Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Chapter 31: On the Two Impediments That Do Not Break 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).
We have treated so far of all the impediments breaking Matrimony. Now we must treat briefly of those two by which we said above that the contracting of Matrimony is hindered, yet the contract is not broken. The impediments were the prohibition of the Church and the holy season.
By the prohibition of the Church is commonly understood clandestine Matrimony, which is forbidden under grave penalties in the canon law, and especially in the Lateran Council, chapter 51; and lately in the Council of Trent, session 24, it has not only been forbidden, but also plainly made void and unlawful, so that now those who so contract do not have a true Matrimony, but remain in perpetual fornication. And that the Church could make these marriages void cannot be doubted by one who believes that the same Church could make void marriages in certain degrees of kinship, or on account of the solemn vow of continence, or for the other causes of which we spoke above; for the reason of all is the same.
The adversaries approve that we now at last pronounce clandestine marriages unlawful; but they blame us because before the Council of Trent we held them for true and valid, while yet we condemned and detested them. And so Martin Chemnitz, in the second part of the Examination, pages 1280 and 1281, speaks thus: “But see what contradictions the synod of Trent lays down on this question. It confesses that the Church always detested and forbade such clandestine marriages; and yet at the same time it condemns with anathema those who deny that they were true and valid. Can, then, a joining detested and forbidden make a true Matrimony? That is: a joining detested and forbidden, according to the Council of Trent, is a lawful and divine joining.” So he.
But the answer is easy. For that the same Matrimony be valid, true, lawful and divine, and at the same time detestable, forbidden and hateful to God, are not contradictions except in the ill-sound head of Chemnitz and his companions. For if you look at the essence of Matrimony, before the decree of the Council of Trent the clandestine marriage was true, valid, lawful and divine; for nothing was lacking to it of the things which God willed to be required for the essence of Matrimony, since the matter, the form and the intention were present. Yet if you look at the order and manner, it was detestable, forbidden and hateful to God. Nor will this seem a wonder if you notice that the same happens in the other sacraments too. For if anyone is baptized with true water, with the due form of words and the intention of the minister and the receiver, but without the purpose of a better life, with a mind turned away from God and hardened in sins, such a Baptism will be true, valid, lawful and divine, nor can it be repeated without sacrilege; and yet at the same time it is detestable, forbidden, hateful to God, and ruinous both to him who gives and to him who receives. See what we said above, chapters 19 and 20.
The other impediment, which is called the holy season, signifies nothing else than that the solemnity of marriages is forbidden at certain times of the year. And by the ancient law solemn marriages were forbidden from the beginning of Advent until the Epiphany; likewise from Septuagesima until the octave of Easter; lastly from the Rogation days until the octave of Pentecost. On which matter there are extant decrees of ancient councils and pontiffs in Gratian, cause 33, question 4, and among others the Council of Laodicea, chapter 52, which council was celebrated twelve hundred years ago; there is extant also another decree, in the Extravagants, on holidays, the chapter Capellanum.
The reason of this prohibition is that in the whole year these three feasts are the most celebrated of all, the Nativity of the Lord, Easter and Pentecost; and on these all were bound to come to the Eucharist, by the Council of Agde, canon 18. But the solemnity of marriages is a thing of great distraction, since banquets and other preparations are usually made. That Christian men, then, might be found ready without hindrance for those spiritual feasts and for receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist, solemn marriages were forbidden by the Church with the best counsel at those three times. Which prohibition yet the Council of Trent lately, session 24, chapter 10, tempered, and brought down to two times only; for it forbade solemn marriages only from the Advent of the Lord until the Epiphany, and from Ash Wednesday until the octave of Easter.
Further, this most useful law Calvin condemns simply, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 19, the last section. Chemnitz likewise, in the second part of the Examination, page 1271, praises it indeed as instituted by the ancients with good zeal, but blames two things. One, that this institution is kept when its cause has ceased: for the cause had been that three times a year the people communicated in the sacrament of the Lord's body; but now they are compelled to come to communion only once. The other, that a new opinion began to be sewn on, as if the holiness of those times could not bear the mingling of flesh in conjugal union, as formerly in the rites of the Good Goddess they were compelled to lie apart.
But Chemnitz is deceived in both. For although all Christians are not bound by ecclesiastical law to come to communion except at Easter, yet the custom still flourishes in the whole Church of communicating at the Nativity of the Lord, so that those are altogether few who do not do it. At Pentecost communion is rarer, and therefore perhaps the Council of Trent permitted solemn marriages to be made at this time.
Add that communion is not the only cause of that decree, but also the celebration of the chief feasts, for which the Church has been busy to prepare her children by fasts and prayers; and nuptial pomps, banquets, dances and other signs of joy do not agree well with that preparation, especially that of Lent and Advent. Nor in any of those decrees which are had in cause 33, question 4, or in the title on holidays, is the cause of communion expressly set down, but only the celebration of the feasts.
In the other, after his manner, Chemnitz lies: for no one has sewn that opinion onto the decree, and many teach the contrary expressly. For St. Thomas, on book 4, distinction 32, question 1, article 5, question 4, to the second, and Cajetan in the Summa on sins, under the word “Marriages,” and Navarrus in the Enchiridion, chapter 22, number 71, teach that at those times the celebration of Matrimony by words of the present is not forbidden, nor even the consummation; but only the solemn leading of the bride and that public pomp and banquets which are usually used in the solemnity of marriages.
But although by this precept of which we now treat the conjugal office is not forbidden, yet Gratian, cause 33, question 4, and the Master of the Sentences, book 4, distinction 32, prove by many testimonies of the Fathers that on the chief solemnities, and most of all if one is to communicate in the Lord's body, one should abstain from conjugal union.
And we have the foundations of this in the divine letters. For in Exodus 19 the Hebrews, about to receive the law and to celebrate the first feast of Pentecost, are commanded to prepare for three whole days and not to come near their wives. And in 1 Kings 21 Achimelech the priest denies David the holy bread unless he is clean from women; from which place St. Jerome, book 1 against Jovinian, and in the apology for the same book, deduces that he is much less worthy of the heavenly bread who does not keep himself from his wife. Lastly, blessed Paul, 1 Corinthians 7, will have spouses by consent abstain from conjugal union for a time, that they may give themselves to prayer. But certainly on the chief feasts one must give oneself to prayer; therefore one must also abstain from union.
Nor does it stand in the way, what Chemnitz cites, that marriage is called by Paul an undefiled bed. For although the conjugal office is free from fault if it is done in place and time, yet it would certainly not be free from fault if it were done in the market, with the people looking on, and much less in a church consecrated to God. What wonder is it, then, if Catholics say that in a sacred time, and most of all when one is to communicate, one should abstain from conjugal union?
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXXI De duobus impediuienlis non dirimenlibus. Egimusiuicusquede irapediinenlisomnibus diri- tneiUibus Malrimoiiium.Nunc dc duobus illis, qui- J)us supra di.ximus 3Ialrimonium conlrabendum impcdiri, non tamen dirimi contiaclum, brcviter agendiim est. Impedimenla eranl; Ecclesiac inlcr- dicluin. cl lempus ferialum. 1'er E;clesiae interdiclum intelligilur communi- ler Mnlrimonium clandeslinum, qiiod siib gravilnis pociiis iii jure canoaicn iiiterdicilur,ac polissinium in concilio laleraiicnsi, cap. .">!. ct nuper in conci- lio Iridenl. sess. 24. non solum proliibitum est, scd etiam planc irritalumac illcgitimum redditum, ut jain qui ila conlraliuiit. veruin non liabeantMa- trimonium, scd in perpelua fornicatione maneant. Poluisse aulem Ecclesiam IiaecMalrimonia irrilare, diibilare noii polcst qni crcdit, poluissc candcin Ecclcsiam irrilare .^lalrimonia in ccrtis gradibus cognnlionis, vel ob volum soleinne coiilinentiae , aut aliis dc caussis, de quibus supra di.vimus: ca- dem est euim omnium ralio. Adversarii probanl,quod nnnc landem Malrimo- iiia claudcslina proiiniiciemus illcgilima; sed nos reprelienduni,f|uod ante concilium Iridcnlinum ca pro veris et ratis baberemiis: num lamcn dainna- remus ac detestareniur. Itaqiic Marlinus Kcmiii- tius in 2. par. e.xamin. pag. 1280. cl I2S1. sic lo- (Iuilur:/iu<itrero qnalia d^u^TaTa Iridcntina ^yno- (Ins de liac quaeslione sialual.Falelur EceieKiam lalia clandestina Malrinionia ficnipor delrslalam e.s.se. ahjne proliihnisHe: el lanicn simul analke- male (lamnal, qnl eavera et rala esse ncqanl. Polcslne ifjilur dclcslnnda cl proliihilaconjunr.tio facerc vernjn Malrimoninm? Iloc csl; (irle.slanda ct prokihila conjnnrlio jn.rJa Iridenlinnm conci lium, esi lcrjilima el divina conjunctio. Ilaec ille. Sed facilis responsio esl. Nam iilcin Malrimo- nium esse raluni, verum, legilimum , divinum cl siinnl dcleslaiidum, [iroliibiliim, Deoque idvisiim , non sunt aTU7-caTa.nisi in capite male saiioKemni- tii cl ejus sodalium.iVam si essentiam .Malrimoiiii spccles, ante concilii tridentini, decretum vcrum , ralum, legilimmn et divinnm erat conjugium claii- dcstinuin; nibil cnim ei dcernl ooriim.quae ad es- seiiliam Malrimonii Dcus rcipiin voliiil, cum a- d3ssel maleria. forma alque inlciitio. Si tamcn or- diiicm et modum speclcs. eral dcleslandiim, pro- bibilum ac Deo iiivisum:neque boc miruin vidcbi- tur, si animadverlns in aliis quoque sacraincntis idem usu venire. Nam si quis aqua vera cum de- bila forma verborum el inlonlione minislri ac su- scipieiilis liaplizelur; sed abs(|ue pro|)o>ilo vilac melioris, cnm animo a Deo avcrso, et in pcccalis obdurato; ejusmodi Baptisma verum. ralnin legili- mum ac diviiium cril. ncipie repcli sine sacrilegio polcril: et lameii siniul deteslandum. proliibiUim, Deoque invisum, ct tum danli, lum accipicnli per- nieiosiim. Vide qune supra diximus. cap. I().el20. Allerum impcdimenlum, quod lempus ferialum dicitur, nibil signilical aliud, nisi inlerdiclam esse nuptiarum solemnilalcm cerlis anni lemporibus.Et quidem anliquo jure probibebanlur solemiies nii- pliae ab inilio advcnlus usque ad epipbaninm;ilem a sepluagesima usque ad octavam pascliae;deniquc a diebus rognlionum usque ad oclavain penleco- sles. Dc qua re cxtanl dccrela conciliorum anli- quorum et ponlificum, apud Gratian. 33. quaest. i. et inler alia, concilii laodiceni, cap. 25. quod concilium ante annos 1200. celebrnlum csl: c.vslat ctiam aliud decrctum , exira, dc fcriis , cnp. Ca- pellanum. Ralio bujus proliibiliouis est, quia lolo aiino fe- sla omnium celcbcrrima sunt liaec Irin, nalnle Do- mini, pascba el penlecosle; atque in Iiis leneban- tiir omnes ad Eucliarislinm accedere ex concilio ai^albcnsi, can. 18. Solcmnilas aulem nupliarum rcs csl ma^nae distraclionis, cuni convivia, aliique apparalusiieri .soleant.Ul igilur Clirisliani bomines sinc impedimcnlo ad ea fesla spirilualia, el ad sacrainentuin Eucbarisliae siiscipiendum parali invenircntur.optimo consilio ab Ecclcsia solenines nupliac Iribus illis temporibus proliibilae fucrunl. Ouam tamenprohibilionemnupcr Iridcnlinum coii- ciliuin sess. 2'.-. cap. 10. lcmpernvil, alque ad duo tnntiim tempora redegil; solum enim ab advcntii Doiniiii iisqiie ad epiplianiam,el a die cineriim us- que ad octavam pascliac solcmnes nuplias intcr- dixit. ,. . Porrohanc nlilissimam legcm simpliciler daninat Calvinus lib. i. inslil. cap. 10. § ult. Kcmnilius ilcm in 2. par. examin. pag. 1271. laudat quidem nl bonozelo inslitutam a veleribus, sed duo quae- dam reprebeiidil. rnum, quod inslilulnm Iioc rcti- nealiir, cum caiissa ojus cossavoril: oaussa cnim fuoral, quia W.r iii aiiiio popiilus communicabat corpnris Dominici sacramcnlo; nunc autcm semcl laiitiim ad commnnionom accodore cogilur. A!lc- rum.quod assui oooporil nova opinio.qnasi sancti- tas illornm lcmporum non possct forre commixlio- ncm cnniis in copnla c.oiiiugali, sirut qiiondam in sacris l>(mac Dcao ccgobanlur scciibaie. Sed in utroquo falliliir Kcmniliiis. [\am ctiamsi non lonoantur Cliristiani omnos lcge ecclcsiasticn ad communioiiom accederc, nisi in pascha- Inmca .•idliuc vigcl consuetudo in tota Ecdesia communi- 858 DK SACIUMKMO MATKIMOMI candi in naloli Doniini, adco ul rari sinl omnino qui iil non riiclanl. In penlecoslc rarior esl coni- iniiiiii», ol iiioo eliain rorl.isso ronciliinn Iritlenli- nuni lioc leinpore nuplias sohMnnes lieri ixMiiiisil. A(l(lc:Quoil non cst sola communio caiissa illlus iliMM-eii.se.l eelehrilasiiiam priiieipalium reslorum, ad quiie Kcclesia per jejunia el tu-alioiies lilios siios prai'pararcsatai,Ml:non autem beiieeiiiiveniuntpoin- pac nupliales, convivia , saltalioncs et alia signa laetitiae.cuinpraepanilioneilla.praesertim.quailra- jjesimae ct advenlus. i\ec iii ullo decrelo eoruin , quae habcnlur 33. quacst.i. vel in litiilo de reriis! expresse ponitur caussa commuuionis, sed solum fesiorum celehriilio. In altcro. more suo, menlilur Remnitius: nam ncquc ulluseam opinioneni assuit decrclo,cl multi eonlrarium cxprcssc docent. i\;iin s. Tliomas in 4. dist. :\1. quacst. 1. arl. 5. quaest. 4. ad 2. et Ca- jctanus in summa de pcceatis, verbo, yupUae; et .Xavarriis in enchiridio, cap. 22. nuin. 71. docenl nnn inlerdiei illis lcmporihus celchralioncm Ma- trimouii pcr verha dc pracsen'i, el eliam consuni- mationem; sed solrmnem lantum sponsac dedu- cliononi el puhlicam illam pompam el convivia , qiiae insolemuitale nupliarum adliiheri solent. Sed quamquam hoc praeceplo.de quo nunc agi- mus, noii prohihealur ofliciuin conjogale, lamen in praecipuis solemnitalihus, ct maxime si com- municandum sil corpori Dominico , ahstinenduin cssc a copula conjugali, mullis Palrum lestimoniis prohant C.nilianus 33. quaesl. 4. cl macfisier sen- tenl. lih. 4. dist. 32. El habemus fundamenla hujus in divinis literis. >'am Exod. lO.richraei accepturi legcm el celebra- turi primum restum pcnlccostes , juhentur Iriduo intcgro praep irari.et iion appropinquare uxoribus. Kl 1. Rcgum 21. Achimclcch saccrdos negal Davi- di pancm sanctum.nisi mundusessela mulierihus: ex quo loco s. Ilieronymus lih. 1. in Jovinian. ct in apologia pro eodcm libro, deducit, miiltominus dignum csse pane coelesti, qui non se continel ab uxore. Deniqueb. Paulus 1. Corinlh. 7. vull con- juges ex consensu invicera a copula conjugali abs- tinere , ul vacent oralioni. Al cerlo in praccipuis feslis oralioni vacandum esl: crgo et acopula abs- linendum. iXeque obstat, quod cital Kemnitius, thorum im- maculatiim a Paulo appcllari conjugiuin; Nam etsi culpa vacat olTicium conjugale, si loco el tempore fial: lamen ccrle non vacaret culpa, si iierel in fo- ro. inspectante populo, el mullo minus si in tem- plo Deo sacro. Quid crgo mirum es» si catholici di- cant, in tempore sacro et maxirae quando commu- nicandum est, a conjugali copula csse abslmen- dum?