Matrimony Chapter I §2: Matter and Form

§2: Matter and Form

SECTION i. False Theories. — From what was said in the preceding Section it follows that we must reject all those theories which seek the matter and form of the Sacrament of Matrimony elsewhere than in the mutual consent of the contracting parties. a) Thus Melchior Cano teaches that the mutual consent of the contracting parties, whether manifested by words or signs, constitutes merely the matter of the Sacrament, its form being the benediction pronounced by the priest. That this view is false follows from the reflection that, if the sacerdotal blessing were for some reason omitted, there would, in Cano’s hypothesis, be a valid matrimonial contract but no Sacrament. Moreover, the Council of Trent recognized the validity of clandestine marriages contracted in places where the ” Tametsi” had not been promulgated. By a clandestine marriage we understand one contracted secretly without the cooperation of the pastor and the required witnesses. The Council says that all such marriages, when freely contracted where the “Tctonetsi” is not published, are “rata et 164 vera!9 unless formally nullified by the Church.1 Note that, according to Tridentine as well as present-day usage, a legitimate marriage among Christians is always a Sacrament, whether blessed by a priest or not. But even in places where clandestine marriages are invalid the words pronounced by the priest, Ego vos in matrimonium coniungo, contribute nothing to the validity of the Sacrament This formula occurs in none of the ancient rituals,2 and is omitted whenever a marriage is contracted with the merely passive assistance of the pastor. The object of this formula, therefore, is merely to acknowledge the marriage as publicly and solemnly contracted in facie Ecclesiae* and to declare its sacramental nature.4 b) Vasquez does not go quite so far astray as Cano when he teaches that the matter of the Sacrament is constituted by the bodies of the contracting parties, in so far as they are mutually surrendered for the sacred purposes of wedlock. While it is quite true that both the contract and the Sacrament have the bodies of the contracting parties for their object, Vasquez is mistaken in 1 Sesa. XXIV, cap. x, De Reform. Matrim. : ” Tametsi dubitandum non est, clandestine matrimonia libero contrahentium consensu facta rata et vera esse matrimonia, quamdiu Ecclesia ea irrita non fecit, et proinde iure damnandi sunt UK, ut eos S. Sy nodus anathemate damnat, qui vera ac rata esse negant, … nihilominus,” etc. 2Cfr. Martene, De Antiq. Eccles. Rit., 1. I, c. 9, art 3. 8 Hence the term, solemnisatio matrimonii. Cfr. St Bonaventure, Comment, in Sent, IV, diat 28, qu. 5: “Ad esse matrimonii ista duo sufficiunt, scil. legitimitas in personis et unitas in consensu. Ad solemnitatem vero et decorem et honestatem requiritur et par en turn traditio et sacerdotum benedictio; kaec tamen ita sunt ad decorem sacrament i, ut tamen sint de necessitate praecepti.” — Merely aa a curiosity we will mention Catharinus’ view (De Matrimonio, qu. x) that the form of the Sacrament is contained in the virtually persisting words of Adam, recorded in Gen. II, 24. i66 MATRIMONY regarding these as the proximate matter of the Sacrament. In reality the proximate matter (materia proxima sive ex qua) is the matrimonial contract itself. The bodies of the contracting parties are merely the remote matter (materia remota sive circa quam). It needs no special argument to prove that the sacramental form, too, must be contained somewhere in the matrimonial contract. The question is, where? The form might conceivably be sought (though I do not believe any theologian has ever looked for it there) in the formal signification of the words embodying the matrimonial consent, assuming the matter to be contained in the material sound. This assumption would be analogous to that of the Scotists regarding Penance, and equally unconvincing. The same must be said of Navarrus’ view that the matter of Matrimony is to be found in the internal consent and the form in the external assent of the contracting parties.8 The external assent is merely the outward expression of the internal consent. Moreover, the matter (as well as the form) of a Sacrament must be perceptible by the senses. 2. The True Theory. — The only tenable theory is that of Bellarmine, Suarez, Sanchez, and other authors, — that both the matter and the form of the Sacrament are contained in the matrimonial contract itself, being the words of consent spoken by the contracting parties, or the signs used instead. These words or signs constitute § Navtrrus, Manual, c. 22, n. 20. the matter of the Sacrament in so far as they signify the mutual surrender of the bodies (traditio), and its form in so far as they signify the acceptance {acceptation of the same. It is easy to see the mutual relation of these two functions. The traditio is something undetermined and receives its determination from the acceptatio. “These two,” says Suarez, “namely, traditio and acceptatio, so concur in the matrimonial contract that the traditio underlies and forms the basis of the acceptatio, which, in its turn, completes the contract. Thus it happens that the mutual consent of the contracting parties … has the nature of matter in as far as it, contains the mutual traditio, and the nature of form in as far as it effects the mutual acceptatio.” 6 Though the words, ” I take you for my lawful husband (wife) ” directly signify and effect the marital union {nexus maritalis) they only indirectly signify and effect sanctifying grace, because every marriage between Christians, by virtue of the divine institution of Matrimony, is necessarily a symbol of the mystical union of Christ with His Church.7 • Suarez, De Sacram. in Genere, sensus utriusque coniugis, … quadisp. 2, sect I* n. 4: ” Haec duo, tenus mutuant traditionem continent, scil. traditio et acceptatio, ita in habeant rationem tnateriae, quatenus contractu concurrunt, ut traditio sup- vero efficiunt mutuant acceptationem, ponatur acceptation* et in ilia inchoe* habeant rationem formae.” tur, per hanc vero consummetur TV. Sect. 1, supra, contractus. Atque kmc fit, ut con