Sect. 277The Nature of the Sacrament of Matrimony—matter and Form—ministerThe Nature of the Sacrament of Matrimony—matter and Form—minister

Assuming that matrimony is a sacrament, we have now to consider wherein the sacrament consists. Some theologians have tried to make such a distinction between the contract and the sacrament as to hold that the contract may exist, even between Christians, without the sacrament. According to this view the matter of the sacrament is the act of the parties (i.e. the contract), the form is the blessing, and the minister is the priest; hence a marriage contracted without the priest’s blessing would be a true marriage, but no sacrament The Catholic doctrine as laid down by Pius VI., and afterwards by Pius IX. and Leo. XIII., is that in the case of baptized persons the contract and the sacrament are identical; the one cannot exist without the other. Hence the blessing is not the form, nor is the priest the minister.

1. I. It is plain from the foregoing section that Christ raised to the dignity of a sacrament that same marriage which God had instituted in the beginning. Now, this marriage was none other than a contract, and consequently it is the contract which constitutes the sacrament Moreover, the sacrament of matrimony is a sign of the union between Christ and His Church, which union is typified by the contract itself.

2. The unanimous teaching of the mediæval theologians is in favour of the inseparableness of the contract and the sacrament. It will be enough to quote passages from the leaders of the two rival schools to show that, in spite of their many differences, they were at one in this matter. “The words expressing the marriage consent are the form of this sacrament, not the priest’s blessing” (St. Thom., Suppl., q. 42, a. 1). “The external acts and the words expressing consent, directly produce a sort of bond which is the sacrament of marriage” (ibid., a. 3). “The sacrament of marriage has for its matter lawful persons, and for its form their consent.… For the essence of matrimony these two suffice: lawfulness in the persons, and unity in consent” (St. Bonav. In 4 Sent., d. 28, a. 1, q. 5).

3. The definitions of the Councils are equally clear. “The seventh is the sacrament of matrimony, which is a sign of the union of Christ and the Church, according to the Apostle’s saying, ‘This is a great sacrament, but I speak in Christ and the Church.’ The efficient cause of matrimony is properly (regulariter) the mutual consent by words at the same time expressed” (Council of Florence, Decr. pro Armenis). It is evident that these last words refer to matrimony as a sacrament, because the decree is an instruction regarding the sacraments The Council of Trent (sess. xxiv.) says, “The first parent of the human race, under the influence of the Divine Spirit, pronounced the bond of matrimony perpetual and indissoluble when he said, ‘This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh.’ But that by this bond two only are united and joined together, our Lord taught more plainly, when rehearsing those last words as having been uttered by God, He said, ‘Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh;’ and straightway confirmed the firmness of that tie, proclaimed so long before by Adam, by these words, ‘What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.’ But the grace which might perfect that natural love, and confirm that indissoluble union, and sanctify the married, Christ Himself, the institutor and perfecter of the venerable sacraments, merited for us by His Passion.… Whereas therefore, matrimony, in the law of the Gospel, excelleth in grace, through Christ, the marriages of olden time; with reason have our holy Fathers, the Councils and the tradition of the Universal Church, always taught that it is to be counted among the sacraments of the new law.” According to the Council, therefore, our Lord not only gave His approbation to matrimony as instituted in the beginning, but enriched it with the grace which He merited; consequently, the contract has been raised to the dignity of a sign conferring grace.

4. To the definitions of the councils the authoritative teaching of the Popes may be added. “It is a dogma of the Faith,” says Pius VI. (Ep. ad Episc. Motulensem), “that matrimony which, before Christ’s coming, was only an indissoluble contract, has become, since His coming, one of the seven sacraments of the law of the Gospel [a sacrament] instituted by Christ our Lord, as the Council of Florence defined.… Hence it is that to the Church alone, which has the entire care of the sacraments, belongs all right and power of assigning the form to this contract which has been raised to the sublime dignity of a sacrament, and consequently of judging of the validity or invalidity of marriages.” “The distinction, or rather separation [between the contract and the sacrament], cannot be approved of; since it is clear that in Christian matrimony the contract is not separable from the sacrament, and consequently that a true and lawful contract cannot exist without being by that very fact a sacrament. For Christ our Lord endowed matrimony with the sacramental dignity; but matrimony is the contract itself, provided that the contract is rightly made [lawfully, jure].… Therefore it is plain that every true (justum) marriage among Christians is in itself and by itself a sacrament; and that nothing is further from the truth than that the sacrament is a sort of added ornament or quality introduced from without, which may be detached from the contract at the discretion of man” (Leo XIII., Encyc. Arcanum).

II. From what has been said, it is evident that the contract is not the matter, and that the blessing is not the form. But it is by no means certain what the matter and form of matrimony really are. Since the Council of Florence all indeed agree, with some few exceptions, than the distinction of matter and form applies to this sacrament. We have already seen (p. 360) that the matter of a sacrament is the natural act which our Lord has raised to a supernatural dignity, while the form is that which differentiates the process or action, and makes it to be a sacrament. The common opinion regarding matrimony is that the offer is the matter, and the acceptance the form: in other words, the act of the promisor is the matter, and the act of the promisee the form. It is not easy to see how this view discriminates between sacramental and non-sacramental marriage. The following is suggested as one answer to the difficulty. Our Lord in instituting this sacrament acted on the same principle as in the others; He took a natural act and raised it to be something supernatural. But, instead of making the distinguishing element to consist of words, or the like, He placed it in the Christian character of the parties; in other words, He ordained that whenever the contract of marriage should be entered into by baptized persons, that contract should be a sacrament. To say that the form of matrimony is the fact of having been baptized, would sound strange. It may be better, therefore, to say that the contract considered as concerned with human beings is the matter; while considered as concerned with Christians (baptized) it is the form.

III. If it be granted, as we have already shown, that marriage contracted between Christians without the priest’s blessing is a sacrament, it is clear that the parties themselves, and not the priest, are the ministers of the sacrament. As, however, a person cannot administer a sacrament to himself [except in the case of the Blessed Eucharist (see supra, § 259)], we must hold that the man administers to the woman, and the woman to the man. It should be noted, however, that a few of the most learned theologians have followed the celebrated Melchior Canus in holding that the priest is the minister. After the repeated declarations of the Popes as to the validity of clandestine marriages, we do not see how Canus’s opinion can be defended. Nay, the Council of Trent had already clearly spoken, at least in its disciplinary enactments: “Although it is not to be doubted that clandestine marriages, made with the free consent of the contracting parties, are valid (rata) and true marriages, so long as the Church hath not rendered them invalid; and, consequently, that those persons are justly to be condemned, as the Holy Synod doth condemn them with anathema, who deny that such marriages are true and valid … nevertheless the Holy Church of God hath, for reasons most just, at all limes detested and prohibited such marriages” (sess. xxiv., De Ref. Matr.).

We have already seen that the chiefs of the two great mediæval schools of theology were at one concerning the nature of the sacrament of matrimony. They also agree that the priest is not the minister. “The priest’s blessing,” says St. Thomas, “is not required in matrimony as belonging to its essence” (Suppl., q. 45, a. 5). And St. Bonaventure: “Marriage contracted clandestinely is truly received, but not with salutary effect, because it is against the Church’s command” (In iv. Sent., d. 28, a. 5).

It may be objected that the Council of Trent distinctly enjoins that the priest shall say, “I join you together in matrimony,” which indicates that he is the minister. We answer that the teaching of the Council is clear from what has already been quoted. The words to be used by the priest merely mean that he, as the Church’s minister, declares the marriage to be valid and lawful, and confers upon it the blessing of God.