Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Chapter 32: That Matrimonial Cases Belong to the Judgement of the Church; and On the Ceremonies of the Sacrament of Marriage
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 Sixth Controversy: On the Judge of Matrimonial Cases
There remains the sixth controversy, on matrimonial cases, which can be dispatched very briefly. Many of the adversaries throw back matrimonial cases simply to the political magistrate, as Philip Melanchthon in the Commonplaces, under the title on marriage, John Brenz in the apology for the Württemberg Confession, and others.
Martin Chemnitz, however, in the second part of the Examination of the Council of Trent, page 1272, thought it must be distinguished. For he writes that it belongs to the Church, and not to the political magistrate, to answer about cases of conscience which depend on the word of God concerning Matrimony; yet he contends that to make laws about Matrimony belongs not to the Church but to the political prince; and he proves it both because not the bishops but the emperor Theodosius made the law forbidding the marriages of cousins, and because the Council of Milevis decreed that a law about divorce must be sought from the emperor. And so Chemnitz gives the Church no other power about Matrimony than that of explaining the word of God, such as we grant to preachers and private doctors.
Catholics distinguish concerning matrimonial cases. For some are altogether political, as about dowries, successions, inheritances and so on. Some are altogether spiritual, as about the parts of the sacrament, the priestly blessing and so on. Some are partly political, partly spiritual, as about the degrees of kinship, divorces, impediments and other things which belong to the contract of Matrimony itself: for inasmuch as that contract is natural, the matter is political; inasmuch as the same contract is the foundation of the sacrament, and a matter of conscience, it is spiritual.
And cases of the first kind we do not deny belong simply to the political magistrate; whence also daily within the Catholic Church those cases are pleaded before the secular judge.
Cases of the second kind no one can deny belong to the Church alone: otherwise, at the time when there were no Christian princes or political magistrates, it would have been necessary to bring altogether spiritual cases before an unbelieving judge, or those cases would have been without a lawful judge.
The chief question is about cases of the third kind, which we say can belong to the political magistrate, but in subordination to the ecclesiastical; but that they belong simply to the ecclesiastical prince, as was defined in the Council of Trent, session 24, canon 12. This was briefly proved above, in the disputation on the impediment of the solemn vow; and now it is confirmed again by three reasons.
First: Matrimony is a sacrament of the Church; nor among Christians is the lawful contract of Matrimony separated from the sacrament of Matrimony, since every lawful contract of Matrimony is by this very fact the sacrament of Matrimony. Therefore to judge whether some contract of Matrimony is lawful is to judge whether that contract is a sacrament; but to judge about the sacraments belongs to the Church; therefore to judge about such a contract also belongs to the Church.
Second: even if Matrimony were not a sacrament, yet, because it is a matter of conscience depending on divine laws, it would without doubt belong to the pastors of souls; just as questions about loans, rents and other contracts, in which usuries are sometimes hidden, are judged by the Church. Wherefore that saying of Chemnitz is a mere slander, in the second part of the Examination, page 1226, where he says that the Catholics made a sacrament of Matrimony in order that matrimonial cases might be subject to the ecclesiastical judge alone.
Third: it is proved from the practice of the whole Church. For, first, Christ himself did not send back the case of divorce and repudiation to the political magistrate, but judged it himself, Matthew 5 and 19. Then the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 7, likewise took cognizance of the case of marriage between a believer and an unbeliever, and did not throw it back to the magistrate. Lastly, the councils and the rescripts of the pontiffs are full of laws and sentences in the cause of Matrimony; since, as can be known from the decretal letters, this was always the custom in the Church, that about such cases not kings but pontiffs were consulted.
Nor were these judgements of Christ, of the Apostle, of the pontiffs and councils mere interpretations of the word of God, as Chemnitz dreams, but lawful and coercive sentences. For Christ openly made a law about taking away the repudiation permitted to the Jews; for so the Apostle speaks of that law of Christ: “To them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband,” 1 Corinthians 7.
Moreover, in the Old Testament men were sent, about doubtful questions, to the priest as to a true judge, not as to a simple counsellor: for in Deuteronomy 17 he was commanded to be killed who did not abide by the sentence of the priest. And surely it is not fair that the authority of the priest of Aaron should have been greater than that of the Christian pontiff.
Lastly, why were these cases ordinarily brought to the pontiffs rather than to learned men, if the wisdom of a counsellor, not the authority of a judge, was sought in the priests? But of the ecclesiastical power, on which this particular question about Matrimony depends, we have discoursed at length enough elsewhere.
The two arguments of Martin Chemnitz conclude nothing. For as regards the law of Theodosius, we have already said before that the political prince too can make a law about the impediments of Matrimony, but with the ecclesiastical prince approving; for if he opposes, that law will be void. Which we see in this very law of Theodosius. For when not long after his sons had abrogated that law, as is plain from the law Celebrandis, in the Code on marriages, and then Justinian too had made a law that marriages between cousins should be lawful, the section Duorum, in the Institutes on marriages, St. Gregory the pope openly blamed the law of Honorius and Justinian, in the rescript to Augustine, bishop of the English, and on the contrary laid down that marriages between cousins are to be judged unlawful; and this law of the pontiff, and not that of Caesar, obtained force in the Church, cause 35, question 2, canon Quaedam lex.
And to that of the Council of Milevis we answered in the disputation on divorce: that the Fathers of that council did not seek a law by which it should be decreed that it is not lawful after divorce to take another wife while the first lives, but one by which he who did it should be punished with an external penalty; for the Fathers themselves had already defined the matter sufficiently in the council, and had added to their definition the penalty of excommunication.
The Seventh Controversy: Chapter 33. On the Ceremonies of the Sacrament of Marriage
The last controversy is about the rites and ceremonies with which the sacrament of Matrimony is usually administered in the Catholic Church. For this is common to all the sacraments, that besides the essential ceremony instituted by God, in which the essence of the sacrament consists, some other rites also are used from the ancient custom or institution of the Church, that the sacrament may be received with greater piety and devotion.
In Matrimony, then, these ceremonies are usually observed. First, the new spouses are blessed in the church by the priest. Second, the oblation of the Eucharist is offered for them. Third, they are covered with a veil. Fourth, bands partly white, partly purple, are joined together. Fifth, with a ring blessed by the priest the bridegroom presents the bride. Sixth, with various prayers the marriage newly contracted is commended to the Lord. Seventh, by the priest's exhortation they are admonished of their duty, that they behave honorably in Matrimony. The last two of these rites the adversaries too keep, as is clear from Calvin's little book on administering the sacraments, and from the other Agendas of the heretics.
And truly it is a wonder why Calvin, in the little book to which he gave the title Form of Administering the Sacraments, treats so seriously of the rite of celebrating Matrimony, and joins it with the rite of Baptism and the Eucharist, although he denies that Matrimony is a sacrament. But so it sometimes happens to the obstinate, that what they deny with the mouth they affirm with deeds.
The other rites which Catholics keep I do not doubt are little approved by them; yet neither did Chemnitz, on canon 11 of session 24 of the Council of Trent, where anathema is pronounced on those who despise these rites, write anything against these ceremonies; nor have I read in other authors any solid argument against the same ceremonies. Wherefore it will be enough in this place to confirm those rites by the authority of the ancients.
And first there is extant the testimony of Pope Nicholas, who sat seven hundred years ago, and it is had in the canon Nostrates, cause 30, question 5. Then there is extant the testimony of Isidore, book 2 On the Offices, chapter 19, where the reason of each is also given; and Isidore flourished more than nine hundred years ago. Besides, Pope Siricius, in letter 1, chapter 4, and Innocent I, likewise pope, in letter 1, chapter 6, mentioned the priestly blessing which is usually given to those who marry; the Fathers of the Fourth Council of Carthage, of whom one was St. Augustine, make mention of the same too, chapter 13. St. Ambrose, in letter 70 to Vigilius, not far from the beginning, mentions not only the blessing but also the veil with which the new spouses are covered by the priest in the church; whence also he interprets that marriages are named from the veiling. And Ambrose, book 1 On Abraham, the last chapter, mentions that the bride was covered with a veil. And Siricius and Ambrose flourished twelve hundred years ago, and Innocent and Augustine a little fewer. Lastly Tertullian, older than all these, in book 2 To His Wife, mentions the oblation by which Matrimony is confirmed in the Church. And so much of the sacrament of Matrimony.
The end of the five general controversies of the third tome. Praise to God and to the Virgin Mother Mary.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CO.^TROVERSIA YI.
CAPUT XXXII.
Caussas mafrimoniales ad Ecclesiae judicium
'pertinere.
Sexla rcslal controversia de caussis matrimonia-
libus, quae brevissimc potcril expcdiri. Multi cx
advcrsariis caussas malrimonialcs ad poliliciim ma-
Kislralum simpliciler rejiciunt.ut Philippus 31.;lan-
clithon in locis, titulo de conjugio. Joaniics IJrcn-
lius in apologia pro conrcssionc Wirteinhergcnsi,
ct alii.
Dlartinus tamcn Kemnitius in 2. par, cxamin.
Irideiilini coniMlii, p;ig. 1272. dislingucnduin csso
puhivil. Scrihit euiiu l''ccles'ae csse, non autein
|)oIilici magislralus. responderc de casihus con-
scientiaCjipii circa Malrimonium ex verboDci pen-
denl; lamcn ferre leges de Malri:nonio, non ad Kc-
clesiam.sed ad polilicum principcm pcrtinerc con-
lcndil; idque prohal, luin quia legcm prohihenlcm
con.iugia consohrinorum, non cpiscopi, scd Thco-
dosius imperalor tulil, tuin quia concilium milcvi-
lanum lcgem dc divorlio ab imperalorc |)etendain
csse dccrevit,Ilaqiie Kemnitius circa Matrimoniuiu
non aliam Irihuit Ecclesiae potcstatcm, quain cx-
plicandi vcrhum Dci, qualem nos concionatoribus
ct privatis doctorihus concedimus,
Catholici dislinguiint dc caussis malrimoniali-
bus, Quacdam cnim sunl omnino polUicac , ul dc
dolihus. de successionibus,de haercditalihus, clc.
Quaedam sunt omnino spirilualcs . ul de partihus
sacramcnti, de benedictione sacerdolali elc.Quae-
dam partim sunl politicae , partiin spiriluales, ut
degradibiis cognationis, de divorliis, dc impcdi-
mentis el aliis, quac ad ipsum contraclum Malri-
monii periinent: qualeiius enim contraclus ille \\\\-
luralis est,maleria est polilica:qualenus idem con-
traclus esl fundamcnlum sacramenli, el rcs con-
scienliac. spiritualis cst,
El quidem caussas primi generis non negamus
ad polilicura magistratum simplicitcr perlincrc :
unde etiam quolidie inlre calholicam Ecclesiam
coram judice saeculari caussac illae agunlur,
Caussas secundi generis nemoncgare potest ad
solam Ecclesiam pcrtinere: alioqui quo lemporc
nulli principcs, nuUivc magislralus polilici Cliri-
sliani erant, oportuisscl caussas oranino spiritua-
les ad infidclem judicem defcrre, aut sine legitimo
judice caussae illac fuissent.
Potissima qiiaestio esl de caussis tertii generis ,
quasquidem nos dicimus ad politicum m;)gislra-
tum perlinere possc, sed cum suhordinalionc ad
ecclcsiasticum;simpliciter aulem ad priiicipem ec-
clesiaslicum pcrlinere, ut in concilio tridcnlino
scss, 24, can, 12. definitum esl. Idsupra brcviter
cst proba!um,iu dispiilalione de impedimcnlo voii
solcmnis: et nunc rursus tribus ralionibus confir-
matur.
Primo:Matrirnoiiium est Ecclesiae sacramenlum;
neque apud Chrislianos separatur contraclus lcgi-
timus Matrimonii a sacrainento Malrimonii,cum o-
mnis legitimus contractus Malrimonii hoc ipso sit
sacramentum Malriraonii. Ergo judicare an aliquis
contraclus Malrimonii sit legilimus, esijudicare ,
an ille conlraclus sit sacramentum: sed de sacra-
raenlis judicare, ad Ecclesiam spcctal; igilur ct de
lali contractu judicare, ad Ecclesiam speclat,
Secundo: Etiamsi matrimonium sacramenlum
non esset, tamen quia res cst conscicntiae, ex le-
gihus divinis pendens, ad pastores animarum sinc
dubio pertinorct, queraadmodum quacstioncs dc
I
LIBEH PRIMUS
859
nambiis, dc censibus aliisque conlraclibus, in qui-
bus inlerdum abscondunlur usurae, ab Ecclesia
judlcanlur. Quare tnera calumnia est illa Remnilii
iu 2. p;ir. cxaminis pag. 122G. ubi dicil: Calholi-
cos exMalrimonio sacraujenlum fecissc,ul caussae
malrimoniales soli judici ccclesiaslico subjeclae
essenl.
Terlio: Probatur ex praxi lolius Ecclcsiac. Nam
in priinis CbrisUis ipsecaussam de divorlio ct rc-
pudio, non rcmisit ad politicum magislratum, sod
ipso judicavil, Matlhaei 5. cl ID.Deindc Apostoliis
1. Corinth. 7.caussam conjugii inler fididem ct in-
fidclcm, simililer cognovil, ncque ad magislralum
cam rcjecit. Dcniquc plcna sunt concilia clponli-
iicum rescripta legibus el senlcntiis in caussa Hla-
Irimonii; siquidcm.ut ex epistolis decretalibus co-
gnosci polcst,scmper in Ecclcsia bacc fuil consuc-
tudo, ut de ejusmodi caussis, non rcges, scd pon-
tiliccsconsulerenlur.
IVcciue isla judicia Christi, apostoli, pontificum
ct conciliorum.fuerunt merae iulerprelationes ver-
bi Dei, ul Kemnitius somnial, sed legitimae sen-
icnliae coaclivae. Nam Chrislus aperle legem lulil,
dc lollendo repudio Judaeis pcrmisso: sic enim
Io(iuilur Aposlokis de illa Christi lege: lis qiii Ma-
Irimonio juncU sunl. praecipio non ego, sed Do-
minus, uxorcm a viro non discedere: quod si
discesseril. manerc innuplam, aul viro suo rc-
conciliari, 1. Corinth. 7.
Praclerea in Tcslamcnlo vetcri circa dubias
quaesliones millebanlur bomincs ad saccrdolcm ,
ul Ycrum judicem, non ul simplicem consiliarium:
nam Deulcronom. 17. jubebatur occidi , qui scn-
tentiae saccrdolis nou acquicscebat. Et sane ac-
quum non est,majorcm fuissc sacerdolis Aaronici,
quam christiani ponlificis auclorilatcm.
Dcniquc curnon polius ad bomincs doclns,quam
ad poulifices caussae istae ordinarie ferebanlnr ,
si cousulloris sapienlia, non judicis auctorilas in
sacerdolibus quacrebalur? Sed de potcslale ecclc-
siastica, cx qua parlicularis ista quaeslio dc Malri-
monio pendet, salis fuse alibi disseruimns.
Argumcnta duo Martini Remnitii, nihil conclu-
dunl. Narn quod ad legcm Tbeodosii allinet, jam
anlca diximus; possc ctiam principcm polilicum
de im[)edimenlis Matrimonii legem l'errc,scd prin-
cipe ecclesiaslico approbante: si enim hic repu-
gnct.Iex illa irrila cril.Quod in hac ipsa lege Thco-
dosii cernimus. iSam cum non diu posl,eaoi legcm
cjus filii abrogassenl. ul palct 1. celebrandis, C.de
nupt. et deinde eliam Juslinianus legem lulisscl ,
ul licita csscnl Malrimonia inter consobrinos, §
duorum, Insliliil. dc niipt.S.Cregorius papa Icgein
Honorii ctJustiniani a[)erle repreliendil,in rescripto
ad Angusliuum Anglorum episcopnin , et cnnlra
slaluil, inler consobrinos illicila Malrimonia cssc
ccnsenda: el haec pontificis lcx , non autem illa
Cacsaris, in Ecclcsia robur obtinuil, ?t">. quaesl.2.
can. Quaedam lex.
Ad illud autcm concilii milcvilani, rcspondimus
in dispulalione de divortio,P<dres cjus concilii non
|u;iere legein, qua dccernaliir, non liccrc jiost di-
vorliiiiii uxorem aliam diicerc, priore vivcnle, sed
qua puniatur poena cxlerna, qiii id fcccrit: j;im e-
nim Palres ipsi in concilio rem salis definieranl,
et definitioni suae poenam cxcomraunicalionis ad-
jcccrant.
CONTROVERSIA VII.
CAPUT XXXIII.
De caeremoniis sacramenli conjugii.
Poslrcraa conlrovcrsia de ritibus ac cacrcmoniis
csl, qiiibus Matrimonii sacramenlum in Ecclesia
calholica solet adminibtrari. Id cnim commune
esl omnihus sacramcnlis, ut practer csscnlialem
cacremoniam a Deo inslitutam, in qua sacramenli
essentia consistit, adhibcantur ctiam aliqni alii
ritus cx anliquo Ecclcsiae more vcl inslilulo, qiio
majori cum piclatc ac dcvotione sacriimcnlum per-
cipialur.
In M;ilrimonio igitur bae cncremoni;ie ohscrvari
solent. Primo,benedicunlur novi sponsi in Ecclcsia
e sacerdole. Secundo, offertur pro eis oblalio Eii-
charistiae. Tcrtio, vclamine obnubuntur. Quarlo,
villii partim candila, parlim purpurca sinnil jun-
gunlur. Quinto, annulo a saccrdolc bencdicto,
sponsiis sponsam donal. Scxto, variis praecipiis
cojijiigium rcccns coiilraclum Domino commcn-
daliir. Septimo, cohorlatione saccrdolali monentur
ofTicii, ul honcsle in Matrimoniose gcranl. Horum
riluiim diios poslremos advcrsarii cliam scrvant,
ut ex libcllo Calvini de sacramentis minislrandis,
ct cx aliis iiaercticorum Agendis perspicuum est.
Et sanc miruin esl, cur Calvinus in libcllo,
cui tiliilum fccit, Eormul;i sacramcnlornm admi-
nislrandorum, lain serio Iraclet de ritu Malrimonii
celebrandi, eumque cum ritu Baptismi ct Eu-
ch;irisliae conjungaljCum lamcn Malrimoniuin sa-
cnimeiUum cssc negel.Scd ila conlingil aliquaiido
perlinacibus, ul quod ore negant, factis afiir-
mcnl.
Caeleros rilns, quos calliolici scrvant, non dnbi-
to eis parum probari: Inmen ncque Kcmnilius ad
can. II. sess. 21. concilii Iridenlini, ubi analhema
diciliir hos rilus conlemneulihus, aliquid scripsil
conlra has caeremoui;is; ncquc apud alios au-
ctores, ulluin legi advcrsus casdem raeremonias
solidum argiimentum, Quare salis eril hoc loco,
velerum aucloril;ilc rilus illos confirmarc.
Ac priinum exsl;il testimouium .Nicolai pnpae,
qiii sedit anle annos 700. ct hahetiir can. Pio-
slralos. 30. quaesl. .'>. Deinde exslat leslimoniuui
Isidori lib. 2. de ofnciis, cap. 11). ubi eliam ralio
singulorum reddilur. Floruit autcm Isidorus ;inlc
annos pIiis*.)(M). Adhacc Syricius papa, in eiiisl. 1.
cap. i. cl Innocenlius 1. item pai>n, in e|)ist. 1.
cnp.O. bcncdiclioiiis sacerdol;ilis,(iu;ie niibeiilibus
(lari solcl, mendncrunt: cjusdcm ctiam mcnlionem
f.KMiinl P;ilres concilii IV. cnrlhaginiensis.quonim
iinus fuit s. Augustinus cap. l."}. s. (Xmbrosius iii
cpislolii 70. ad Vigiliiiiii, non procul ab inilio, non
solum bcncdictionis mcminit, scd cliam vclaminis,
8G0 Dii sAr.i{\)ir;.MO .m\tium(imi
i|uo novi sponsi a sncerdole inKoclcsia opcrinnlur: qiio An{inslinus, anlc annos panlo panciorcs. I)c-
undo eliani nuplias (iiclas cssc inlerprclalur ulo.iii niquc Tcrlullianus liis ouinil)us anliquior, in lib.
Afnhro.sius Ilb. I. dc Al)rali;iin cap. ulliin. quod 2. ad iixorcm, nicniinil (dihilionis. (|ua Malrinio-
velo ohiuibaliir sponsa. Floiucruiil aulciii Syricius niuin iii Ecclcsi;! coiilinnalur. Alquc liacc dc sa-
cl Ambrosius anlc annos 1200. cl Innoccnlius al- tramcnlo Malrimonii.
Finis quinqnc Conlrovcrsiarum .gejiem/Mun Tomi tcrlii.
LAUS DEO, VIRGLNIQUE MATRI MAUIAE