Matrimony — Matter and Form; Sacramental Effects

Section 2: Matter and Form

1. 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 coöperation of the pastor and the required witnesses. The Council said that all such marriages, when freely contracted where the “Tametsi” had not been published, were “rata et vera,” 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. 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 Ecclesiae³ 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 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.⁵ 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 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 (acceptatio) 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 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

Section 3: Sacramental Effects

1. Increase of Sanctifying Grace. The first effect of Christian marriage is an increase of sanctifying grace.

“If anyone saith,” defines the Tridentine Council, “that Matrimony … does not confer grace, let him be anathema.”⁸

Whenever the Council speaks of grace conferred by a Sacrament, it means sanctifying grace. Matrimony, being a symbol of Christ’s union with His mystic spouse, necessarily presupposes the state of sanctifying grace, and hence its first and principal effect can be none other than to augment that grace.

It follows that Matrimony is, by its very concept, a Sacrament of the living.

If it is received in the state of mortal sin, there are two possibilities: either the unworthy recipient is conscious of the state of his soul, or he is unconscious thereof. In the former case he commits a sacrilege by receiving the Sacrament informe or ficte, as it were under false pretences, and thereby deprives himself of its graces, at least so long as the obstacle (obex gratiae) is not removed by an act of perfect contrition or the worthy reception of Penance. In the latter case he is unconscious of being in the state of mortal sin, and hence acts in good faith and may, if he has imperfect contrition, receive sanctifying grace per accidens.

2. The Sacramental Grace of Matrimony. Besides increasing sanctifying grace, matrimony confers certain special graces. This is evident a priori from a consideration of the great importance of this Sacrament for family, State, and Church, as well as the onerous nature of the duties and burdens which it imposes.

The “sacramental grace” of Matrimony probably consists in a claim based upon and confirmed by sanctifying grace, which claim entitles the recipient to the actual graces (gratiae actuales) necessary for faithfully performing the duties of the married state. The Tridentine Council says: “The grace which might perfect that natural love [of husband and wife for each other] and confirm that indissoluble union and sanctify the married, Christ Himself … merited for us by His Passion; as the Apostle Paul intimates, saying: ‘Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church.’ … Impious men of this age, in their foolish rage, have not only harbored false notions touching this venerable Sacrament, but, introducing … a carnal liberty,” etc.⁹

An analysis of this teaching enables us to distinguish a twofold class of graces conferred by Matrimony: some impart strength for the faithful performance of the duties of the married state, others serve as a medicine against the temptations of the flesh. To the former class belong the perfection of the natural love which husband and wife have for each other, after the pattern of Christ’s love for His mystical spouse; conscientiousness in the begetting and rearing of children; prudence in daily intercourse; patience and trust in God; mutual forbearance, etc. The latter class comprises those actual graces that counteract the threefold concupiscence to which human flesh is heir since the Fall.¹⁰

3. The Quasi-Character of Matrimony. Another effect peculiar to Matrimony is the marriage bond (vinculum matrimoniale), which symbolizes the one and indissoluble union of Christ with His mystic spouse, the Church. This effect strongly resembles the sacramental character imprinted by Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders,¹¹ and hence is often called quasi-character.

Bellarmine¹² and Sanchez¹³ regard the marriage bond as a sort of permanent Sacrament. But this view is untenable. The Sacrament proper (sacramentum tantum) in Matrimony is the transient act by which the conjugal contract is formed, just as the Sacrament of Baptism is the transient act of ablution. But the bond of wedlock is a permanent effect, bearing a striking resemblance to the character imprinted by Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders, and hence must be regarded as res et sacramentum, and may justly be styled “quasi-character,” especially in view of the fact that it renders the Sacrament incapable of repetition during the lifetime of both contracting parties. It would be wrong, however, to ascribe to Matrimony a sacramental character in the strict sense. The mark imprinted on the soul by this Sacrament, unlike the character imparted by the other three Sacraments mentioned, is not physical, but purely moral.

From the “quasi-character” of Matrimony flow the two properties of Christian marriage, viz.: unity (unitas) and indissolubility (indissolubilitas).¹⁴

Readings: D. McBride, Christian Marriage a Sacrament, Toronto 1920.