Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Chapter 7: That Every Lawful Matrimony Contracted among Christians Is a Sacrament
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).
Now against the opinion of Cano it must be proved that the essential form and the minister of the sacrament of Matrimony are not one thing, and the form and minister of the contract of Matrimony another; and therefore that no lawful Matrimony is celebrated among Christians which is not at once also a true sacrament of the Church.
And first we prove it because, if Cano's opinion were true, we could not show the sacrament of marriage from the Scriptures and the councils; and the heretics would not undeservedly say that this sacrament was devised by men, and that recently. For in the Scriptures we have indeed that the Matrimony of the faithful is a sacrament; but of any new form or minister we find no trace in the divine letters. Wherefore, if the form and minister of the contract of Matrimony is also the form and minister of the sacrament of Matrimony, the form and minister of this sacrament will be clearly shown in the divine letters; but if another form and another minister are to be sought, they will certainly have to be sought elsewhere than in the divine letters.
The councils of Florence and Trent, in which on account of the new heresies this dogma was explained more carefully, ought by all means to have assigned the form and minister of this sacrament, if there were any besides the form and minister of the contract of Matrimony. But these councils do not indicate this new form and minister by so much as a word; rather they signify openly enough that no others are to be sought besides those which are found in the contract of Matrimony.
The Council of Florence speaks thus: “The seventh is the sacrament of Matrimony, which is the sign of the joining of Christ and the Church, according to the Apostle. The efficient cause of Matrimony is regularly mutual consent expressed through words of the present.” So there. In which place the council by the efficient cause of Matrimony understands the efficient cause of Matrimony also as it is a sacrament; for it had undertaken to explain this when it said, “The seventh is the sacrament of Matrimony”; and unless it understood it so, it could rightly be blamed for having left out what necessarily had to be explained, and added what was asked by no one. But if the efficient cause of the sacrament of Matrimony, according to the declaration of this ecumenical council, is mutual consent expressed through words of the present, it manifestly follows that the form of this sacrament is not the blessing of the priest, but the very words of the spouses, and that the minister necessarily required is each of the spouses. For the minister is the efficient cause of the sacrament, and he effects it in no other way than by joining the form to the matter. Whoever, then, will defend the opinion of Cano will have either to oppose the ecumenical council openly, or certainly to brand the same council with a mark of imprudence.
The Council of Trent, session 24, in the decree on Matrimony itself, not only does not hand down a new form and minister in the sacrament of Matrimony, but also openly shows that there is none. For it says, first, that marriage instituted in the state of innocence was approved by Christ; then it adds that grace, which would perfect natural conjugal love, was joined to Matrimony by Christ, the institutor of the sacraments; lastly it concludes that the Matrimony of the new law excels the ancient ones in grace, and from this gathers that this Matrimony is a sacrament of the true name. Where the council acknowledges no difference in rite between the marriages of the ancients, whether before the sin of Adam or after, and Matrimony as it is a sacrament of the new law; but places the difference in this, that this is a cause of grace and those were not. The matter, form and minister of the sacrament of Matrimony, therefore, according to the Council of Trent, are the same as were in the marriages of the ancients, which were not sacraments; for a rite consists of matter and form. But in those it is certain that no words pronounced by a priest were of the essence of Matrimony; therefore such words are not of the essence of the sacrament of Matrimony, even among Christians.
Moreover, the same Council of Trent, in the same place, pronounces anathema on those who deny that clandestine marriages, before they were made void by the Church, were true and ratified. Further, according to the usage of speech of the sacred canons, those marriages are called true and ratified which are not only civil contracts but also sacraments of religion. For in the chapter Quanto, on divorces, Innocent III teaches that the marriages of unbelievers are true but not ratified, because they are not sacraments; but on the contrary, that the marriages of the faithful are true and ratified, because they are sacraments. And marriages which are not sacraments are said not to be ratified because they do not have that complete insolubility which those have which are sacraments. Wherefore, since the Council of Trent declared that clandestine marriages were true and ratified, it certainly cannot be denied that it declared them to have been sacraments also.
We have, then, two ecumenical councils which treated expressly of this sacrament, which not only did not hand down a new form and minister of this sacrament, but even taught clearly that no others are to be sought besides those which are found in the contract of lawful marriage.
Second, it is proved from the common consent of the theologians. For in the first place Hugh of St. Victor, book 2 On the Sacraments, part 11, chapter 5, says openly that the sacrament of Matrimony is completed when the consent of both spouses is expressed.
St. Thomas, on book 4, distinction 26, question 2, article 1, to the first, teaches most clearly that the form of the sacrament of Matrimony is the words of the spouses; from which the same doctor gathers that the blessing of the priest is not of the essence of Matrimony. And in distinction 28, the only question, article 3, he says that clandestine marriages are true sacraments, even if no ecclesiastical minister is present, because in clandestine ones all things are found which are of the essence of this sacrament. And all the rest teach this same thing; for Cano himself confesses that this is the common opinion of the Schools.
And Dominic Soto, who published his books on the fourth of the Sentences a little before Cano published his Theological Places, affirms, on book 4, distinction 26, question 2, article 3, that in his time there were not lacking some who began to dispute that the essential form of the sacrament of Matrimony is those words of the priest, “I join you together”; but that there had yet been no one who had dared to commit that opinion to writing.
From which we understand that the opinion of Cano is altogether singular and new; from which again it results that either Cano's opinion is false, or certainly the whole Church has erred in a most grave matter for many ages. For if Cano's opinion were true, all the theologians would have erred who taught that clandestine marriages, celebrated secretly without an ecclesiastical minister, are to be held and venerated as true sacraments. And the theologians erring, the parish priests and bishops would also have erred, and their peoples; for in sacred things the pastors for the most part follow the judgement of the theologians. Nay, Cano himself, in the place noted, affirms that the Council of Florence would define nothing about the matter and form of this sacrament because it found nothing defined on that matter by the theologians. But if ecumenical councils follow the common judgements of the Schools, how much more will the several pastors privately do so? This absurdity, then, follows from Cano's opinion: that for many ages now a merely civil contract has been falsely held in the Catholic Church for a sacrament of God.
And what he says, that the theologians write nothing certain about the sacrament of Matrimony, that they part into various opinions, and that they have not treated this question expressly, can do nothing to help his cause. For the theologians, even if they follow diverse opinions about the matter of this sacrament, yet about the form and the minister there is no dissension among them; and therefore they do not set up the question expressly, but simply affirm what the truth holds, because this matter was always most certain in the Church, nor did it come into anyone's mind to call it into controversy.
Third, it is proved by reason. Either marriages between lawful persons, and those Christians, without that new form pronounced by a priest, contain the insoluble bond of one with one, or they do not contain it.
If they contain it, then they are true sacraments of the new law; for that bond is the thing of the sacrament, as Augustine teaches, in the book On the Good of Marriage, chapter 7; and that is the cause why the marriages of unbelievers, even lawful and consummated ones, can be dissolved through the conversion of one of the spouses, 1 Corinthians 7: because, namely, they are not sacraments. And so that altogether insoluble bond is a supernatural thing and the effect of a divine sacrament; wherefore where it is, there also a sacrament must necessarily be.
But if they do not contain that bond, then they can be dissolved, at least in some case, or with a dispensation of the Church; and many wives too could be taken by Christians, provided they were taken without the priestly blessing. For if the insoluble bond of one with one arises from the sacrament, and here there is no sacrament, what prevents these marriages from being multiplied or dissolved? But it is unheard of in the Catholic Church that lawfully contracted and consummated marriages be dissolved or multiplied by any dispensation, even if they were celebrated without any ministry of priests. Nay, the Council of Trent, session 24, in the decree on clandestine marriages, made Christian men incapable of contracting those marriages for this reason: because it judged that clandestine marriages, if they were lawfully contracted, could not by any reason be dissolved; and yet it saw that it was altogether expedient that such marriages either not be made, or, being made, be broken.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VII.
0/71716 legiUmum MiUrimonium. inler Cliristianos
conU'acUim case sacramenUim.
Nunc advcrsus Caiii opinionem probandum est,
iion ;iliam esse formam essciilialcm , neque ;iiiuin
iiiinistrum sacramcnti Malrimonii ; aliain vero for-
inainct;iliiim minislruin conlractiis )lalrimoiiii ,
ct |)ropU;rca iiullum cclcbr;iri iiiier Christianos le-
gitimiim Matrimonium, quin id conlinuo sil eliam
vcrum Ecclcsiac sacramcnluin.
Ac primo id probainus, qui;i si vera esscl opinio
C;iiii, non posscmus ex Scripluris el conciliiso-
slcndere coiijugii sacramentum ; nequc imincrilo
dicerent haerclici hoc sacramenlum ab liominibus,
idque recens, excogitalum fuisse. l>'am in Scriplu-
ris habemus quidem, Malrimonium fidclium essc
sacramenlum; sed novac alicujus formac , aut mi-
nislri vesligium nuUum in divinis lileris rcperi-
niiis. Quare si forina el minister conlraclus Hlalri-
mouii, sil etiam forma el minisicr sacramenli Ma-
trimonii; lorma el minisler hujus sacramcnli in di-
viuis lileris pcrspicue demonslrabilur: si vero sit
alia forma quaerenda, aliusque minisler, alibi cer-
tc, qnam in divinis lilerisista quaercnda erunl.
Concilium llorenlinum et tridentinum . in qui-
bus propler novas haereses hoc dogma diligenlius
explicalum esl, debuissent omniuo lormani el mi-
nisUuin hiijus sacramcnti assignare. si qua essent
liraeler formam et ministrum conlractus Hlatriino-
nii. Al isla concilia ne vcrbo quidcm novam islain
l'()r:nam et minislrum indicanl , quiii polius satis
;ipcrle significanl, non csse quaerenda alia.praeler
ea. qiiac in conlraclu Matrimonii inveniuntur.
Concilium ilorcnlinum ila loquilur: SepUmum
esl sacramenUim MaU-imonii , quod esl sujnum
conjuncUonis ClirisU el Ecclesiae, secundum A-
postoUim. Caussa efjiciens Matrimonii , rerjulari-
ler cst muluus consensus per vcrba de praesenli
c.r.pressus. llacc ibi.Quo loco (•oncilium pcr caus-
sain cfficicnlcm Malrimonii, iiilclligil caussam ef-
ficiciilcm Malrimonii ctiain ul sacramcnluin esl :
!\am lioc susceperat explic;mdiiin . ciim diccrcl:
SopUmujn esl sacra.meulum-Matrimonii . el nisi
ila iiilclligcrcl, jurc rcprchcndi posscl, quod onii-
sisscl id, quod nccessario cxplicanduin eral.et ad-
jccissct id.quod a ncniinc pctcbaUir.Qiiod si caus-
s;i cfiiciens sacraiminti Matrimonii jiixla concilii
hiiiiis occuiiienici dcclaratioiicm, cst muluus con-
scnsiis per vcrba dc pracscnti exprcssus, maiiifc-
slc st'(piiUir , forinam sacraiiiciiti liujus noii esse
bcncdicUoiicm saccrdolis. scd ips;i conjugum ver-
l);i ct miiiislrum nccessario reqiiisilum.csse nlruin-
quc coniugcin: (N;iiii minisicr csl c;iiissa ciricieiis
sacr;iniciili. ncipic ;ililcr cllicil, quani formam m;i-
tcri;ic adjniigcndo. Qiiicuiikiuc igiliir Cani senlcii-
li;im lucri volct, cum oportcbil aul concilio oecu-
nuMiiiM» ;q)(;rlc rcpiigiiarc :iul cerlc nolam impru-
dfiili;ic oidciii (;oiitilio iiiiM(M'c.
Conciliiim Iridciitiuiiin sess. 2t. iii ipso decreln
dc Malrimonio, iiovain forniam cl ininiblimii in sa-
732
l»K SACr.A.MliMO MATni.Md.MI
criiinciilo .M.ilniiioiiH iioii inuJo luiii Iriulil , scil
iiperlc ('li.iin imliiMl, iioii cssi;: ilicit eiiiin piiiiio
.1 Clirislo ii|)|)r(iliiiliiiii (H)iiin^iuni.in sUiUi innoccn-
liiic insUUiUini. Dciiulc :ulilit j^iiiliiiin, (iiuic naUi-
riilcin coiijn^MiMi ;iiiior(Mii p(>rliccrcl, ;i (".lirislo s;i-
<-r;ini(MiU)ruiii insliUilore Miilrimonio ;uljun(;liiin.
I)cni(|(ic (■oiichulil. nov;ic li^jjis M;ilriiiioiiitiiii. jir;i-
li;i veUM"il)us |)r;iesl;irc.;il(iiic iiulc colli^Ml cssc lioc
.M;ilrinioiiinin, vcri noininis siior;uncnUiin.Ul)i con-
(Mliuiii non agiioscil diiTercnli;im intcr Miilriiuoni;i
vctcruni. sivc ;in[c pccc;ituin . sive posl pccc;iluiii
A(l;ie cl Miitriinoniuni, ul est iiov;ie lcj^is s;icr;i-
inciUnin, (luod iiUinel ;ul riluin: sed discrinien in
eo poiiil, (piod lioc csl c;uiss;i j^r;ili;ic, iil;i iioii c-
niiil. M;iUMi;i itiitur, fornia el niiuistcr s;icr;iinculi
.Mairiuionii e\ tridcutino cuncilio c;uieiu suiit,(]u;ic
cr;inl in .)l;itri(noiiiis vclcruin , quao sncr;uiieiita
iion (MMut. liitus cniin c\ iu;ilcri:i cl forin;i coiisUil.
.\l in illis cerluin cst, non luissc de csscnti;i Matri-
iiionii vcrba aliqua a saccrdole pronunciiita: noii
i^Mlur cjusinodi vcrba sunt dc cssciiti;i sacraiJicnli
.M;ilrinionii, etinni apud Chrislianos.
I'r;iclcrea idcni conciliuiu Iridcnl. in codcm loco
;m;illiema tlicil iis. qui neganl, Malrimonia clandc-
slina. ;iiitequain ;ib Ecdcsia irrilarentur, fuissc vc-
ra el rala. Porro siMMindum usum hKpicndi s;icro-
ruin canonuin illa .Matrimouia dicunlur vcra et rala.
(|uae non sohim sunl conlractus civiles, sed cliam
sacramciUa rcligionis. Nam c;ip. Quanlo, dc di-
vort. Iiinocenlius III. doccl.31alrinioni;i infidclium
esse vcra,sed non rala, quia non sunl sacramenla:
conlra vero, 3Ialrimonia (idcliuin csse vcra el r;il;i,
qui;i sacranieuiii sutit.DiciinUir ;iulcm M;ilrimoiiiii,
quae sacr;iiueula uou suiil, non csso rala,qui;i iion
liabeiU illam omnimodam insolubilitalcm , quam
habtMil c;i. (piiu! s;u'r;imcuta snnl. Quare cum con-
ciliuiu tridculiuuiu Matrimouia ciandeslina , vcra
cl rala fuisse dcclar;iverit ccrtc negari non potest,
quiii cliam sacramenta fuisse declaravcrit.
Il;ibciuus igilur. concilia duo oecumcnica, quae
dc lioc sncram(MUo cx professo Iraclavcrunl, non
modo non tradidisse novam formam el ministrum
hujus s;icr;iuicnli, sed ctiam perspicue docuisse ,
nuu cssc qiiacrciid;i ali;i pr;ietcr ca, quae in con-
Iraclu legilimi conjugii invcniuntur.
Sccundo probalur c.\ comiuuni conscnsu tlico-
logorom. A;im iu piimis Ilugo de s. Viclorc lib. 2.
de sacraiuoiilis p;ir. U. cap. o.aperlc dicit, sacra-
mcnlum M;ilrimonii perfici,cum consensus utrius-
que coiijiigis cxpriuiilur.
S. Tlioiu;is iii 4. dist. 20. q. 2. arl. 1. ad 1. cla-
rissimc docel, formam saiMMinenli M;ilriiuonii csse
verbii coiijugum: ex quo idem doctor colligil, sa-
cerdotis bcnc(licli(uiera non esse de esscnlia Ma-
Iriiiionii. tl dist. 28. q. unica art. 3. dicU , clan-
desliua .Matrimoni;i esse vera sacramcnla , sliamsi
nulliis adsil ministcr ccclesiasticus: quia in cl:iii-
dcsUiiis invcuiuiUur omuia. qu;ic suiil de cssciili;i
hiijus sacraraciiti. Atque lioc idom cactcri omnes
(loccul: nara idcm Canus fatelur essc hanc opinio-
uciu communoin Scholarum.
Kl Doiuiuicus a Solo; (pii paulo anlo libros suos
in quartum scnteuliarum edidit , (piam siui lora
Iheulugicu edidcrit Cauus. aflirmal in 4. dist. 2G.
(pi;i(>sl. 2. ;irl. il.siio UMupurc mui dcfuissc aliquos
ipii dis|)iil;irc incipcrcul, hM-iii;iiu css(Mili;ilem s;i-
cnimciUi .>l;ilrimonii cssc iHa vcrbii siic(M(lolis:AVyo
rus coDJ^Kio: scd huiicn niillum ;idlnic, Uiissc: (pii
c;iin sciilciili;iiii scriplis m;iud;irc iuisiis hiisscl.
E\ ipio iiitclligiinus,Caui opinioiicui csse omni-
no siiiguhirciu cl nov;iin: cx (piu rursus cnicitiir ,
i\[i\. C;iiii opinioucm hilsiim cssc.aut ccrti; loUiiii Kc-
clcsiam in rc gr;ivissima inullis sacculis crrassc.
I\;im si Cani oiiinio vcra esscl, crr;issenl Ihculogi
muucs, qui doccbanl Malrimoui;i claridcslina, cla-
li;i siue minislro (icclcsiaslico cclcbr;il;i: iit vcra sii-
criuiiciita luibcnda ac vcncr;iiid;i csse. KrraiUibus
;iulem Ihcologis, crnisscnl cli;im p;iroclii el cpi-
scopi, ct ipsorum populi: judicium (uUm thcologu-
rum in rcbus sacris, p;islorcs ul plurimum seipii
sulent. Iminu C;inus ipse, loco notato aflirmaUcon-
ciliuiu floicnlinum niliil dc lUiUeria cl foriuii hu-
jus s;icr;iiuciili dcfinirc voluisse, quia niliil de ca
rc a thcolugis dcfiuilum invcniebal. Quod si con-
cili;i occuincnic;i, judicia conimunia Scholarum se-
quuiUur. quanlo magis privalim singuli pastorcs id
facienl? Id crgo absurdi scquilur ex opiuionc Cani,
ul multis jam saeculis conlraclus mcre civilis pro
sacramcuto Dci falso in Ecclesia catholica habi-
tus sit.
Quod vero ille dicit.lhcologos nihil ccrti de Ma-
Irimonii sacramcnlo scriberc, in varias opinioiics
disr(!(lcrc. cl qiuicslimicm isl;ini cx profcsso uon
lr;icl;issc, nihil ejus caussani juvarc potesl. Thco-
logi enim. eiiamsi de maleria sacramenti liujus di-
vcrsas opiniones sequantur; lamen de foruia et de
minislro nulla apud eos disscnsiocst,el ideo quae-
slioncui ex professo nou instituunl, sed simpliciter
afTirraanl id quod verilas habet, quia res ista scm-
pcr in Ecclesia certissima fuil, neque vcnilin men-
tcm ulli, ul id in conlroversiam revocarel.
Tcrtio probalur ralione. Aut Malrimonia intcr le-
gilimas personas, casquc christianas, sinc nova illa
forma a sacerdole prolata. cuntineiU vinculum insu-
lubilc unius cum una, vel non continenl.
Si conUncnl, ergo sunl vera novae legis sacra-
menla. nam illud vinculum est res sacraraenti, ut
Auguslinus docel, lib. de bono conjug^ili, cap, 7.
el illa cstcaussa. cur Malrimonia infidclium eliam
lcgitima el consummala solvi possiiit pcr cunvcr-
sioncm iilleriusconjugis l.Corinlh.T.quia nimirum
nnu siint sacramenta.Itaque illud vinculum omnino
insolubile. est res supcrnaluralis , el sacramcnli
divini efl^ectus: quocirca ubi illc est , ibi eliam
sacramcntum neccssario essc debet.
Sl vero non conlinenl illud vinculum, crgo solvi
possunl, saltcm in aliquo casu. vel cum Ecclcsiae
dispensalionc:et mullae etiam uxores duci possunt
a Christianus niodo sine bcncdictioue sacerdolali
ducantur. Nam si vinculum unius cum una insolu-
bilc ex sacramcnto nascilur, cl hic nullum est sa-
cr;imentum, quid prohibct isla Malrimonia mulli-
plicari, vel solvi? At inauditum est in Ecclcsia ca-
tholica, utlegitimecontracta, et consummata Ma-
Irimonia per ullam dispcnsalioncm solvantur, aut
miillipliccntur, cliamsi absquc ullo minislcrio sa-
cerdoliim cclcbrata sint. Imino conciliuin Iridcnli-
num sess. 2i. iu decrolo de Malrimoniis claude-
um\ nuMUs
793
slinis, ca dc caussa inliabilcs fccil homincs chri-
slianos ad ca Malrimoniu conlrahcnda, quia judica-
bul non posse ulla ratione dissolvi Malriraonia,
quamvis clandeslina, si lcgilime conlrahcrenlur;
ot lamcn videbat expedire omnino, ul ejusmodi
Malrimonia, vel non fierent, vel facla dirimerenlur.