Matrimony Chapter I §1: Nature of the Sacrament and Divine Institution

Chapter I: Marriage Between Christians a True Sacrament

§1: Nature of the Sacrament and Its Divine Institution

CHAPTER I MARRIAGE BETWEEN CHRISTIANS A TRUE SACRAMENT SECTION i NATURE OF THE SACRAMENT AND ITS DIVINE INSTITUTION Our chief task in this section will be to show from Divine Revelation (i) that marriage between Christians is a Sacrament and (2) that the Sacrament is inseparable from the contract. Thesis I: The act or formality by which the conjugal union is established among baptized persons is a true Sacrament of the New Law. This is an article of faith. Proof. Certain ancient and medieval sects (Encratites, Manichaeans, Priscillianists, Albigenses) regarded Matrimony as immoral. The Protestant “Reformers,” notably Luther, denied its sacramental character and called it “a worldly thing.” Against these heretics the Council of Trent defined : “If anyone saith that Matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven Sacra147 ments of the evangelic law, instituted by Christ the Lord, but that it has been invented by men in the Church, and that it does not confer grace, let him be anathema.” 1 The Council finds this doctrine “intimated” in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians,2 but bases its main argument on Tradition. a) In Eph. V, 25-32 the Apostle admonishes husbands: “Love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered himself up for it, that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. … So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies… • For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great mystery, but I speak in Christ and the Church.” 3 The Apostle here attributes to Matrimony the three essential notes of a Sacrament, to wit: (1) an external sign, (2) internal grace, (3) institution by Jesus Christ. Hence Christian marriage is a true Sacrament. 1 Seas. XXIV, can. i : “Si quis dixerit, tnatrimonium non esse vere et proprie unum ex septem legis evangelicae sacramentis a Christo Domino institutum, sed ab hominibus in Ecclesia inventum neque gratiam conferre, anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 971). 2Cfr. Sew. XXIV, Prooemium: ” Paulus apostolus innuit . . 3 ” Viri, diligite uxores vestras. sicut et Christ us dilexit Ecclesiam, et seipsum tradidit pro ea, ut Mam sanctificaret, mundans lavacro aquae in verbo vitae… . Jta et viri debent diligere uxores suae ut corpora sua, … Propter hoc relinquet homo pattern - et matrem suam, et adhaerebit uxori suae, et erunt duo in came una. [Gen. II, 24]. Sacramentum hoc magnum est, ego autem dico in Christo et in Ecclesia” DIVINE INSTITUTION 149 The external sign is the matrimonial contract, which is represented by St. Paul as a symbol of the union between Christ and His Church. This mystic union, inasmuch as it “sanctifies” and “cleanses” the Church and all her members, is essentially supernatural and productive of grace, and hence Christian marriage, too, must be supernatural and a means of sanctification for those who receive it. On no other hypothesis can the phrase, ” This is a great mystery,”* be interpreted intelligently. How could the conjugal union between a man and a woman be a great mystery if it did not communicate grace? How could it symbolize the mystic union between Christ and His Church, had not the Lord Himself raised it to the supernatural sphere, in other words, made it a true Sacrament? Thus understood, the term sacramentum regains its primitive meaning. The argument from Eph. V, 25-32 may be briefly formulated thus : A sacred sign which produces internal : grace is a true Sacrament. Now Christian marriage is a sacred sign which produces internal grace, because St. Paul calls it a great mystery and a symbol of Christ’s union with His Church. Consequently, Christian marriage is a true Sacrament. As we have seen in a previous volume of this series,* the Sacraments of the New Law, unlike the symbols of the Ancient Covenant, not merely signify and prefigure grace, but actually cause or produce it ex opere operate Hence, if Matrimony is a true symbol of the * T6 txv

MATRIMONY mystic union between Christ and His Church, it must cause or produce grace in the souls of those who receive it. According to Luther and Calvin, St Paul, in speaking of “a great mystery/’ meant the mystic union of - Christ and His Church, not the matrimonial contract adumbrated in the quotation from Gen. II, 24. But the context excludes this interpretation. The Apostle says: ” propter hoc relinquet homo patretn et tnatretn suatn et adhaerebit uxori suae et erunt duo in came una: sacramentum hoc [t. e. coniunctio maritalis] magnum est, ego autem dico in Christo et in Ecclesia [cfe Xpurmv kcu as rijv iKKkrpiav, — that is, in relation to Christ and the Church] Every legitimate marriage, therefore, is a symbol of the mystic union between Christ and His Church, and hence a great mystery. Adam cannot have meant his own marriage with Eve, as he had neither father nor mother, but evidently spoke with an eye to his future descendants. Estius objects that if marriage as such symbolized the mystic union of Christ with the Church, it must have been a Sacrament among the pre-Christian Jews and gentiles, or else the Pauline text does not prove it to be a Sacrament at all. We answer: Though every legitimate marriage is a symbol of Christ’s mystic union with His Church, Christian marriage alone is a perfect symbol of that union, because it alone produces the grace which it signifies, whereas marriage in Paradise and among the Old Testament Jews and the gentiles of the pre-Christian era was merely an inefficacious symbols When did our Lord institute the Sacrament of Matri6 Cfr. Tcpe, InstUutiones Theological, Vol IV, pp. 6ia tqq., Parii 1896. mony ? This question is answered differently by different authors. Some say, at the marriage feast of Cana in Galilee; others, after the Resurrection;7 a third group of theologians believes that marriage did not become a Sacrament until our Lord restored its pristine indissolubility, as recorded in Matth. XIX, 8 sqq.8 b) The main argument for the sacramentality of Christian marriage is derived by the Tridentine Council from the teaching of the Fathers and early councils, and from the universal belief and practice of the Church. o) The argument from prescription is contained in the analogous argument for the septenary number of the Sacraments, as developed in Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 33 sqq. In particular the following facts should be noted: No one denies that, since the Protestant Reformation, Matrimony has been regarded as a Sacrament throughout the Catholic world. Going back another century, we come upon the statement of the Council of Florence (A. D. 1439), at “the seventh of the Sacraments is Matrimony, which is a symbol of the union of Christ with the Church.” • How Matrimony was regarded at the beginning of the twelf th century is evident from the fact that it was included in the list of Sacraments drawn up at that time.10 t Cfr. Acts I, 3. Ecclesiae.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, • Cfr. Billuart, De Matrimonii n. 70a). diss. 1, art. 3. 10 Cfr. the profession of faith suba Deer, pro Armenis: ” Septimum mitted by Michael Palseologus to the est sacramentum matrimonii, quod Council of Lyons, A. D. 1374 (Denest signum coniunctionis Christ et xinger-Bannwart, n. 465). MATRIMONY The Scholastics unanimously adopted this list.11 A few glossators and canonists (Gaufridus, Henry of Ostia, Bernard of Pavia) appear to deny the sacramental character of Matrimony ; but in reality they merely assert that Matrimony fails to produce sacramental grace if a pecuniary fee is paid to the officiating priest, because in their opinion this involves simony. They do not mean to deny that marriage is a true Sacrament. The objection they raised was solved by the Angelic Doctor as follows: Matrimony is both a Sacrament and an office of nature ; to give money for it as an office of nature is permissible ; not so, however, as a Sacrament.12 As the schismatic Greeks, Russians, and Bulgarians all acknowledge the sacramentality of marriage, this dogma must antedate the great schism of the ninth century. By the same token it can be traced back to the fifth century, because the ancient sects of the Nestorians, Copts, and Armenians, which broke loose from the mother Church as early as 431, 18 retain belief in the Sacrament of Matrimony. This belief is confirmed by the ancient rituals, e. g. the Sacramentary of Pope Gelasius, who died in 497.14 As for the first four centuries of the Christian era, they show no trace of a surreptitious introduction of the doctrine. On the contrary, certain representations found in the catacombs prove that “in the second century, Christian marriage was not merely a civil function, but nCfr. Peach, Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Vol. VII, 3rd ed., pp. 354 sqq. 12 Summa TheoL, 2a 2ae, qu. xoo, art 2, ad 6: ” Dicendum est quod matrimonium non solum est Ecclesiae sacramentum, sed etiam naturae ofHcium. Et ideo dare pecuniam pro matritnonio, inquantum est naturae oMcium, licitum est; inquantum vero Ecclesiae sacramentum, i I licitum/’ isCfr. Schelstrate, Acta Orient. Eccles., Vol. I, pp. 126, 156, 388 sqq. 14 On the teaching of the Oriental sects, see Denzinger, Ritus Orient., Vol. I, pp. 150 sqq., Wiirzburg 1865. was already regarded as a Sacrament, to be entered upon before the Church, to be united to the offering of the Holy Sacrifice, and the reception of Holy Communion, and finally to be sealed by the benediction of the priest.” 15 On some of the early monuments our Lord is depicted as standing between the bride and the groom, blessing them or crowning them with a wreath.16 Hence belief in the sacramental character of Matrimony is as old as the Church, which is merely another way of saying that it comes to us through the Apostles from our Lord Himself.17 P) With the exception of St. Augustine, the early Fathers intimate rather than express their belief in the sacramentality of marriage. But all without exception insist on its sanctity, and hence it is contrary to Patristic teaching to say, as Luther did, that Matrimony is “a worldly thing.” 18 St. Augustine expressly calls Christian marriage a Sacrament and ranks it with Baptism and Holy Orders. ” It is certainly not fecundity only/’ he says, “the fruit of which consists of offspring, nor chastity only, whose bond is fidelity, but also a certain Sacrament which is recommended to believers in wedlock, wherefor the Apostle says, ‘Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church/ Of this Sacrament the substance undoubtedly is this, that the man and the woman who are 15 A. S. Barnes, The Early Church petuitS de la Foi, Vol. V, 1. 6, c. i in the Light of the Monument*, (see Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, London 1913, p. 141. Vol. II, p. 55, n. 3); C. M. Kauf16 F. X. Kraus, Realensyklop&die mann, Handbuch der christl. Archader christl. AltertUmer, Vol. I, pp. ohgie, pp. 442 sq., Paderborn 1905. 283 sqq., Freiburg 1879. 18 Von Ehesochen, 1530. lTCfr. Nicole and Arnauld, Per154 MATRIMONY joined together in wedlock should remain inseparable as long as they live, and that it should be unlawful, except for the cause of fornication, for one consort to be parted from the other. For this [principle] is faithfully observed in Christ and the Church, that living together they be not separated by a divorce. And so complete is the observance of this Sacrament in the city of our God, on His holy mountain, — that is to say, in the Church of Christ, — by all married believers, who are undoubtedly members of Christ, that although women marry and men take wives for the purpose of begetting children, it is never permitted to put away even an unfruitful wife for the sake of having another to bear children… . Thus between the conjugal pair, as long as they live, the nuptial bond1* remains, which can be cancelled neither by separation nor by union with another. But this fact tends only to aggravate the crime, not to strengthen the covenant, as the soul of an apostate, which renounces as it were its marriage union with Christ, does not, even though it has cast away its faith, lose the Sacrament of faith [Baptism] which it received; in the laver of regeneration/’ 20 19 ” Quiddam coniugale ” (= quasi character; v, infra. Sect. 3, no. 3). 20 De Nupt. et Concup., I, 10, 11: ” Quoniam sane non tantum foecunditas, cuius f rutins in prole est, nec tantum pudicitia, cuius vinculum est fides, verum etiam quoddam sacramentum nuptiarum commendatur Adelibus coniugatis, unde dicit Apostolus: Viri, diligite uxores vestras, sicut et Christus dilexit Ecclesiam. Huius procul dubio sacramenti res est, ut mas et femina connubio copulati, quamdiu vivunt, inseparabilu ter perseverent nec lie eat, exceptH causd fornicationis, a coniuge. coniugem dirimi. Hoc enim custoditur in Christo et Ecclesia, ut vivens cum vivente nullo divortio separetur. Cuius sacramenti tanta observatio est in civitate Dei nostri, in monte saneto eius, hoc est in Ecclesia Christ*, quibusque Hdelibus coniugatis, qui sine dubio membra sunt Christi, ut quum ffliorum procrean dorum causa vel nub ant feminae vel ducantur uxores, nec sterUem coniugem fas sit relinquere, ut alia foecunda ducatur… . Ita manet inter viventes quiddam coniugale, quod nec separatio nec cum altero copulatio possit auferre. Manet ant em ad noxam criminis, non ad vinculum foederis, sicut aposfatae anima velut de cow DIVINE INSTITUTION 155 In another passage the same holy Doctor compares Matrimony with Holy Orders: “The good that is secured by marriage … consists in the … chastity of the married fidelity, but in the case of God’s people [the Christians] it consists moreover in the holiness of the Sacrament, by which it is forbidden, even after a separation has taken place, to marry another as long as the first partner lives, … just as priests are ordained to draw together a Christian community, and even though no such community be formed, the Sacrament of Orders still abides in those ordained, or as the Sacrament of the Lord, once it is conferred, abides even in one who is dismissed from his office on account of guilt, although in such a one it abides unto judgment.,, 21 Other Fathers, while not so explicit in their pronouncements regarding the sacramental character of Matrimony, emphasize its sanctity. Thus St. Ambrose declares that marriage was hallowed by Christ, but its sanctifying power is lost by those who dishonor it. ” We know,” he says, ” that God is as it were the head and protector of marriage, who does not permit that another’s marriage bed be defiled ; and further that one guilty of such a crime sins against God, whose law he violates and whose bond of grace he loosens. Therefore, since he sins against God, he loses his participation in the heavenly Sacrament” 22 iugio Christi recedens etiam fide perditd sacramentum fidei [baptismal non amittit, quod lavacro regenerationis accepit.* 21 De Bono Coning., c. 24, jl 32: * Bonum igitur nnptiamm … est in fide castitatis, quod autetn ad populum Dei pertinet, etiam in sane* titate sacramenti, per quam nefas est etiam repndio discedentem alteri nubere, dum vir eius vivit, … quernadmodum si fiat ordinate ckri ad plebem congregandam, etiamsi plebis congregatio non subsequotur, manet tamen in Wis ordinatis sacramentum ordinationis et, si aliqud culpd quisquam ab officio removeatur, Sacramento Domini semel imposito non carebit, quamvis ad indicium permanente.* — Cfr. P. Schanz, Die Lehre von den hi. Sakramenten, pp. 729 sqq., Freiburg 1893. 22 Dg Abraham, I, 7, 59: * Cognoscimus velut praesuUm custodem* 156 MATRIMONY Origen says : ” God Himself has fused the two into one, so that they are no longer two after the man has married the woman. Inasmuch, however, as God is the author of this union, grace resides in those who are united by God. Well aware of this, St. Paul declares that Matrimony, according to the word of God, is a grace, just as a chaste unmarried life is a grace.” 23 That marriage was sanctified in a particular manner by our Lord at Cana, is a thought expressed by many of the Fathers. Thus St. Cyril of Alexandria says: ” [Christ] was present, not to feast, but to work a miracle and thereby to sanctify the very foundation of human procreation, in so far, namely, as the flesh is concerned.” 24 The most ancient Patristic writers treat Christian marriage as a sacred thing. Tertullian writes to his wife: ” How shall we describe the happiness of those marriages which the Church ratifies, the sacrifice strengthens, the blessing seals, the angels publish, the Heavenly Father propitiously beholds.” 25 St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. about 117) says: “Speak to my sisters that they love the Lord, and be content with their husbands in flesh and in spirit. In the same way enjoin on my brothers, in the name of Jesus Christ, to love their wives as the Lord loved His Church. … It is right for men and women who marry to be united with the consent of the bishop (jiera yvwfirp rov bruTKoirov) , that the marriage may be according to the Lord, and not according to lust.” 26 que coniugii esse Deum, qui non patiatur atienum torum pollui, et si quis fecerit, peccare in Deum, cuius legem violet, gratiam solvat. Et ideo, quia in Deum peccot, sacramenti coelestis amittit consortium.” (Migne, P. L., XIV, 465). 28 In Matth., torn. 14* n. 16 (Migne, P. C, XIII, 1230). 14 In Ioa.t c. a, 2, 1 aq, (Migno, P. G., LXXIII, 223). 25 Ad Uxor em, II, 9: ” Unde suMciamus ad enarrandam felicitatern eius matrimonii, quod Ecclesia condliat et conHrmat oblatio et obsignat benedictio, angeli renuntiant, Pater rato habet” (Migne, P. L., I, 1302). 26 Ep, ad Polyctrpvm, c. 5» n* * Mi it ri, Funk, X, 191; Kirwpp DIVINE INSTITUTION 157 Thesis II: Among Christians every legitimately contracted marriage is eo ipso a Sacrament, and, vice versa, whenever the Sacrament of Matrimony is received, there is a legitimate nuptial contract. This proposition may be qualified as “communis et certa” Proof. Among the Old Testament Jews and the gentiles of the pre-Christian epoch, marriage was not a Sacrament, but merely a contract, as it still is between non-baptized persons to-day. Between Christians, however, Matrimony is always a Sacrament. How does the contract become a Sacrament? Is the sacramental sign added to the contract by the blessing of the priest, or is the contract itself intrinsically raised to the rank of a graceproducing sign ? Christ was free to choose either of these two methods ; which one He did adopt can be determined only from Revelation. If the marriage contract became a Sacrament by the addition of some external sign, it would be possible for baptized Christians to make a marital contract without receiving the Sacrament of Matrimony. Lake, The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. I, Veitschrift fUr hatholische Theologie, p. 373. — On the Patristic argument Innsbruck, 1878, pp. 633 sqq.; Palmifor the sacramentaltty of Matri’ eri, De Matrimonio Christiano, thes. pony, tee J. MOllendorf in the 7, Pratt 1897* MATRIMONY That this is possible was formerly held by three groups of theologians. (1) The so-called ” court theologians ” of the Gallican and Josephinist school (Antonio de Dominis,27 Launoy,2* J. N. Nuytz, J. A. Petzek, M. M. Tabaraud, J. A. Theiner, and Th. Ziegler) held that the Sacrament is constituted by the blessing of the priest and that the contract is merely a necessary requisite. This theory was avowedly contrived for the purpose of withdrawing matrimonial causes from the jurisdiction of the Church and handing them over to the State. (2) Cano,2* Sylvius, Estius, and Tournely regarded the contract as the matter and the sacerdotal blessing as the form of the Sacrament.0 The contract itself, if legitimately concluded, is valid, they said; but it is not a Sacrament until completed by the nuptial blessing of the priest. (3) Vasquez,31 Hurtado, Platel, Billuart, Gonet, Holtzclau (of the Wirceburgenses) and other writers denied that the priestly blessing constitutes the sacramental form of Matrimony. They held that the sacramentality of the marriage contract depends on the presence or absence, in the souls of the contracting parties, of the intention of doing what the Church does. According to this school it is optional with the contracting parties whether, in giving the matrimonial consent, they receive a Sacrament or not. All these theories are untenable because a marriage contract between baptized persons is eo ipso a Sacrament. a) This truth is demonstrable from Revelation. it De Republ. Bccles., 1, 3, c. a. so V. infra, Ch. II, Sect 1. 28 De Regia in Mat rim. Potest., ai De Sacram. in Gen., diap. 138, Vol. I, p. 2, c. 4. c. 5. 99 Di loci Theoh, 1. VIII, c. J. According to St Paul, it is always a great mystery (t. e. a Sacrament) 32 among Christians when “a man leaves father and mother and cleaves to his wife,” 33 As this happens in every legitimate marriage, it follows that every legitimate marriage between Christians is a true Sacrament. Though the Fathers did not treat this question expressly, they taught that marriage between baptized persons is a sacred thing, a great mystery, the most perfect symbol of the mystic union of Christ with His Church, and therefore indissoluble and monogamic ; and in so teaching they implicitly inculcated the inseparability of the contract form of Matrimony. Their teaching was scientifically developed by the Schoolmen. * The words in which the matrimonial consent is expressed,* says e. g. St. Thomas, “constitute the form of this Sacrament; not the sacerdotal blessing, which is a sort of sacramental.” 84 Melchior Cano (+ 1560) was the first Catholic theologian to assert that the contract is merely the matter of the Sacrament, whereas the sacerdotal blessing constitutes its form. He admitted that his assertion was contrary to the teaching of all his predecessors. In matter of fact it is not only singular, but wrong, as can be shown from the official utterances of popes and councils before and after Cano’s time, — utterances which, though not ex-cathedra decisions, unmistakably indicate the mind of the Church. b) Thus the Council of Florence (1439) de32 V. supra, Thesis I. [t» e, contractus], sunt forma huius S3 Gen. II, 24. sacramenti, non out em bene die tio soMSummo Theol., Sup pi, qu. 42, cerdotalis, qua* est quoddam sacraart 1, ad x: ” Verba, quibus con- mentale.” sensus exprimitur matrimonialis i6o MATRIMONY clares: “The seventh Sacrament is that of Matrimony. The efficient cause of Matrimony [i. e. as a Sacrament] invariably is the mutual consent expressed by words in the present tense.” 35 From this definition we argue: The “mutual consent” of the contracting parties admittedly constitutes the marriage contract. If this same consent is the efficient cause of the Sacrament, contract and Sacrament must be identical. This teaching is at least indirectly confirmed by the Council of Trent when, speaking of Christian marriage, it says : ” If anyone saith that Matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven Sacraments of the evangelic law, … let him be anathema.”86 Every marriage between Christians i$ a true Sacrament; consequently contract and Sacrament coincide. We find this conclusion expressly drawn in a letter of Pope Pius VI. ” It is an article of faith,” he says, ” that Matrimony, which was nothing but a sort of indissoluble contract before the advent of Christ, after His coming became one of the seven Sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Christ our Lord, as … the Council of Trent has defined under pain of excommunication.* 87 Pius IX resolutely defended the proposition that wDecr. pro Armenis: * Septttnum est sacr amentum matrimonii. Causa efficient matrimonii regulariter est mutuus consensus per verba de praesenti expressus.” (DenzingerBannwart, n. 702). 36 Sess. XXIV, can. 1: 41 Si quis dixerit, matrimonium non esse vere et proprie unum ex septem legis evangelicae . sacramentis* … anathema sit.* •7 Epist. ad Episc. Motulensem: Dogma fidei est, nt matrimonium, quod ante adventum Christi nihil aliud erat nisi indissolubilis quidam contractus, illud post Christi adventum evaserit unum ex septem Novae Legis sacramentis a Christo Domino institutum, quemadmodum … Tridentinum sub anathematis poena definivit.” DIVINE INSTITUTION 161 “among Christians there can be no marriage which is not at the same time a Sacrament, … and consequently the Sacrament can never be separated from the marital contract.” 88 The contrary teaching of Professor Nuytz of Turin was condemned in the Syllabus.89 Leo XIII, in his Encyclical letter “Arcanum divinae sapientiae,” of Feb. 10, 1880, declares that “in Christian marriage the contract is inseparable from the Sacrament, and therefore the contract cannot be true and legitimate without being a Sacrament as well.” He adds : ” For Christ our Lord added to marriage the dignity of a Sacrament ; but marriage is the contract itself, whenever that contract is lawfully concluded… . 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 outward endowment which can be separated and torn away from the contract at the caprice of man.” 40 In the light of these authoritative utterances it is plain that the separability of the contract from the Sacrament may no longer be maintained by Catholics. 88 Allocution of Sept. 27, 1852: ” Inter Udeles matrimonium dari non posse, quirt uno eodemque tempore sit sacramentum … ac proinde a coniugali foedere sacramentum separari nunquam posse.” 8» Prop. 73: ” Vi contractus mere civilis potest inter Christianos constare veri nominis matrimonium, falsumque est, aut contractum matrimonii inter Christianos semper esse sacramentum aut nullum esse contractum, si sacramentum excludatur.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1773). 40 ” Exploratum est in matrimonio christiano contractum a sacramento non esse dissociabilem atque ideo non posse contractum verum et legitimum consist ere, quin sit eo ipso sacramentum. Nam Christ us Dominus dignitate sacramenti auxit matrimonium; matrimonium autem est ipse contractus, si modo sit foetus iure… . Itaque apparet omne inter Christianos iustum coniugium in se et per se esse sacramentum nihil que magis abhorrere a veritate quam esse sacramentum decus quoddam adiunctum aut proprietatem allapsam extrinsecus, quae a contractu disiungi ac separari hominum arbitratu queat.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1854). l62 e MATRIMONY c) Though the main question is thus decided, theological controversies regarding exceptional cases continue. o) One of the questions most hotly debated among theologians is whether the marriage of an unbaptized couple becomes a Sacrament when both husband and wife embrace the Christian faith. Vasquez, Mastrius, Simmonet, and a number of Thomist theologians answer this question negatively on the ground that only the original contract can be raised to the dignity of a Sacrament, not its subsequent approbation. Capreolus, Henriquez, and Bellarmine, on the other hand, hold that in such a case the original contract becomes a Sacrament by a renewal of consent on the part of the contracting parties, and that this act assumes the functions of the sacramental sign and constitutes a renewal of the contract on a Christian basis. Sanchez, Tanner, and the majority teach that the reception of Baptism suffices to elevate what was originally a mere marriage of nature to the dignity of a Sacrament. This theory is far more plausible than the other two, for if it were necessary to renew the consent, the omission of this formality would result in a marriage which was not a Sacrament, — a conclusion inadmissible in the light of the Patristic, conciliary, and papal teaching set forth above. Hence the reception of Baptism is sufficient to reconstitute the bond of pagan wedlock and impress upon it the Christian stamp, and such converts receive the sacramental graces of Matrimony together with those of Baptism. P) The case is more complicated when only one of the two contracting parties embraces Christianity, or when an unbaptized marries a baptized person — presuming, of course, that the diriment impediment of disparitas cultus has been removed by a dispensation. Does the baptized party in such a case receive the Sacrament? Dominicus Soto, Perrone, Palmieri, Pesch, and others hold that such a marriage is a true Sacrament, for two reasons : first, because the Church claims jurisdiction over it, and secondly, because at least one of the contracting parties is capable of receiving the sacramental grace of Matrimony. Sanchez, Tanner, Hurter, Tepe, Atzberger, and others deny the cogency of this argument and assert that the matrimonial tie binds both contracting parties in precisely the same way. This seems to us the more acceptable view. ( Matrimonium non debet claudicare.) 41 y)’ Another debated question is whether marriage contracted by proxy or by letter is a true Sacrament. A marriage contracted in either one of these two ways is undoubtedly valid as a contract, and since the contract among Christians is inseparable from the Sacrament, such a marriage is a true Sacrament, and Cano and Cajetan erred in asserting that it requires an oral ratification by the contracting parties to raise it to sacramental dignity. Marriage by proxy has always been regarded as valid under the Canon Law, and the Tridentine Council merely added a new condition when it ordained that the representatives of either party must sign the marriage contract in presence of the pastor and the required witnesses. 41 Cfr. Dc Augustinis, D iff Sacromtntaria, Vol. II, and ed., pp. 633 «M.