From the 4th century when Christianity was recognised as the accepted religion in the Roman Empire there was the possibility of a liturgical blessing during the household wedding. By the 9th century this mutual consent had to be given in the presence of witnesses but remained a civil and familial ceremony. Consent remained the essential element, but now the priest received the consent after a public, pre-nuptial investigation.
It was the subsequent breakdown of societal institutions and the abuse of the common law system of marriage that led to the Church taking on the oversight of marriage. The popular notion that a wedding is primarily the business of the bride and groom is not true in the Sacramental sense.
The Church, witness of the marriage, has a stake in the Sacrament of marriage. In the Scriptures, rings were given as signs of commitment. After being blessed by the priest the rings are exchanged between bride and groom. XXVI, Q. Perhaps, however, it is not lawful to contract marriage except in the presence of the Church and before the priest , if this is possible.
It is hard to see why Melchior Canus tried to support his opinion by the opening words of the first quotation. He supposes that from the words "it seems that one who contracts marriage in the state of sin does not sin " the conclusion is to be drawn that de Palude means in this case a marriage which is not a sacrament ; for to administer or receive a sacrament in a state of sin is a grave sin , a sacrilege.
But on the other hand, it is to be noted that de Palude in unmistakable terms declares the mutual consent to be the conferring of the sacrament. The words, "it seems", merely introduce a difficulty: whether this expresses his own view, he does not make clear, in so far as the contracting of marriage means the reception of a sacrament ; in so far as it is the administration of a sacrament he regards it as probable that the administering of a sacrament in sin is an additional sin only in the case of ministers ordained for the administration of the sacraments , but the contracting parties in marriage are not such ministers.
The opinion of Canus finds but little support in the expressions of the Fathers or in papal letters , which state that marriage without the priest is declared unholy, wicked, or sacrilegious , that it does not bring the grace of God but provokes His wrath. Such statements do not deny the sacramental character of marriage so contracted; but they do condemn as sacrilegious that reception of the sacrament which indeed lays open the source of grace, yet places an obstacle in the way of the sacrament's efficacy.
For a long time, nevertheless, the opinion of Canus had its defenders among the post-Tridentine theologians. Even Prosper Lambertini, as Benedict XIV , did not set aside his pronouncement, given in his work "De synodo dioecesana", VIII, xiii, that Canus's view was "valde probabilis", although in his capacity as pope he taught the opposite clearly and distinctly in his letter to the Archbishop of Goa.
Today it must be rejected by all Catholic theologians and branded at least as false. The inferences not contemplated by the originators of this opinion, but deduced later and used in practice against the rights of the Church , constrained succeeding popes repeatedly to condemn it formally.
Subservient Catholics and court theologians especially found it useful as warranting the secular power in making laws concerning validity and invalidity, diriment impediments , and the like. For, if the sacrament consisted in the priestly blessing and the contract , as was never doubted , in the mutual consent of the parties, evidently then contract and sacrament must be separated; the former had to precede as a foundation; upon it, as matter , was founded the sacrament , which took place through the blessing of the priest.
But contracts , which affect social and civil life, are subject to state authority, so that this can make such regulations and restrictions even as to their validity, as it deems necessary for the public weal.
This practical conclusion was drawn especially by Marcus Antonius de Dominis, Bishop of Spoleto , afterwards an apostate , in his work "De republica ecclesiastica" V, xi, 22 , and by Launoy in his work "Regia in matrimonio potestas" I, ix sqq. In the middle of the last century Nepomuk Nuytz, professor at the University of Turin , defended this opinion with renewed vigour in order to supply a juridicial basis for civil legislation regarding marriage.
These propositions are included in the "Syllabus" of 8 December , and must be rejected by all Catholics. He says: "It is certain that in Christian marriage the contract is inseparable from the sacrament ; and that, for this reason, the contract cannot be true and legitimate without being a sacrament as well. For Christ our Lord added to marriage the dignity of a sacrament ; but marriage is the contract itself, whenever that contract is lawfully made.
Hence it is clear that among Christians every true marriage is, in itself and by itself, a sacrament ; and that nothing can be farther from the truth than to say that the sacrament is a certain added ornament, or external adjunct, which can be separated and torn away from the contract at the caprice of man.
The view that most correctly explains this is perhaps the one that is generally prevalent today; in every contract two elements are to be distinguished, the offering of a right and the acceptance of it; the former is the foundation, the latter is the juridicial completion.
The same holds true of the sacramental contract of marriage; in so far, therefore as an offering of the marriage right is contained in the mutual declaration of consent , we have the matter of the sacraments , and, in so far as a mutual acceptance is contained therein, we have the form.
To complete our inquiry concerning the essence of the Sacrament of Marriage, its matter and form , and its minister , we have still to mention a theory that was defended by a few jurists of the Middle Ages and has been revived by Dr. According to this marriage in the strict sense, and therefore marriage as a sacrament , is not accomplished until consummation of the marriage is added to the consent.
It is the consummation, therefore, that constitutes the matter or the form. But as Freisen retracted this opinion which could not be harmonized with the Church's definitions, it is no longer of actual interest.
This view was derived from the fact that marriage, according to Christ's command, is absolutely indissoluble. On the other hand, it is undeniably the teaching and practice of the Church that, in spite of mutual consent , marriage can be dissolved by religious profession or by the declaration of the pope ; hence the conclusion seemed to be that there was no real marriage previous to the consummation, since admittedly neither religious profession nor papal declaration can afterwards effect a dissolution.
The error lies in taking indissolubility in a sense that the Church has never held. In one case, it is true , according to earlier ecclesiastical law, the previous relation of mere espousal between man and woman became a lawful marriage and therefore the Sacrament of Marriage , namely when a valid betrothal was followed by consummation. It was a legal presumption that in this case the betrothed parties wished to lessen the sinfulness of their action as much as possible, and therefore performed it with the intention of marriage and not of fornication.
The efficient cause of the marriage contract , as well as of the sacrament , was even in this case the mutual intention of marriage, although expression was not given to it in the regular way. This legal presumption ceased on 5 Feb. Difference between the sacrament of marriage and the other sacraments From all that has been said, it is clear that while marriage, inasmuch as it is an outward sign of grace and also produces interior grace, has the nature common to all the sacraments , still, viewed as an external sign, it is unique and very different from the other sacraments.
The external sign is a contract ; hence marriage, even as an effective sign or sacrament , has precisely the nature and quality of a contract , its validity depending on the rules for the validity of contracts. And, as we can distinguish between a contract in its origin and a contract in its continuance, so we can distinguish between the sacrament of marriage in fieri and in facto esse.
The sacrament in fieri is the above-mentioned mutual declaration of consent ; the sacrament in facto esse is the Divine bond which unites the married persons for life.
In most of the other sacraments also there is this distinction between sacrament in fieri and in facto esse ; but the continuance of the other sacraments is based mostly on the inamissible character which they impress upon the soul of the recipient.
Not so with marriage; in the soul of the recipient there is a question of no new physical being or mode of being, but of a legal relationship which can as a rule be broken only by death, although in individual cases it may otherwise be rendered void, provided the marriage has not been consummated. In this respect, therefore, marriage, especially as a sacrament , differs from other contracts , since it is not subject to the free will of the individuals.
Of course, the choice of a partner and especially the contracting or non-contracting of marriage are subject to the free will of the individuals ; but any revocation or essential altering of the terms is beyond the power of the contracting parties; the essence of the contractual sacrament is Divinely regulated.
Of still greater importance is the contract aspect of the sacrament in fieri. In the other sacraments , the conditional administration is admissible only within narrow limits. There can only be questions of conditions of the present or past, which, according as they are verified or not verified in fact, there and then admit or prevent the valid administration of the sacrament. But generally even these conditions have no influence on the validity; they are made for the sake of greater reverence, so as to avoid even the appearance of regarding the sacramental procedure as useless.
The Sacrament of Marriage, on the contrary, follows the nature of a contract in all these matters. It admits conditions not only of the past and present, but also future conditions which delay the production of the sacrament until the conditions are fulfilled. At the moment, these are fulfilled the sacrament and its conferring of grace take place in virtue of the mutual consent previously expressed and still continuing.
Only diriment conditions are opposed to the essence of the Sacrament of Marriage, because it consists in an indissoluble contract. Any such conditions , as well as all others that are opposed to the intrinsic nature of marriage, have as a result the invalidity of both the contract and the sacrament. A further quality of the Sacrament of Marriage, not possessed by the other sacraments , is that it can be effected without the personal presence of the mutual ministers and recipients. A consensual agreement can be made in writing as well as orally, and by proxy as well as in person.
Hence these methods are not opposed to the validity of the sacrament. Of course, according to ecclesiastical law, the form prescribed for validity is, as a rule, the personal, mutual declaration of consent before witnesses ; but that is a requirement added to the nature of marriage and to Divine law , which the Church can therefore set aside and from which she can dispense in individual cases. Even the contracting of marriage through authorized representatives is not absolutely excluded.
In such a case, however, this representative could not be called the minister , much less the recipient of the sacrament , but merely the agent or intermediary.
The declaration of consent made by him is valid only in so far as it represents and contains the consent of his principal; it is the latter which effects the contract and sacrament , hence the principal is the minister of the sacrament. It is the principal, and not the agent, who receives the consent of and marries the other party, and who therefore also receives the sacrament.
It does not matter whether the principal, at the exact moment when the consent is expressed by his agent, has the use of reason , or consciousness , or is deprived of it e.
The actual use of reason is no more required for it than in the baptism of an infant or in extreme unction administered to an unconscious person. It may even happen in the case of marriage that the consent , which was given many years ago, only now takes effect. This occurs in the case of the so-called sanatio in radice. Through this an ecclesiastical impediment , hitherto invalidating the marriage, is removed by ecclesiastical authority, and the mutual consent previously given without knowledge of the impediment is accepted as legitimate, provided it is certain that this consent has habitually continued according to its original intent.
At the moment of the ecclesiastical dispensation the original consent becomes the effective cause of the sacrament and the hitherto presumptive, but now real, spouses receive the sacramental effect in the increase of sanctifying grace , provided they place no obstacle in the way. The extent of sacramental marriage As we have several times emphasized, not every marriage is a true sacrament , but only marriages between Christians.
One becomes and remains a Christian in the sense recognized here through valid baptism. Hence only one who has been validly baptized can contract a marriage which is a sacrament ; but every one can contract it who has been validly baptized , whether he has remained true to the Christian faith , or become a heretic , or even an infidel. Such has always been the teaching and practice of the Church.
Through baptism one "becomes a member of Christ and is incorporated in the body of the Church ", as declared in the Florentine Decree for the Armenians ; so far as law is concerned, he remains irrevocably subject to the Church , and is therefore, in legal questions, always to be considered a Christian. Hence it is a general principle that all baptized persons are subject to universal ecclesiastical laws, especially marriage laws unless the Church makes an exception for individual cases or classes.
Hence not only the marriage between Catholics , but also that contracted by members of the different sects which have retained baptism and validly baptize , is undoubtedly a sacrament. It matters not whether the non-Catholic considers marriage a sacrament or not, or whether he intends to effect a sacrament or not. Provided only he intends to contract a true marriage, and expresses the requisite consent , this intention and this expression are sufficient to constitute a sacrament.
But if he is absolutely determined not to effect a sacrament , then, of course, the production of a sacrament would be excluded, but the marriage contract also would be null and void. By Divine ordinance it is essential to Christian marriage that it should be a sacrament ; it is not in the power of the contracting parties to eliminate anything from its nature , and a person who has the intention of doing this invalidates the whole ceremony.
It is certain , therefore, that marriage contracted between baptized persons is a sacrament , even the so-called mixed marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, provided the non-Catholic has been validly baptized. It is equally certain that marriage between unbaptized persons is not a sacrament in the strict sense of the word.
There is, however, great uncertainty as to how those marriages are to be regarded which exist legitimately and validly between a baptized and an unbaptized person. Such marriages may occur in two ways. In the first place, a marriage may have been contracted between unbelievers, one of whom afterwards becomes a Christian , while the other remains an unbeliever.
Here believer and unbeliever are taken in the sense of baptized and unbaptized. The marriage contracted validly while both were unbelievers continues to exist , and though under certain circumstances it is dissoluble, it is not rendered void simply because of the baptism of one of the parties, for, as Innocent III says in IV, xix, 8 , "through the sacrament of baptism marriage is not dissolved, but sins are forgiven", and St.
Paul expressly states 1 Corinthians sq. And if any woman hath a husband that believeth not, and he consent to dwell with her, let her not put away her husband. Secondly, there may be question of a marriage, which from the beginning was a mixed marriage , i.
By ecclesiastical law, such a marriage cannot take place without a dispensation from the Church , which has made disparity of worship between baptized and unbaptized a diriment impediment. In regard to both kinds of mixed marriage it may be asked whether they have the character of a sacrament , and whether they have the effect of imparting grace at least to the baptized party.
As to the unbaptized party, there can clearly be no question of sacrament or sacramental grace, for baptism is the door to the other sacraments , none of which can be validly received before it.
The opinions of theologians on this point vary considerably. Some maintain that in both kinds of mixed marriages the baptized party receives the grace of the sacrament ; others deny this in the case of a marriage contract contracted by unbelievers which subsequently becomes a mixed marriage , and affirm it in the case of a marriage contracted by a believer with an unbeliever in virtue of a dispensation from the Church ; a third class again deny that there is a sacrament or sacramental grace in either case.
The first view was held as probable by Palmieri De matrimonio christiano, cap. The third opinion is upheld by Vasquez and Thomas Sanchez , and is at the present time vigorously defended by Billot De sacramentis: II, De matrimonio, thesis xxxviii, sec.
No side brings convincing proof. Perhaps the weakest grounds are adduced for the opinion which, in regard to marriage contracted by unbelievers, claims sacramentality and the sacramental grace after baptism for the party who, subsequently to the marriage, is baptized.
0コメント