Unity of matter and form; conditional administration

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. ² In order that a sacrament be valid, there must be between the matter and the form, for example between the pouring of water and the pronouncing of the words, so great a conjunction that according to the moral estimation of men, with the nature of each sacrament considered, one affects the other, that is, that the words are judged to fall upon such a thing and to constitute with it one total sign. St. Alphonsus (Lib. 6, n. 8) with Busembaum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

200. • A threefold rule is to be established:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16. Necessity and quality of the union. Just as matter and form must be united together for the constitution of a physical body, so it is also in the sacraments. Since, however, a sacrament is a moral being, a perfectly physical union is not required for its validity, but a moral union between matter and form suffices. I say, however, for its validity, for a greater union is often required for the liceity of administration, as will be said below concerning the individual sacraments.

Rule. This moral union is considered present when, with the nature of each sacrament considered, according to the common estimation of men the words truly affect the matter and together with it constitute one sign.⁴⁶

⁴⁶ Cf. St. Thomas, S. theol. 3, q. 60, a. 8 ad 3.

17. Resolutions. 1. The greatest union and coexistence, which therefore is called a physical union by many authors, is required in the consecration of the Eucharist, in which the pronouns hoc and hic ("this") demonstrate that the matter is physically present from the beginning when the form of consecration is pronounced. Moreover, since this sacrament consists in a permanent thing and not in a transient action, it is scarcely possible that matter and form not be simultaneous.

2. A lesser union and coexistence of form and matter is required for the validity of baptism, confirmation, extreme unction, and order. Hence these sacraments are certainly valid if at least a partial, although minimal, physical coexistence between the form and the proximate matter was present. Thus, for example, baptism is valid if the one baptizing poured water over the person to be baptized and, when the last drop of water is flowing, suddenly begins to say: "I baptize you, etc." Likewise, extreme unction is valid if the priest, while pronouncing the final word of the form, at length begins to anoint. Thus the common opinion. According to an opinion at least theoretically probable, these sacraments were validly conferred even if there is a very brief interval between the application of the matter and the form. The reason is that, although the forms of the aforesaid sacraments signify present time, "I baptize," "I sign," etc., nevertheless morally speaking the present time admits some latitude, and that which immediately preceded or immediately follows is considered still present. Thus, for example, one who says, "I drink to your health," is also considered truthful even if he is not drinking now but is about to drink immediately. Authors do not agree how great an interval destroys the validity of these sacraments. Billuart⁴⁷ thinks that an interposed delay of one Hail Mary does not destroy validity; but St. Alphonsus⁴⁸ opines that a delay of one Our Father invalidates these sacraments. But the Holy Office, in an Instruction given on 2 May 1858 to the Apostolic Vicar of Abyssinia, declares that baptism, and all other sacraments following upon a baptism thus conferred, are to be repeated conditionally if the form is pronounced when the washing has already been entirely completed, or conversely if one proceeds to the washing when the pronouncement of the form has been completed.⁴⁹ This Instruction of the Holy Office indeed seems to be observed in practice everywhere. But the contrary opinion of Lugo,⁵⁰ asserting that in this case the sacrament need not necessarily be repeated, no longer seems safe in practice. Thus also St. Alphonsus, who, although in the place cited he seems to approve the opinion of Lugo and others, nevertheless in Exam. ordinandorum, n. 6, calls it not probable in practice.

3. A still lesser union of form and matter is required for the validity of penance and matrimony. For in penance the proximate matter, namely, contrition and confession, must altogether precede absolution, and it suffices that contrition virtually coexist with absolution, which can even be deferred for a short while, namely, according to some, for three or four hours.⁵¹ In the sacrament of matrimony, in which the contract cannot be separated from the sacrament, the form of the sacrament is the acceptance of the consent of the other party. As long as this consent morally perseveres, for so long can the acceptance of the other party supervene, even after several months, and then at length the sacrament is constituted. Therefore, a still lesser simultaneity between form and matter is required. Such a mode of receiving the sacrament can occur when matrimony is contracted through a proxy.⁵²

⁴⁷ De sacr. diss. 1, a. 6, § 3.

⁴⁸ Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 9.

⁴⁹ Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 1159.

⁵⁰ De poenit. disp. 7, n. 275. Certain authors, such as Gaudé in the notes to the new edition of the Theology of St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 9, cite in favor of Lugo's opinion several decisions of the Holy Office, namely, those of 12 September 1877, 17 March 1897, 30 November and 14 December 1898, by which certain priestly ordinations were declared valid; but these decisions are not to the point: 1. because it is not yet established among authors what the essential form and matter of the sacrament of order are, whether the imposition of the hand, the presentation of the instruments, or both together; 2. because in the cases proposed the doubt did not properly concern the required simultaneity of matter and form, at least if the decision of 17 March 1897 of the following tenor is excepted: "When the petitioner received the sacred order of the priesthood, four or five were to be ordained together, all of whom eagerly strove to touch the instruments at the same time. He remembers that he first touched them, but when the formula was pronounced, although he tried to touch them again, he was prevented by the hands of the others." The response of the Holy Office, confirmed by Leo XIII, read: "Let the petitioner rest content" (Analect. eccl. V [1897], 203). In that case the form was pronounced after the touching of the chalice; but because it is not established what the form of this sacrament is, neither does this decision destroy the decision of the same Holy Office of 2 May 1858 cited above.

⁵¹ Cf. Billuart, l.c., a. 4, § 2.

⁵² Cf. below in the treatise on matrimony, n. 660.

19. 1. Ordinarily, the application of form to matter must be made by one and the same minister. For the administration of the sacraments is one action to be performed in the name of Christ, which is composed of two elements, namely, the application of form to matter. But if one person were to apply the matter and another the form, two actions rather than one would be completed. Moreover, the signification of the form would often not be verified if one person were to apply the remote matter and another pronounce the form; for example, the form of baptism would be false if one person poured water over the one to be baptized and another said: "I baptize you, etc."⁵⁵

I said, however, ordinarily. For in the sacrament of penance the penitent applies the matter, namely, by placing the acts of contrition, confession, and satisfaction; but the confessor applies the form by pronouncing absolution. Moreover, it can happen that several persons consecrate the Eucharist together, as occurs in the ordination of a priest, and more often in the Greek Church. In extreme unction also the individual anointings can be made by different persons, as will be said below in the treatise on extreme unction.

⁵⁵ Cf. S. theol. 3, q. 67, a. 6.

20. 2. The form must be applied vocally and without interruption.

a) Since the form is part of the sensible sign in the sacraments and consists in words, it must necessarily be expressed vocally. Hence it is required that the minister hear himself, or at least be able to hear himself, while pronouncing the form. It is not sufficient merely to express the words of the form mentally. In practice, the essential words of the form are to be pronounced more clearly and slowly than, for example, in the private recitation of the Breviary. For the validity of the sacrament of matrimony, however, it is indeed sufficient that consent be manifested by each party through any external sign whatsoever. Nevertheless, ordinarily it must be insisted that those entering marriage express consent orally and clearly. (More fully on this matter in the treatise on matrimony.)

b) The words of the form must be pronounced in one continuous course and without interruption.

The reason is that otherwise they easily lose their signification. Therefore, if the interruption is so great that the words no longer effect one complete sense, the sacrament is invalid.⁵⁶ Yet in practice the nullity of a sacrament on account of an interruption of the form can with difficulty be determined with certainty. Casuists rightly note, however, that the sense of the form is lost much more easily if not only words but also syllables are separated. Thus, for example, they say: If one baptizing, after saying "I baptize you," were to exclaim toward the sacristan, "Hold the basin thus," or if he were to sneeze, cough moderately, or spit, and then continue, "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," the baptism would have been validly conferred. Or if the confessor, after saying "I absolve you," noticed that the penitent had departed from the confessional, recalled him by exclaiming, "What is this? Why did you not wait? Return and kneel," and only then added, "from your sins," he validly absolves. On the contrary, they say that the consecration would be invalid if the priest, after saying "For this is My Bo-" were to cough notably and then continue, "-dy."⁵⁷ All these or similar casuistic resolutions are of little usefulness for practice, in which the following are to be observed:

1. Every interruption of the form is diligently and, so far as possible, to be avoided. Hence priests who utter interjections during the pronouncement of the form act truly scandalously.

2. When some involuntary interruption occurs during the pronouncement of the form, for example, by sneezing or coughing, then the form is to be pronounced anew, unless it is certain that the essential part of the form has already been pronounced. Thus, for example, if a priest coughs or sneezes while pronouncing the words "For this is My Body," he does much better if, after the coughing or sneezing has ended, he begins again: "For this is, etc." On the contrary, if he coughs or sneezes after he has said "For this is the chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament," he ought not, after the coughing or sneezing has ended, to begin the form again, but to continue it.

⁵⁶ L.c., q. 68, a. 8 ad 3.

⁵⁷ Cf. Noldin, De sacr., n. 16.

21. A repeated form can be applied to matter either absolutely or conditionally. The condition is: if the first application of the form was not valid, then the form is applied anew; otherwise it is not. Concerning this repetition the following are to be noted:

a) The form must be repeated absolutely if it was applied to matter certainly unfit, or if the sacrament was otherwise certainly invalid. Therefore, for example, if a priest pronounced the words of consecration over water contained in the chalice, he must (after the water has been poured out and wine poured in) consecrate again absolutely. Thus all authors.

b) If a slight and unfounded doubt arises concerning the validity of a sacrament, it is in no way lawful to repeat the sacrament conferred. But he who nevertheless rashly repeats the sacrament, or repeats the form over the same matter (even conditionally), sins gravely. The reason is that in this way grave irreverence is inflicted upon religion. For if, for example, someone rashly repeats baptism because of a slight doubt, the second baptism would most probably be null, and the one baptizing, by pronouncing for a second time, "I baptize you," says something false. This indeed is gravely irreverent toward religion. Nor is a conditional repetition lawful in that case, because such an added condition, if the doubt is purely negative, is held as not having been added. One who rashly repeated the sacrament of baptism formerly incurred, in addition to the guilt of mortal sin, an irregularity by reason of the offense; but this irregularity no longer exists, since it is omitted in the Code of Canon Law.

I said, however: one who rashly repeated; for if someone, agitated by a scruple although one not so well founded, repeats the form of a sacrament for greater security, he generally does not sin gravely, for every intention of dishonoring God is absent; on the contrary, the form is repeated on account of the honor of God and the salvation of the one who receives the sacrament. This case can easily occur if a confessor, greatly fatigued from a prolonged hearing of confessions, sometimes does not remember that he pronounced the form of absolution. Then it is lawful secretly to pronounce absolution again under condition; for neither does scandal arise, nor is irreverence inflicted upon religion, because in other cases also it is lawful to pronounce absolution over sins already remitted on another occasion. Nevertheless, all persons (and especially the scrupulous) ought diligently to labor that empty repetitions of the sacramental form be avoided. For if someone, knowing himself to have such a habit of repeating, does not diligently strive to put it away, he is not excused from sin. This sin indeed is objectively grave, because these superfluous repetitions are irreverent toward religion. Nevertheless, I would not dare to say that in such a case each repetition made without sufficient foundation is a mortal sin, unless grave scandal and a depraved intention are present. For experience establishes that these useless repetitions are made without sufficient freedom and deliberation on account of scruples and other reasons.

Note. When there is question of sacraments very necessary for salvation, for example, of baptism, of the absolution of a dying man existing in mortal sin, or of extreme unction for a dying sinner deprived of his senses, then even with a slight but real doubt it is lawful to repeat the sacraments under condition.⁵⁸ The reason is that which has already been adduced more often: the sacraments are for men. Likewise, it is lawful to repeat the sacrament of order when a slight but real doubt concerning its validity exists; for the greatest harms would arise if someone not rightly initiated into the priesthood were to celebrate Mass, hear confessions, and discharge the other priestly offices.

c) If a prudent doubt exists whether the sacraments were in fact conferred or were conferred validly, they are to be conferred again under condition. Thus the Code of Canon Law, c. 732, § 2. The reason is always the same, because the sacraments are for men. For Christ, moved by the greatest mercy, instituted the sacraments for our salvation. Therefore, He will in no way be offended if someone, when a serious doubt exists concerning the validity of a sacrament conferred, repeats it for greater security. Indeed, Christ Himself requires that the sacraments then be repeated under condition, lest men be deprived of such great goods or exposed to such great dangers. Whenever a sacrament doubtfully conferred is repeated, the conditional form, of which there will immediately be discussion, must be employed.

⁵⁸ Cf. below, on the repetition of baptism for converts from heresy, n. 139.

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.

14. Principle I. For the essence or validity of a sacrament, of itself the moral union or simultaneity of the parts suffices. - For a sacrament is not physically one, but a moral composite, namely, one sign; for this there suffices that union by which, according to the common estimation of men, each part concurs toward one signification. Hence between matter and form there must be 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 with it to constitute one total sign. From this it follows that that union or simultaneity of matter and form is not the same in all the sacraments, because the sacramental signs are of diverse nature.

1. Hence the sacrament of Penance does not require strict union, because it was instituted by way of judgment, in which the sentence does not necessarily follow immediately after the examination of the case; whence someone can be absolved after several hours or days, provided the confessor retains the idea of the state of the penitent.

2. Similarly in Matrimony, because it is a contract: for it suffices that the consent of one be placed while the consent of the other still morally perseveres.

3. On the contrary in the Eucharist total physical simultaneity is required, because the pronouns hoc and hic demonstrate that the matter is present at the time at which the words are pronounced.

4. Finally, for the other sacraments a few authors, among whom is Cajetan, require a certain physical simultaneity because their forms signify the application of matter in the present; but a partial simultaneity, namely, by which the form begins to be uttered before the matter ceases to be applied, or, vice versa, the matter begins to be applied before the form ceases to be uttered. Many others hold that those sacraments are valid if the form is pronounced immediately before or immediately after the matter has been applied, because the present time expressed in the form, for example, I baptize thee, morally speaking admits a certain latitude, just as is clear from the fact that Baptism is certainly valid, even if the washing is not done except under the words: in the name of the Father...

In practice: since in the sacraments it is regularly illicit to use an opinion only probable when there is danger of nullity, one must act according to the first opinion, as moreover is prescribed by the Ritual, and hence it is required at least for liceity; but if the sacrament has been administered otherwise, let it be repeated conditionally.¹

¹ Readers of very recent works would easily think that something in this matter has been changed; and that now it is altogether certain that a sacrament is to be held as valid and not to be repeated conditionally, when it has been administered so that the form is immediately connected with the matter or vice versa.

But this conclusion does not agree with the instruction of the Holy Office, May 2, 1858, which says that Baptism is to be repeated conditionally if, once the washing has been completed, the form is pronounced, or on the contrary, once the utterance of the form has been completed, one proceeds to the washing. And St. Alphonsus, who seems to approve the contrary opinion in Moral Theology, book VI, n. 9, in Examination of Ordinands, n. 6, and in Confessor Directed, n. 3, calls it practically not probable. But they invoke:

1. Several decrees of the Holy Office (September 12, 1877; March 17, 1897; November 30 and December 14, 1898), by which ordinations are declared valid. But, as Prummer notes, they do not decide the question, because it is not established concerning the essential matter and form of Order; - besides, it is particular to this sacrament that first the imposition of hands is made upon individuals, and then only is the prayer uttered over all; but from that which is particular to a certain sacrament a general rule cannot validly be deduced which holds for all. Especially in the decree of March 17, 1897, there was no doubt concerning the simultaneity of matter and form, but the question was concerning the immediate touch of the chalice, which, although the ordinand had previously touched it immediately, nevertheless under the pronunciation of the form he was kept from it by the hands of others: the ordination is declared valid, because mediate touch suffices and was present through the mediation of the hands of others.

2. Also the response of the S. Congregation for the discipline of the Sacraments, November 17, 1916. It is the solution of a certain case proposed concerning the validity of Baptism: "to the proposed doubt: Whether Baptism in the case can be said to be valid, they judged that the answer should be: as proposed, negatively." Before the solution in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis there is placed a certain note of some consultor, in which among various considerations one reads: "It is common doctrine that for the validity of Baptism a physical union of matter and form is not required, but that moral union is enough, which is had both if the washing is done immediately before the form is completed, and if it is done immediately after." Yet these things are not found in the decree itself, nor do they have approval or authority from the Congregation, because they are not the motive on which the decree is founded, since Baptism in the case is nevertheless declared invalid.

A fortiori it cannot be said that the decree of the Holy Office mentioned above from 1858 was revoked by this other Congregation for the discipline of the Sacraments; and consequently it must be said to preserve its value.

15. Principle II. By the same minister there must be made the union or total application of the form to the matter, and in the sacraments in which external matter must be applied to a subject, the matter also must be placed and the form pronounced by the same minister. - For the confecting of a sacrament is one sacramental action to be placed in the name of Christ, which is composed of two parts, namely, from the application of the form to the matter, or also of both to the subject; whence the application must be made by the same minister, nor would it be one action if it were divided between two ministers; - and otherwise the sense of the words of the form would for the most part not be verified, as if one person poured water in baptizing and washed, and another said: I baptize thee.²

² The opinion concerning the probable value of the sacrament in the case in which matter and form at the same time were not placed by one and the same minister is altogether to be rejected, as is also clear concerning Baptism from the decree of the S. Congregation for the Sacraments, November 17, 1916.

Nevertheless 1) for the sacraments in which matter is not to be applied to a subject, the same minister need not place matter and form, but it suffices that he apply the form to the matter. Thus in Penance the priest applies the form, namely absolution, to the matter or acts placed by the penitent; in the Eucharist the priest would validly consecrate the matter, namely the host or chalice, placed on the altar by a deacon; in Matrimony the spouse accepts the body offered by the other party.

2. Several can validly place together the whole matter and form of the whole sacrament, as if several together poured water in baptizing and said: I baptize thee... or we baptize thee (n. 140); and ordained presbyters consecrate together with the bishop.

3. In sacraments which consist of several integral parts, the individual parts can validly be placed by different persons, provided the same person regard the matter and form of each part. Thus, with one priest consecrating the host, another would validly consecrate the chalice; and in Extreme Unction, one priest could perform the first anointing under its due form, another the second, a third the third, etc., as is wont to be done in the Greek Church.