Rights in God's Church
Appendix 5. (907).
`Every time Christians contract lawful marriage (that is, according to the formalities required by the Church), they form a sacrament'; `the contracting partners are the ministers of this sacrament'. These two propositions are strictly interdependent. If the first is true, the second can easily be proved in the following way. The Council of Trent ruled that clandestine marriages carried out in preceding centuries were true and ratified marriages (vera et rata matrimonia) (Sess. 24, De Reform. c. 1. But the first proposition states that there is no true matrimonial contract between Christians without its being simultaneously a sacrament. Hence, the ministers of the sacrament are the contracting partners (the second proposition) because, as we said, they were truly married without the presence of a priest. It is necessary, of course, to prove the first proposition, that is, that there is no true, legitimate matrimonial contract between Christians without its being a sac rament. The argument runs as follows.
1. ;In church language, the phrase vera et rata refers only to sacramental marriages. But the Council of Trent has declared that marriages contracted without the presence of a priest are vera et rata. Therefore, these marriages are true sacraments.
Benedict XIV expresses the argument thus:
| The Fathers of the Council of Trent would never have said and declared that these marriages were TRUE AND RATIFIED unless they believed them to be true sacraments. This is Bellarmine's opinion (cit. c. 8) when he says that it was known to those most wise Fathers from the sacred canons, to which it is presumed they wished to conform in their language, that only those marriages are said to be TRUE AND RATIFIED which are sacraments of religion as well as civil contracts. We learn this especially from Innocent III (De Divortiis, c. 4), where he says: `Although true marriage exists amongst the Gentiles, it is not ratified. It is true and ratified amongst the faithful because once the sacrament of faith has entered, it is never lost, but makes the sacrament of marriage ratified.' |
(De Synod. D., bk. 8, c. 13: 5)
Benedict XIV adds to these words:
| Again if it comes about that marriage has been contracted secretly without the present of a priest, and that such a marriage is also a sacrament, it has to be admitted that THE CONTRACTING PARTIES THEMSELVES ARE THE MINISTERS, not the priest. |
(Ibid.)
2. There is no distinction in Scripture between lawful Christian marriage and the sacrament. The former is considered sacramental of its very nature. In fact, Christ establishes the indissolubility of Christian marriage, and excludes the possibility of other, dissoluble marriage. The indissolubility spoken about by Christ springs from the sacramental bond: `What therefore God has joined, let not man put asunder' (Mt 19: 6). Marriage between Christians, therefore, is indissoluble not only by contract, but primarily by the law of God who prescribes the indissolubility of the contract itself. Hence, there is no true, Christian marriage which is not a sacrament.
3. When St. Paul says that Christian marriage sacramentum est, he includes all marriages between Christians without distinction, and hence acknowledges only sacramental marriage (Eph 5: 32). How does St. Paul prove that every Christian marriage is a sacrament? He shows that it represents the union between Christ and his Church. This union is represented according to the Apostle, in every marriage between Christians.
4. The Council of Trent speaks of only one possible marriage between Christians, which is simultaneously a lawful contract and a sacrament (sess. 24, De Ref.).
5. Innocent III, quoted above, shows that the contracting partners, as baptised members of the faithful, possess a certain quality through their indelible character which distinguishes their marriage from that of non-baptised people. The difference means that Christian marriage is true marriage, and ratum; marriage between non-baptised persons is true marriage, but not ratum. What does ratum mean? According to Innocent III, it means `confirmed by the sacrament, which renders it indissoluble'. We should pay particular attention to the following words, especially these:
| It is true and RATIFIED amongst the faithful BECAUSE ONCE THE SACRAMENT OF FAITH HAS ENTERED, IT IS NEVER LOST, but ratifies the sacrament of marriage. |
(De Synod. D., bk. 8, c. 13: 5)
6. Finally, Benedict XIV notes that in places where the Council has been promulgated, it could happen that a marriage comes about in the presence of the parish priest and two witnesses, without its being blessed - if, for instance, the bride and groom with two witnesses take the parish priest by surprise, and exchange their consent before him. If, as Cano says, the contract can be divided from the sacrament, so that such marriages would be contracts without the sacrament, the Church would not hesitate to say so:
| Lest the faithful who were living together in this way were to be perpetually deprived of the grace which the sacrament of marriage provides for those contracting marriage, the Church would have to compel, or at least exhort and induce them to legitimately renew their contract, using the sacred rites before the parish priest, by whose words the sacrament would come about. For the same reason, the Church would command clandestine marriages to be reiterated before a priest, or would at least take care to establish them on a sound footing when they have been carried out in places where the decree of Trent has not been received. But in neither case do we see the renovation of marriage being urged by the Church. We may therefore conjecture without fear that each of the two contracts, although not marked by a priestly blessing, is indeed held by the Church as a sacrament |
(De Synod. D, bk. 8, c. 13: 8)
We conclude that our opinion is not only the most common, as Lambertini says, but is that expressed by `NEARLY ALL ancient theologians and interpreters of canon law' (ibid. Cf. also Tertio saggio di observazioni sopra alcuni articoli del progetto di codice civile, G. B. Monti, Mendrisio, 1836).