form (expressed in words) does not seem to have been in use during the first seven centuries;⁶³ but the conditional form conceived in the mind alone was always in use, because there were always doubtfully valid sacraments and therefore sacraments to be repeated. The first mention of an expressed conditional form is found in the eighth century in Benedictus Levita.⁶⁴ The compiler, however, took this capitular from the statutes of St. Boniface in the Council of Liptina, statute 28,⁶⁵ where it is prescribed: "Those concerning whom there is doubt whether they are baptized or not are by all means to be baptized without any scruple with these words only: I do not rebaptize you, but if you are not baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father, etc." Similar things were prescribed in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries by Alexander III and Gregory IX. From the thirteenth century the conditional form prevailed in all the churches of the Latins. At first it was employed only in the sacraments which imprint a character, especially in baptism and order; later it was employed also in the other sacraments, for example, in penance. Therefore, from the constant usage of the Church it is now established that the conditional form is lawful.

⁶³ Cf. Billuart, De sacr. diss. 1, a. 6, appendix 2; Concina, De sacr. diss. unic., c. 6; Benedict XIV, De syn. dioec. l. 7, c. 6, n. 1.

⁶⁴ Capitularium collect. l. 2, n. 184 (Migne, Patr. lat. 97, 770).

⁶⁵ Migne, l.c. 89, 823.

St. Thomas III, q. 60, a. 4 and 6.

9. Notions. - A sign is that through which someone comes to the knowledge of another thing. For this three conditions are required: that it be manifestative, that it express an order to another distinct thing, and that it be known first.

A sign is divided into natural and conventional, according as it leads to the knowledge of another thing by its own nature, as smoke signifies fire and a footprint an animal, or because of a connection arising from positive institution, as an olive branch indicates peace. The conventional sign is twofold: a) arbitrary or at pleasure, which of its nature is wholly indifferent to signifying something: such signs are words, for what we call a house could be called a stone, and vice versa; b) symbolic, which of its nature, independently of positive institution, does not indeed signify another thing, yet of its own nature has an aptitude for signifying this rather than that, on account of some likeness, agreement, or analogy which it has of itself with the thing signified. Thus bodily washing or eating of its own nature has an aptitude for signifying the purification or refreshment of the soul.

10. Principle I. The sacraments, both of the Old and of the New Law, are not natural signs, nor merely arbitrary signs, but for them there are required things which signify symbolically.

It is proved: a) They are not natural signs, because between corporeal and spiritual things there is no natural connection; therefore they are conventional signs from positive institution.

b) They are not merely arbitrary signs but symbolic signs: It is connatural to man that through likenesses of sensible things he come to the knowledge of spiritual things; but the sacred things which are signified through the sacraments are certain spiritual goods by which man is sanctified; therefore it is connatural to man that sensible things be taken as sacraments. But the wisdom of God provides for each thing according to its nature. Therefore it is fitting that the wisdom of God take as sacraments sensible things which have a certain likeness with sacred things. Whence Augustine, ep. 98 to Boniface, n. 9: "If sacraments did not have some likeness to those things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all."

11. Principle II. For the perfection of the New Law it is required that the sacraments consist of symbolic things and at the same time of words. - This is certain and belongs to Catholic doctrine.¹

¹ This manner of speaking is already employed by Peter Lombard, IV Sentences, d. 1, under D.

It is proved: a) From the Scriptures, for Baptism (Eph. V, 26; John III, 5 and Mt. XXVIII, 19), the Eucharist (Mt. XXVI, 26; Mk. XIV, 22; Lk. XXII, 19), and Extreme Unction (Jas. V, 14, 15); it is perhaps indicated for Order (Acts VI, 6; XIII, 3) and for Confirmation (Acts VIII, 15).

b) From Tradition, whose witnesses are both the Fathers, as for Baptism: Didache, c. 7; Justin, Apology I, 61; Tertullian, Against Praxeas 26; On Baptism 13; Origen, on Romans V, 8; for the Eucharist: Justin, Apology I, 66; Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV, 18, 5; V, 2, 3; Origen, on Matthew XI, 14; for these sacraments and certain others, such as for Confirmation and Order, commonly from the fourth and fifth century, for example Gregory of Nyssa, oration on the Baptism of Christ; especially Augustine, on John tr. 15, n. 4; tr. 80, n. 3; - and all liturgical texts and Rituals, which already exist from the fourth and fifth century and by which it is established that the individual sacraments are composed of things and words; - and Councils, such as the Florentine, decree for the Armenians.

c) By reason of most fitting congruity: The sacraments of the New Law can be considered in a threefold way: 1. on the part of the sanctifying cause, which is the Incarnate Word, to which the sacrament is conformed in a certain way in this, that a word is applied to a sensible thing, just as the Word of God is united to sensible flesh; 2. on the part of the sanctified man, who is composed of soul and body, to whom the sacramental medicine is proportioned, which through the visible thing touches the body and senses, and through the word is believed by the soul; 3. on the part of the sacramental signification itself: words, says Augustine, On Christian Doctrine II, 3, have obtained the primacy of signifying among men, because through words we can express more distinctly what we have conceived in the mind, and therefore for the perfection of sacramental signification it was fitting that the signification of sensible things be determined through some words. For water can signify both washing, because of its humidity, and refreshment, because of its coldness; but when it is said: I baptize thee, it is made manifest that we use water in Baptism for signifying spiritual cleansing.

The aforesaid difference of the sacraments corresponds to the difference of the economy itself of the Old and New Law:

1. The former was less expressed, the latter of clearer signification, according to the Apostle, Heb. X, 1, distinguishing the shadow of heavenly things in the Old Testament, the image of heavenly things in the New, and the heavenly things themselves in glory; whence in the sacraments of the Old Law things sufficed which signified heavenly things rather obscurely and as through a shadow; on the contrary in the New Law a clearer signification as through an image was required, and therefore the sacraments consist of things and words.

2. The signs of a present thing ought to be clearer than the signs of a future thing; but the sacraments of the Old Law were announcements beforehand of Christ as about to come, and therefore they did not so expressly signify Christ, but by things alone, as do the sacraments of the New Law, which proceed from Him and have in themselves a certain likeness of Him, as consisting not of things alone but also of words.² Cf. Augustine, Against Faustus, book 19, cc. 16 and 17.

² In the Old Law words were sometimes employed, but they were merely ceremonial, not sacramental.

12. Principle III. The sacraments of the New Law consist of things and words as of matter and form. - This manner of speaking belongs to the usage received by the Church from the thirteenth century onward,³ which it would not be lawful to disapprove.

³ They generally say that William of Auxerre (d. 1231) first spoke thus in the Summa aurea, composed between 1215 and 1220. Others assign Stephen Langton (d. 1228), as Gillmann, who in Taufe in nomen Jesu and Sakramentenlehre vindicates this against Schanz.

It is proved: The things and words of which the sacraments consist are rightly called matter and form by analogy. For just as corporeal things consist of two really distinct principles, of which 1) one, matter, is indeterminate and imperfect potency (prime matter, - marble), the other, form, is act determining matter to such or such an existence and perfecting it (soul, - the form of the statue); 2) matter is presupposed, form accedes; and thus 3) by the union of these one being is constituted (one living thing, - one statue): so the sacraments consist of two things: 1) of things which signify more confusedly, indeterminately and imperfectly, and of words which signify more distinctly, determinately, perfectly, and which therefore determine the things to some determinate signification, as was declared in the preceding number; 2) the things are presupposed to the words, according to that saying of Augustine, tr. 80 on John, n. 3: "Baptism is consecrated by the word: take away the word and what is water except water? The word accedes to the element and it becomes a sacrament"; 3) by the union of these there is constituted one sacramental sign having one signification.

But since by this formula the very composition of the sacramental sign is indicated at once so aptly and concisely, by the usage of the universal Church, both Greek and Latin, and by the Councils of Constance, art. 22 against Wycliffe and Hus, Florence, decree for the Armenians, and Trent, sess. 14 on penance, c. 2 and 3; on extreme unction, c. 1, it was consecrated.

13. Observations. - 1. Matter and form here are understood as real parts of the sacrament; besides them, metaphysical or logical parts can be assigned, namely: on the one side, the whole sensible thing, consisting of things and words, which is the sign; on the other side, its signification through which it is a sign, which is the metaphysical form of the sacrament, as humanity is in man.

2. From the fact that a sacrament is defined as a conventional sign, it would be badly concluded that it is a mere being of reason, which does not exist except while it is known. It is not indeed a physical being which has its own existence, but a moral and juridical being. Such are obligations, jurisdictions, titles, dignities, deputations, conventional signs: these do not exist except dependently on the ordination of some practical intellect; but that ordination, as long as it is not revoked, remains affixed to the subject. Hence in the things and words of a sacrament together with institution there is present a real foundation, so that it may be conceived as a sign. Therefore although the signification itself is some relation of reason, nevertheless the foundation of this is real, and therefore the sacrament also exists while it is not conceived. In the same way the relation of creator in God is of reason, but in Him and in creatures there is present the foundation that God be called creator, and this foundation is real, for God remains creator even if He is not conceived as such.

3. The things which are the matter of the sacrament are understood not only as exterior things, such as water, chrism, etc., but also sacred rites or sensible human actions, such as washing, anointing, imposition of the hand, confession, etc., because in these there is the same indeterminate ratio of signifying as in things; likewise the words of the form, although regularly they are voices, can be those things which are equivalent to them, as the signs by which a mute person enters marriage.

In particular, the matter and form are: in Baptism, the washing of a man by water, and: I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; in Confirmation, the chrismation of a man on the forehead, and the words: I sign thee with the sign of the cross and confirm thee with the chrism of salvation... or other equivalent words; in the Eucharist, the accidents of bread and wine, and: This is My body, this is My blood, etc.; in Penance, the acts of the penitent: contrition, confession, satisfaction, and the absolution of the priest: I absolve thee...; in Extreme Unction: the multiple anointing, and: May the Lord forgive thee whatever thou hast committed; in Order: imposition of hands or handing over of the instruments, with the appropriate words; in Matrimony, the handing over of bodies and acceptance expressed by words or signs.

4. From the matter out of which the sacramental sign is intrinsically constituted or composed, there must be distinguished, in three sacraments, the extrinsic matter about which the sacrament merely turns: the former is called proximate matter, the latter remote matter. Such is the substance of bread and wine in the Eucharist, sins in Penance, bodies in Matrimony: for although they are prerequired for the sacrament, nevertheless they do not enter into the sensible sign. - In the other sacraments, because they consist in the application or use of a sensible thing, the matter out of which is called remote, namely the thing itself which is applied, for example water, oil; the proximate matter is the application or use of it, for example washing, anointing.

5. From the Council of Florence, teaching in the decree for the Armenians that "the sacraments are perfected," that is, confected, "by things as matter, by words as form, and by the person of the minister with the intention of doing what the Church does," do not conclude that the sacraments are not composed of matter and form: for the Council uses the verb to perfect, because the intention of the minister, which is necessary for effecting the sacrament, does not enter into the composition of the sacramental sign. But if things and words did not compose, they would not stand to each other as matter and form; nor, as Trent says, sess. 14, c. 3, would they be parts of the sacrament, required for its integrity.

St. Thomas III, q. 60, a. 5 and 7.

16. Principle I. God determined the sacramental signs. - This is certain.

It is proved: It does not belong to someone to determine that which is in the power of another, but only that which is in his own power. But the sanctification of man is not in man's own power, but in the power of God sanctifying. Therefore it does not belong to man by his own judgment to determine the signs by which he is sanctified, but this must be determined by divine institution.

17. Principle II. In the New Law God determined the sacramental signs through Christ, committing the determination to be made to His human will. - This is certain, because it follows from the doctrine of Trent defining, sess. 7, can. 1, that Christ instituted the sacraments.

God could determine signs in various ways: a) by Himself, with no man intervening, as He did in the Old Law, which Moses merely promulgated; b) He can deputize a man to determine a sign which afterward He holds ratified: thus, before the Mosaic law, men are said quite generally to have determined certain sacraments by interior instinct; c) He can leave the determination of the sign to the human will of Christ, and thus He acted in the New Law.

It is proved: 1. From the sources of revelation: for certain sacraments it is established from the Scriptures, namely for Baptism (John III, 5; Mt. XXVIII, 19), for the Eucharist (Mt. XXVI, 26), and for Penance (John XX, 22-23); - for the others from tradition, whose witness is the Council of Trent, sess. 21, c. 2, teaching that the very substance of the sacraments was not left to the choice of the Church; therefore it was determined by the institutor, whom c. 1 and sess. 7, can. 1, says to be Christ.

2. By reason of fittingness: Christ as man merited for us the grace given through the sacraments; whence it was fitting that He Himself by His human will should determine the signs by which it is conferred.

18. Principle III. Christ did not determine matter and form in the individual, but only as to substance; indeed, more probably, He did not always determine them determinately in the ultimate species, but, for certain sacraments, only generally and confusedly.

The first part is proved: For Christ does not require special water, for example rain water, or wine, for example white wine, or oil, for example Palestinian oil; but whatever is truly oil, wine, water, etc., suffices for the sacrament. Likewise He did not determine the form as to the material sound of the words, as to language or grammatical expression, but only as to the essential signification. Therefore He did not determine matter and form in the individual, but only as to substance.

The second part is proved: Christ does not seem to have determined matter and form in the same way in all the sacraments:

1. most perfectly He determined them for the Eucharist and Baptism;

2. less perfectly for the sacrament of Penance, which He only established as to be exercised by way of judgment; and for Extreme Unction, which we have insinuated and sketched, Mk. VI, 13;

3. likewise for Matrimony, which He simply elevated to the dignity of a sacrament, leaving to the choice of the Church and of the contracting parties the determination of the signs by which they would express consent;

4. probably in a very general way for Confirmation and especially for Order: He determined only that signs and words suitable for expressing the character and the grace proper to Confirmation, or the power of Order, should be employed by the Church; but the Church determined different signs for different times and places, and thus is explained the diversity of matter and form in the valid ordinations of the Latin and Greek Church. "Whence we believe," says Innocent IV, in c. Presbyter, de sacr. iterandis, "that unless forms had afterward been discovered, it would suffice for the ordainer to say: 'Be a priest,' or other equivalent words; but in subsequent times the Church ordained the forms which are observed." And the Council of Florence, in the decree for the Armenians, indicates for Confirmation and Order another matter and form than were in use at first.¹

¹ That decree, although it is not an infallible document, nevertheless is not merely practical or disciplinary, as it has seemed to some; but a dogmatic decree which explains the doctrine of the Roman Church on the Sacraments, and which the Pontiff, in the name of the Council and of the Roman Church, handed down to the Church of the Armenians: in which it cannot easily be admitted that an error crept in.

Nor say: The Council of Trent declared that the Church cannot change the substance of the sacraments; but substance is constituted by essential elements, namely, matter and form, without which the sacrament cannot exist. - It can be answered: in the matter and form of the sacraments, according to the manner of speaking of the Council, only those things are substantial which Christ instituted; whence if He determined certain matters and forms in a general way, the substance of these sacraments is not changed through the greater specific determination made by the Church, provided that the general signification defined by Christ is retained.

And indeed, in the sacraments attention must be given to that which is more principal and formal, namely, signification, by which something is formally constituted as a sign, which is the metaphysical form of the sacrament, and to the efficacy of this sign for conferring special grace in order to the end of each sacrament. But if this was determined by Christ, it can truly be said that He instituted the substance of the sacrament; nor is more required by the Council, as is established from the opinion of those who were present at the council, such as Ruard Tapper² and Ravesteyn³ of Louvain.

² Explanation of the 20 Articles of the Venerable Faculty of Sacred Theology of Louvain, a. 1.

³ Apology of the Decrees of the Council of Trent.

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

19. Notions. - It must be noted beforehand:

The matter of the sacraments is a sensible thing, to be determined to the notion of a sacrament by the form. A twofold matter is distinguished, namely remote and 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 the form is the part of the sacrament which determines the matter to signifying, and which regularly consists in words pronounced by the Minister.

I say. - Matter and form are not only absolutely necessary for the validity of a sacrament, but they must also be applied by the same Minister and toward the same subject; and so great a conjunction between both must be present that, according to the moral estimation of men, with the nature of each sacrament considered, one affects the other. The reason for the first is that, if either one is lacking, the sensible sign is no longer had as it was divinely instituted. But the reason for the second is that if one person were to place the matter and another the form, or if indeed the same person were to place both, but while he applied the matter to one subject, he properly directed the form to another, the words of the form would not be verified. Finally the reason for the third is that the form together with the matter must constitute one total sign. - I said with the nature of each sacrament considered, because while in Baptism, for example, such a conjunction is required that the Minister pronouncing the words is morally judged also to wash; in Penance absolution can be deferred long enough, as in judgments a sentence after the examination of the cause; and in Matrimony the consent of one can follow the consent of the other for so long as this consent is judged morally to remain, as in other contracts. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 8 and 9. - Ballerini, note (b) and (c), p. 129.

You Will Resolve. 1st. Every substantial change, whether in the matter or in the form, invalidates the sacrament. Moreover, that change is called substantial which, if it affects the matter, brings it about that this matter can no longer be said to be the same as that which was determined by Christ; but if it affects the form, the sense of the words is changed into another. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 11.

2nd. An accidental change, namely that which is concerned only with the qualities of the matter and form, with the essential nature of the sign being preserved, indeed does not invalidate the sacrament, as is plain of itself, and it induces grave or light sin according as it is or is not notable; in the first case grave irreverence would be committed, and in the other only light irreverence. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, ibid.

3rd. When a prudent doubt has arisen concerning the validity either of the matter or of the form, the sacrament can be repeated under condition, indeed also must be, if charity, justice, or religion postulates it. For although repetition made without just cause inflicts injury upon the sacrament, nevertheless, while doubt stands, provision is made for the holiness of the rite by the addition of the condition and for the necessity of the faithful by repetition. The reason is deduced from the very well-known axiom: Sacraments are for men. Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 27 and seq.

4th. But if a prudent doubt exists whether the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Order were truly or validly conferred, they are to be conferred again under condition. - Cf. Can. 732. Indeed the more necessary sacraments, and those which are conferred only once, namely Baptism and Order, are more readily to be repeated, even if a much greater probability militates for the value of the sacrament against doubtful or slenderly probable reasons to the contrary. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, ibid. - Lehmkuhl, nn. 16 and seq.

III. QUESTION II. What are the parts of the sacraments of the new law? ANSWER. Two: matter and form. These names do not occur among the ancient Fathers; nevertheless the Church, both Greek and Latin, adopted these words as accommodated to the explaining of sacramental things. Under the name of matter are understood not only the sensible things themselves, but also sensible actions, such as unction, ablution, confession, consent expressed by nod or by word. One matter is remote, as water in Baptism; another proximate, as the ablution.