Chapter II. On the Essence of the Sacrament of Matrimony

I. Contract and sacrament in Christian marriage cannot be separated, so that a matrimonial contract between Christians cannot exist without being a sacrament. So teach Pius VI in the letter to the Bishop of Motula;¹ Pius IX in the Apostolic letter to the king of Sardinia;² Leo XIII in the encyclical Arcanum;³ and the same is gathered from the Council of Trent⁴ and from canon 1012, § 2.

II. The matrimonial contract constitutes the whole nature of the sacrament, so that neither the blessing of the priest, nor indeed even his presence, belongs to its essence. This follows from canon 1012, § 1; likewise from the Council of Trent, which declared that clandestine marriages, that is, marriages not contracted before the pastor and witnesses, were ratified and true marriages as long as the Church had not made them invalid⁵ (St. Thomas, In IV, dist. 26, q. 2, a. 1, ad 1; St. Alphonsus VI, 897, 898).

III. The matter and form of the sacrament of matrimony are:

1. The remote matter is the bodies of the contracting parties, or rather the mutual right over the body of the other. This right is called remote matter in the sense that it is the matter about which the matrimonial contract is concerned (St. Alphonsus VI, 880).

2. The proximate matter and form is the consent itself expressed by words or by another sign. Namely, here the proximate matter is consent insofar as it signifies mutual handing over, and the form is consent insofar as it expresses mutual acceptance. So Benedict XIV in the letter Paucis abhinc to the Archbishop of Goa.⁶ And indeed, since the matrimonial contract itself, as has been proved, constitutes marriage, the matter, that is, the determinable part, and the form, that is, the determining part, must necessarily be found in the contract itself or in the expressed consent. Now in every contract the handing over of the thing, as being the beginning of the contract, is the determinable part or matter; but acceptance, as being the completion of the contract, is the determining part or form (St. Alphonsus VI, 880, 897).

Corollary. The nature of the sacrament is in matrimony in fieri, that is, in the contract which is now placed or obtains its effect. This follows from the things said. It is disputed whether the nature of the sacrament is also in matrimony in facto esse, that is, in the bond; in other words, whether matrimony, after the contract has been entered, persists in its being as a sacrament, after the likeness of the Holy Eucharist. Concerning this opinion Pius XI in the encyclical Casti connubii⁷ says thus: "Therefore let them [the spouses] meditate on these words of St. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, full indeed of solid consolation, who, with other theologians of great name, thus piously thinks and writes: 'The Sacrament of Marriage can be considered in two ways: in one way, while it is being made; in another way, while it remains after it has been made. For it is a sacrament similar to the Eucharist, which is a sacrament not only while it is being made, but also while it remains; for while the spouses live, their society is always the sacrament of Christ and the Church.'"

Question 1. Whether a marriage between two infidels, after Baptism has been received by each spouse, becomes a sacrament.

Response. Some simply deny it; others affirm it, but among these some require that the spouses elicit new consent, or approve the prior consent by words, nods, or marital intercourse; others think it suffices that the consent not be retracted; others abstract from the influence of consent, and judge that the marriage by the very fact that Baptism is received becomes a sacrament. Now it seems that it must be said that the said marriage truly becomes a sacrament; both because on the one hand it must be admitted that the married Ephesians to whom Paul directed his epistle truly received the sacrament of matrimony,⁸ and on the other hand it cannot be admitted that they entered marriage only after receiving Baptism; and because marriages of infidels, consummated after Baptism has been received by each party, seem to be entirely indissoluble (p. 552), which also seems to have to be ascribed to their sacramentality (pp. 552 and 553). Moreover, the opinion is preferable which teaches that the reception of Baptism itself suffices for the marriage to become a sacrament, or for the sacrament, which was already present in potency, to pass into act (cf. St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 59, a. 2, ad 1; St. Alphonsus VI, 897).

Question 2. Whether the marriage of an infidel party who is baptized becomes a sacrament if the other party is not baptized; likewise whether a marriage which a faithful person validly contracts with an infidel is a sacrament.

Response. Concerning each case there is dispute. Some deny it, because just as the contract, so also the sacrament will be either in each party or in neither party. But it is not in the infidel party; therefore neither is it in the faithful party. Others probably affirm it, because their opinion is not repugnant: one and the same contract can be a sign conferring grace for the one who is capable of the sacrament, but only potentially for the one who because of a defect extrinsic to the contract is not yet capable of the sacrament.

¹ September 16, 1788.

² September 19, 1852.

³ February 10, 1880.

⁴ Decree on the reform of Matrimony, chapter 1.

⁵ Session 24, Decree on the reform of Matrimony, chapter 1.

⁶ March 19, 1758.

⁷ A.A.S. 1930, p. 583.

⁸ Ephesians 5.