Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Chapter 6: On the Matter, Form and Minister of the Sacrament of Matrimony
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Matrimonii, the fifth general controversy on the sacraments. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The Second Controversy: On the Matter, Form and Minister
Although we have already touched something on the matter, form and minister of this sacrament, on the occasion of the arguments of Durandus, yet it must again be treated a little more fully, both on account of the slanders of Martin Chemnitz and on account of the new and singular opinion of Melchior Cano. This seems necessarily to be done by us, that the ecclesiastical dogma explained in the preceding question may remain covered and defended on every side.
For Chemnitz draws an argument from here to prove that there is no sacrament of marriage properly so called: that in marriage the matter and form, or element and word, cannot easily be shown.
And Cano, while he fights for his opinion, imprudently uses those arguments with which the heretics of our time could trouble the Church. For in book 8 On the Theological Places, chapter 5, he affirms that not every Matrimony lawfully contracted among Christians is a sacrament, but only that which is celebrated by an ecclesiastical minister with sacred and solemn words. Wherefore he admits that the words by which the spouses express mutual consent are the form of the contract of marriage, but not of the sacrament of marriage; and he admits that the contracting persons are the ministers of the contract of marriage, but not of the sacrament of marriage.
But because the common and true opinion altogether ignores that distinction, and lays down that there is no difference between the contract of Christian marriage, with its matter, form and minister, and the sacrament of marriage, with its matter, form and minister, so that whatever suffices for celebrating that contract suffices also for celebrating the sacrament: hence it comes about that while Cano tries with all his strength to prove that Matrimony celebrated without a form of words pronounced by an ecclesiastical minister is not a sacrament, he at the same time proves, so far as in him lies, that there is in fact no sacrament of marriage in the Church.
That we may answer both, then, we shall first briefly set out what is the matter, what the form, and who the minister of this sacrament, according to the common opinion, and repel the slanders of Chemnitz. Then we shall refute the opinion of Cano, and solve his arguments.
As to the first, then: concerning the matter of this sacrament there are chiefly two opinions of the theologians, which Peter Paludanus relates on book 4, distinction 1, question 4. One is that the consent of the spouses expressed in words, or the words expressing consent, are the matter and form of this sacrament. The other, that the bodies themselves, or the persons, of the contracting parties are the matter, and the words expressing consent the form.
Both these opinions are in my judgement true, and can easily be reconciled. For the sacrament of marriage can be considered in two ways: in one way, while it is being made; in the other, while it remains after it has been made. For Matrimony is like the Eucharist, which is a sacrament not only while it is made but also while it remains: for while the spouses live, their fellowship is always a sacrament of Christ and the Church.
If, then, Matrimony is considered while it is being made, its whole essence consists in the signs expressing mutual consent; for the bodies of the spouses do not concur except as the matter about which, just as, while the Eucharist is being made, the whole essence of the consecration is placed in the sacred words, and the bread and wine concur only as the matter about which. And we see the same in other contracts. For when a house is sold or bought, the whole notion of the contract is placed in mutual consent; but the house is the matter about which that operation is concerned; for no one says that the house which is sold is a part of the contract. But because the words of one spouse determine the words of the other, and are likewise determined by them, therefore in the same words matter and form can be distinguished: for the words, inasmuch as they determine, can be called form; inasmuch as they are determined, matter.
And this is the opinion of St. Thomas on book 4, distinction 26, question 2, article 1. For in the answer to the first he says that the form of this sacrament is the words of the spouses; in the answer to the second he says that the matter is the acts of the spouses themselves by which the sacrament of Matrimony is completed; where by acts he understands the same words which he had said a little before to be the form; for no other acts are necessarily required to complete this sacrament. And so also Richard, Paludanus, Capreolus, Dominic Soto and others, on the same distinction.
But if Matrimony is considered as already made and celebrated, it cannot be denied that the spouses themselves living together, or the external fellowship and joining of the spouses, is the material external symbol representing the indissoluble joining of Christ and the Church; just as in the sacrament of the Eucharist, the consecration being completed, there remain the consecrated species, which are the sensible and external symbol of the internal spiritual food.
Wherefore Peter Soto seems to me to have said rightly, lecture 4 on Matrimony, that the matter, not only about which but also of which the sacrament of Matrimony consists, is the contracting persons. And almost all the theologians indicate sufficiently that the bodies of the spouses are the matter of this sacrament, when they affirm that the Church can appoint certain degrees of consanguinity and affinity within which Matrimony is void; because, while she appoints those degrees, she brings it about that persons who otherwise were the matter of this sacrament are no longer matter. And let these things be said of the matter.
The form, by the consent of all the theologians, Cano excepted, is the words or signs expressing mutual consent. So St. Thomas has it expressly, in the place noted, on book 4, distinction 26, question 2, article 1, to the first; and before him Hugh of St. Victor, book 2 On the Sacraments, part 11, chapter 5; and all the others.
But Chemnitz objects, page 1221, that John Gropper in our age taught that the form of the sacrament of Matrimony is those words of the Lord, Matthew 19, “What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder”; and so that there are not lacking those who teach, against the Scholastics, that the signs of mutual consent are not the form of this sacrament.
But Chemnitz, after his manner, cites Gropper in bad faith. The place of Gropper is in the Enchiridion of Christian Instruction, published in the name of the Council of Cologne, in the treatise on the sacrament of Matrimony; in which place Gropper does indeed gather the form of this sacrament from the words of the Lord, “What God hath joined,” and so on; but he does not say that those words are the form, or must necessarily be recited; nay, he says expressly that the words of mutual consent are the form of the sacrament: “It remains,” he says, “that we point out the word and element of this sacrament, and show besides that grace is conferred in it. The word, then, of this sacrament, by which, coming to the element, the sacrament is made, is namely that by which both, male and female (when, with regard to the piety which is toward God, they give and receive conjugal faith to one another), are joined and coupled, not in any way whatever, but in the name of God.” You see, reader, that Gropper does not dissent from the rest in setting down the form of this sacrament, and that he alleged the words of the Lord, “What God hath joined,” and so on, only to prove that the Matrimony of Christians is not a merely civil and human contract, and that the words of the spouses are to be referred to that divine and sacred joining of which it is said, “What God hath joined,” and so on.
From these things it will also be plain who is the minister of this sacrament. For since it belongs properly to the minister to pronounce the words of the form, and through them to make the sacrament, and in this sacrament the words of the form are uttered by the spouses, it is necessary that the spouses themselves be the proper ministers of this sacrament.
Nor ought it to seem absurd that the material and efficient cause concur in the same persons: for the nature of a contract which is made concerning the persons of the contracting parties requires it. For just as, if someone should sell himself as a slave to another, the seller and the thing sold, the efficient and the matter, would be the same, so also in Matrimony, since the spouses hand over and give themselves to one another, they themselves are the efficient causes and they themselves the matter. And although by the decree of the Church an ecclesiastical minister is required, who asks the consent of the spouses, and approves and declares it, and confirms it with the priestly blessing, yet those who properly effect the sacrament of Matrimony are the spouses themselves.
From these things the slanders of Chemnitz can be refuted. He objects, in the second part of the Examination, page 1220 and following, that the Scholastics have not yet been able to devise anything which can rightly be called matter and form in this sacrament. He adds that our theologians and jurists have very various and uncertain opinions on this matter; he blames the Council of Trent because it determined nothing in so doubtful a matter; he gathers from all these that it cannot be certainly asserted even by us that Matrimony is a sacrament.
But all these things are light and empty. For, in the first place, the council determined nothing, because there was no need. For just as the Lord himself did not express the matter and form of this sacrament, because he did not institute a new symbol, but raised a human and customary contract to the dignity of a sacrament, attributing to that contract a new signification and a promise of grace, so also the council satisfied its office when it explained the Lord's tradition.
Then: the theologians agree wonderfully among themselves as to the form and the minister; and as to the matter they do not so disagree that they cannot easily be reconciled.
And even if Catholics disagreed greatly among themselves both about the matter and about the form, that would take nothing from the certainty which we have about the sacrament of Matrimony. For to hold the Catholic faith about the sacraments, and to minister or receive the same sacraments faithfully, it is enough to know what is necessarily required for celebrating the sacrament, and how many and which are those things without which the sacrament is not completed; but what among these is properly form and what matter can be disputed, and even not known, without prejudice to the faith. Let the parish priest know that for Baptism water is necessary, with these sacred words, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”; but that the water is to be called matter and the word form he will be ignorant of without danger; so that even if he believed the word to be the matter and the water the form, he would neither err perniciously nor baptize invalidly. In the same way, if Christians hold that for celebrating Matrimony duly the mutual consent of lawful persons expressed by a sensible sign is necessary, and that to such a symbol, as to a true sacrament of the new law, a promise of grace is annexed, there will be no danger, even if perhaps they cannot distinguish the matter and the form. But in this all the theologians agree, Cano alone, as we said, excepted. Chemnitz therefore can gain nothing in this part.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CONTROVERSLV H.
CAPUT VI.
De matcria, forma el ministro
sacramenti Matrimonii.
Elsi de maleria, forma et minislro hujus sacra-
mcnli aliquid jam attigimus, occasione argumcn-
torum Durandi: rursus tamcn paulo fusius id pcr-
Iractandum cst,tum obMartini Kemnitii caliimnias,
lum ob novam ct singularcm opinionem Mclcliio-
ris Cani. Id quod necessario faciendum nobis csse
vidctur , ut dogma ccclesiasticum in supcriore
qnaeslione cxpliciiluin, omnia cx partc lcctum ac
dcfensum mancat.
Kcmnitiiis cnim hinc argumcntum ducil.ad pro-
bandum, nulluin cssc coiijugii s;icramcntum pro-
prie dictum, quod in conjugio, m;itcria et forma ,
sive elcmcntum et verbum, non facile demonslrari
possint.
Canus aatem dum pro sna opinionc pngnal, iis
;irgnmcntis imprndcntcr ulitiir , quibus h;icrctici
noslri lemporis, Ecclcsiiim vcxarc (losscnl; siipii-
dcm lib. H. dc locis tlieologi(;is cap. .">. iiflirmiit
non omnc Miilrimoniiim intcr Christianos lcgilimc
contraclum essc sacriimcnlum, scd illud solum ,
qnod a ministro ccclcsiiislico siicris ct solcmnibus
vcrbis cclcbralnr. Quocirca vcrbii, (piibus coiijugcs
mntuum conscnsum cxprimunt, admittil illc for-
main cssc coiitriicliis conjiigii, scd non sacramcnli
conjugii: ct p(;rsoinis coiitrahcntcs admiltil csso
miiiislros contriiclus conjugii , sed non sacramcnli
conjugii.
Al (pii;i scntcnli;t commnnis cl vcra , distinclio-
nciii isliim omiiiiio ignor;il, ct nihil intcr(!ssc sla-
tiiit inlcr contraclum conjugii christiatii, cjnsquc
m;itcri;im, foriii;im ct miiiislriim : cl sacramcntniQ
conjiigii, cjijsfpic m;ilcriiiiii,loiiiiinn (;t minislrum:
l(K)
7i'0
IU; SAi.|1.\MI:Mu .Mvllil.M.t.MI
ila iil (|iiitvl sulHril .wl ooiiliMoliiin isluin i'clt>l>i;m-
iliiin. iiitNn sulllcial ail saiMMnuMiluin rt^ltMjiaiiilmn:
iinlc lil. iil tliiin (laiius h)lis suis vinluis probai-c
coiialur, .Malriinoniuin sinc fonna YOirboriim a mi-
nislro i'i'ilt»siaslii'(> i>rolala ct^ltMiralnm noii essc
sacramcnlum, simul t>li.im probcl iiuaiUum in se
cst, nulluin revora esse in Ecclosia c.onju^ii sacra-
inenlum.
.\t)s iiiitur ul ulrit]uc rospontlt\nmus , Prinu) o.\-
ponemus hreviler, quae sil maloria, quae lorma cl
minisler hujus sacramenli, secuiulum connnnncm
senlenliam , el Kcmuilii calumnias repcllemus.
Deiiule, Cani senlenliam refulabimus; alque c.jus-
dem argumenla solvemus.
Quotl iiiilur ad primum nllinel.tle maleria liujus
sacramenli ckiac sunl llieologorum praccipue sen-
lcnliae, quas Pelrus Palutlaiujs rclcrl in 4. ilisi. 1.
q. 4. Una esl, quod consensu.s conjugum vcrbis
expressi. seu vcrba consensum cxprimciilia, sint
matcria et forma liujus sacramcnli. .Mlcra, quod
ipsa corpora. seu personae conlrabonlium , sinl
maleria: vorba vero e.vprimentia conscnsuni , sinl
lorma.
Qiiae scnlenliac meo judicio sunl ambae verae ,
et facile conciliari possunl. Nam conjugii sacra-
nientum duobus inodis consiilcrari polosl.l^no mo-
do.dum fit. .\Uero modo, dum pcrmanct postquam
factura est. Esl ciiim Malrimonium simile Kucliari-
stiac, quae non solum duni fil,scd eliam dum per-
manct, sacramenlum cst: dum cnim conjiiges vi-
vunl, semper corum societas sacromenlum esl
Cliristi el Ecclesiae.
Si igitur considcrelur Malrimoninm, dum fil; to-
ta cjus essenlia in signis e.xprimcntibus conson-
sum muluum consislil: corpora enim conjugium
non concurrunl, nisi ut maleria circa quam, ul et-
ium duin fil Eucbaristia, lola csseniia consecralio-
nis in vcrbis sacris posila esl: panis autem el vi-
num solum concurrunl ul lualeria circa quam. El
idein vidcmus in aliis contraclibus. Nam cum ven-
(litur aut emitur (lomus . tola conlraclus ralio
in consensu muluo sila esi: domus autcm est ma-
leria circa quam operalio illa versatur: nemo enim
dicil domum. quae voiulitur parlem essc conlra-
ctus. Sed quia verba unius conjugis. delcrminanl
verba alterius. et ab illis pariter determinanlur ,
ideo in iisdem vcrbis dislingui polesl maleria et
forma: nam verba quatenus detcrmJnant,forma dici
j)0ssunl; qualenus delenninanlur, maleria.
Alque haec esl sentenlia s. Thomac in 4. dist.
2G. quaest. 2. art. {. Nam in rcsponsione ad l.di-
cit, formam sacramenli hujus esse, vcrba conju-
guin: in responsione ad 2. dicil , maleriam esse ,
aclus ipsorum conjugum,quibus sacramentum Ma-
trinionii perficilur. ubi per actus inlelligit eadem
verba, (^uae paulo anlc di.xerat, essc formain;nulli
enim alii actus necessario requiruntur ad hoc sa-
eramentum ijerficiendum: iVec non Piicliardi, Palu-
dani. Capreoli. Duininici a Soto, et aliorum in ea-
dem dislincUonc. ^,
Si vero considerelur Malrimonium jam facluin et
celebratum. ncgari non potest ipsos conjuges si-
mul cohabilantes. sive e.vlcrnam conjugum socie-
lalem el conjunctionem,es5e materiale symboluin
cxlcrnum. n'praescnlans Chri^li it Eci;lesiae in-
tlissDlubilcin conjiinclioncm : (picinadinodum iii
sacraiiiciUi> Eucliarisliiie , consccratione pcracla
rcmancnl spocics consccralai» , tiuae sunt symbo-
lum scnsibile altpie cxlcrnum , interni aliinciUi
spirilualis.
Quare reclc milii divisse videlur Pclrus a Soto .
iecl. 4. de .Matrimonio. matcriam non solum circa
(luam. scd ctiam e\ qiia sacrameiUum Malrimonii
cunslal, essc pei-sonas coiUrahciUes.TIieoIogi quo-
ipie ferine omnessalis indieanl.corpora conjugum
csso mal(!riam sacramoiUi hujus , tlum aninnaiU ,
Ecclesiiim possc cunslitiiore ccrlos gradus consan-
guinilatis ct atlinilalis.inlra (juos Malrimonium sil
irritiim: (|uia dum eos gradus consliluil , facil ut
porsonae quao alit)qui erant maleria sacrainenti
hujus. jam non siiil am[)Iius materia. .\tque haec
de malcria dicla sint.
Eorina autein, consensu omniiim theologorum ,
Cano exccplo, sunl verba, vel sigiia mutuuin con-
sensum exprimentia. Itl habel expressi! s.Thomas
loco notalo in 4. dist. 2G. quaest.2.arl. 1. ad 1. et
antc eum Fliigo de s. Victore, lib. 2. dc sacramen-
tis. par. 11. cap. j. et omnes alii.
Sed objicit Kemnilius, pag.l221.Joannem 6rop-
porum noslra aelale docuisse , formam sacramenti
Matrimonii essc illa vcrba Domini. Matth. l\).Quod
Ddiis conjunxU, Jiomo non separel. proinde non
deessc, qui contra Scholasticos doceant , non cssc
formam sacramcnli hujus , signa raului conscn-
sas.
At Kcmnilius morc suo non bona fidcGroppe-
riim cilat. Locus Gropperi cst in cnchiridio chri-
slianae Inslilutionis. nominc concilii colonicnsis
cdito, in Iract. de sacramcnto Malrimonii: quo lo-
co Gropperus colligit quidcm formam sacramenli
hujus ex vcrbis Doinini:QuotiDeus conjunxit elc.
sed non nil, illa vcrba esse formain, aul neccssa-
rio recilanda esse: imino exprcsse dicil, verba mu-
tui conscnsus esse formam sacramenti: iSitpcrcst ,
inquit,ii< verbum el elemenlum liujus sacramenli
indicemus et graliam insuper in eo conferri de-
monstremus. Verbum ilaque hujus sacramenli,
quo accedente ad elementum, fit sacramentum ,
id nimirum o.st. quo ambo. mas et foemina (cum
pietatis respeclu, quae in Deuvi esl, sibi muiuo
fidem conjugalem dant, accipiuntque) non quo-
vis modo, sed in Dei nomine conjuuguntur et
copulantur. Vides lector, Gropperum nondissen-
tire a caeteris in hujus sacramenti forma consti-
luenda.et ideo solutn allegasse verba Doinini:(^uo(i
Dcus conjunxit elc. ul probaret , Matrimonium
Christianorum non esse coiUractum mere civilem
et humanum, el verba conjugum referenda esse
ad iliam divinam ct sacram conjunclionem,de qu;i
dictum est: Quod Dcus conjunxit elc.
Ex his patebil etiam, quis sit minisler hujus sa-
cramenli.Nam cum ad minislrum proprie perlineat.
verba formae pronunciare, el per ea sacramentum
conlicere: et in hoc sacramento vcrba formae a
conjugibus proferanlur, nccesse est.conjuges ipsos
esse proprios hiijus sa(;rainenli minislros.
Neque absurdum vidcri debcl, quod in easdem
persouas concurral caussa malerialis et cfTicicns:
LIIU:H PRIMUS
7«JI
i(i cniin exigil n;ilur;i conlraclus . qui de, persoriis
coulralicnliuni lil. Qu(!in;uhnoiluui cniui , si quis
in servum alicui se ipse veinlcrel, ideni essel ven-
ticns, cl rcs vendihi. ciViciens el inaleri;i: sic eliani
111 Malriiiiouio.cuin ipsi conjut^cs sc muluo lr;i(lant
ac donenl: ipsi elVicienles. cl ipsi niuleriu sunl. El
qu;iniquain rcquiriUir ex decrclo Ecclesiae, inini-
sler ccclcsi;islicus, qui coiiscnsuin conju!j;um cx-
qiiir;il, cl eiiiidciii ;ipproL»cl el dcchircl, el bcnedi-
clione sacerdolali confirmel ; laincn propric ipii
Malrimonii sacramealam elTiciuiil , ipsi conjugcs
sunl,
Ex his relelli possunl Kemiiilii caluinni;ie.Objicil
ille, in 2. par. cxain. p;ig. 1220. cl sC(iucnli,Sclio-
laslicos nondum liiigere polnisse aIiquid,(piod ma-
teria cl forina in lioc sacramculo recle dici jiossil.
Addil llicologos cl jureconsullos noslros admoduin
varias cl inccrlas opinioncs de h;ic rc !i;iberc: ;ir-
guil Iridenlinum concilium. quod niliil in re tain
dubia dclerminaveril: colligil ex liis omnibus, iion
possc ctiam a iiobis ccrloasscri, 3I:ilrimoiiium cs-
sc sacramcnlum.
Sed haec omnia lcvia sunt ct inani;i. Nam In
primis conciliuin nihil dclcrminavil, quia non eral
opus. Sicul cnim Dominus ipse iiou cxprcssil ma-
leriam cl formam liu.iiis s;icramcnli, quia iion no-
vum symbolum instiUiil.scd liiimanum.nsitalunKpie
<;onlraclum evexil ;id SHcramenli dignilalcm. allri-
biiens illi conlractni nov;im signific;ilionem ct gra-
liac promissioncm: sic eliam concilium inuneri
suo salisfecit, cum explicuil Dominicain Iraditio-
iiem.
Deiiide: Thcologi mirifice inler se conveniunt
quo ad fornnim el ministrum: quoad matcriam au-
lem non ila dissenliunl, nl facile conciliari iioii
possint.
Et (luamvis cliam lum de matcria, lum de forma
maxime inler se calholici dissidcrent: niliil id olli-
ccrct cerliludini , qmini habcmiis dc sacranicnlo
Matrimonii.\;im ad lidcm c;illiolicam dc s;icr;imen-
lis habcndam,et ad cadcm s;icrament;i fididitcr ini-
nislr;inda, vcl suscipiciida . s:itis csl scirc. (piid
iicccss;irio rcqiiir;ilur ;id s;icramciitiim cchibran-
dum, et (piot siiil, cl (pi;ic ilhi , sim; (piibiis iion
pcrficilur sacramenlum, quid aulem in his proprio
loriiKi sit, qiiid malcria. sinc fidci pr;icju(licio dis-
put;iii cl cli;mi ignor.iri potcst. Sci;il paiochus ,
ad B;iplisiiium ;i(pi;iin cssc nccessari;im . ciim ittis
Ycrbis s;icris: Kfio bapUzn lc, in nominc Pnlris,
el FUii oA SinriUis sancli, iiUiim ;iulcm ;iqii;i, ma-
tcria (lic(;ii(l;i sil. cl vcrbiim f()rm;i.;i(lco siiic pcri-
ciilo ignor;il)il, ut cliainsi vcrbiim inatcri;iin et;i-
tpi;im lorniam cssc crcdcrct, iKMpic pcrniciosc cr-
r.uel, iicrpic iiiiilililcr b^ipli/arcl. Ad ciindcm mo-
diiin si (]|irisli;mi lciic;int . ;id nuitrimonium rilc
celcbrandum , muluiim coiiscnsum lcgitimarum
pcrsoii;iiiMii sigiio scnsibili (•xprcssuin,cssc ncctis-
s;irium; at^juc cjiismodi symbolo . iil vcro novac
legis sa(;ramcnlo promissioiicm gr;iti;ic cssc annc-
x;iin: nihil pcriculi crit, (;li;imsi forlc m;ilcri;im ct
l'orm;im dislingiicrc iioii v;il(;l)iiiil. Iii lioc, autciii
Ihcologi oiiincs (•()uvciiiiiiil. iiiio >'.,i\\<), iit diximiis,
cxccplo. INiliil igitui' Kcmiiitius iii liac paile obti-
ncrc polcsl.