Couples contract the sacrament of their marriage

[countach]

I’ve read in a number of places that in Catholic theology it is actually the couple themselves that contract the sacrament of marriage, not the priest.

Does anybody know what ancient references, ancient canons or church fathers there might be who comment on this topic?

And does it mean that a catholic couple who are not married in the church are still therefore in a sacramental marriage?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Any valid marriage between two baptized Christians is a sacramental marriage. A Catholic married outside the Church is not validly married so, obviously, no sacramental marriage.

 

[Beryllos]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this:
1621 In the Latin Rite the celebration of marriage between two Catholic faithful normally takes place during Holy Mass, because of the connection of all the sacraments with the Paschal mystery of Christ. In the Eucharist the memorial of the New Covenant is realized, the New Covenant in which Christ has united himself for ever to the Church, his beloved bride for whom he gave himself up. It is therefore fitting that the spouses should seal their consent to give themselves to each other through the offering of their own lives by uniting it to the offering of Christ for his Church made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice, and by receiving the Eucharist so that, communicating in the same Body and the same Blood of Christ, they may form but “one body” in Christ.
and this:
1623 According to the Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ’s grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the traditions of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses, but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.
These passages also have references (which I did not include but you may look up) which may be some of the ancient sources you are looking for.

 

[countach]

Thanks for those quotes from the CCC. The interesting point is 1623 that the couple in the Latin rite mutually confer it on each other. Unfortunately the references are to the eastern canon law which presumably are about the eastern practice.

What I really want to know is what is the origins of the western belief.

Also, if a non church wedding is sacramental. Of course, marrying in church is proper, correct, recommended etc etc as 1621 says. but is it still sacramental if not in church? If the couple confer the sacrament on each other, one would think so.

 

[Phemie]

Thanks for those quotes from the CCC. The interesting point is 1623 that the couple in the Latin rite mutually confer it on each other. Unfortunately the references are to the eastern canon law which presumably are about the eastern practice.

What I really want to know is what is the origins of the western belief.

Also, if a non church wedding is sacramental. Of course, marrying in church is proper, correct, recommended etc etc as 1621 says. but is it still sacramental if not in church? If the couple confer the sacrament on each other, one would think so.

As stated, it can only be sacramental if it’s valid which, for a Catholic, is only when all the laws of the Church have been observed.

A Catholic who marries another baptized person outside the Church, with a dispensation from form, is in a valid, sacramental marriage. Without a dispensation the marriage is invalid so, obviously, not sacramental.

 

[countach]

Is that really catholic teaching that the validity of a sacrament can be controlled by remote control via a dispensation?

You’re sure you are not confusing invalid with illicit?

 

[countach]

Catholic theology has a very clear distinction between invalid and illicit. Plenty of situations result in a valid sacrament done illicitly. So I don’t understand the point of your comment.

 

[Brendan_64]

Catholic theology has a very clear distinction between invalid and illicit. Plenty of situations result in a valid sacrament done illicitly. So I don’t understand the point of your comment.

1623 According to the Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ’s grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony ** by expressing their consent before the Church.**

The couple confer the sacrament upon each other before the Church. If this is done in a Catholic Church with a priest or deacon presiding then the sacrament is validly conferred. It they have dispensation to get married outside of a catholic church, then the are still expressing their consent before the Church. Without dispensation they are expressing their consent, but they are not expressing it before the Church, therefore the sacrament is not conferred. You cannot simply bypass the “before the Church” bit, this is an integral part of the sacrament.

 

[countach]

Fair enough, well pointed out that it says before the church. But you’re reading an awful lot into three little words to say that this interpretation of yours is the distinction that makes it valid. For example, I know some of the ancient canons say that secret marriages are illegal. So those words could mean that it has to be public, instead of what you claim they mean. In fact the commonly understood ancient understanding of marriage ( Christian or not ) was a public declaration of intent before the public.

 

[Phemie]

Fair enough, well pointed out that it says before the church. But you’re reading an awful lot into three little words to say that this interpretation of yours is the distinction that makes it valid. For example, I know some of the ancient canons say that secret marriages are illegal. So those words could mean that it has to be public, instead of what you claim they mean. In fact the commonly understood ancient understanding of marriage ( Christian or not ) was a public declaration of intent before the public.

That’s because secret marriages, those without witnesses, were detrimental to the woman, the man could always deny it.

Canon Law is clear about what makes a valid marriage. But the Church allows secret marriages, in front of witnesses who must maintain the secrecy, where the law of the land violates natural law, for example, where mixed-race marriages are illegal. Such marriages must still follow all the laws of the Church.

 

[Brendan_64]

Fair enough, well pointed out that it says before the church. But you’re reading an awful lot into three little words to say that this interpretation of yours is the distinction that makes it valid.

This is not my interpretation, “before the Church” means “before the Church”. If you don’t even involve the Church then how can a couple confer the sacrament on each other before the Church? You can’t just ‘interpret’ this by choosing to leave bits out because they don’t suit you.

This is what the Church teaches and this is what the Church insists.

Anyway in such matters, our own opinions and interpretations are of no consequence, all that matters is how the Church interprets. And as far as the Church is concerned if you are a Catholic and have married outside the Church without receiving dispensation, then the marriage is not sacramental. As a Catholic you are (unlike non-Catholics) governed by Canon law.

As far as I am aware, if two non-Catholic Christians, on the other hand, marry outside of the Catholic Church, then, so long as neither of them are divorced, the marriage is deemed to be sacramental. Non-Catholic Christians are not bound by Canon Law, and can be excused for not consulting the Catholic Church first (invincible ignorance). Catholics on the other hand cannot be given such an excuse.

A marriage could always be made sacramental in retrospect by consulting a priest and having him do the necessary.

 

[Phemie]

Anyway in such matters, our own opinions and interpretations are of no consequence, all that matters is how the Church interprets. And as far as the Church is concerned if you are a Catholic and have married outside the Church without receiving dispensation**, then the marriage is not sacramental**. As a Catholic you are (unlike non-Catholics) governed by Canon law. .

It’s not valid.

It’s possible for a marriage to be valid but not a sacrament.

 

[countach]

It’s not valid.

It’s possible for a marriage to be valid but not a sacrament.

What’s not valid?

So what happens if a marriage is valid but not sacramental? Does all the church teachings and canons other than it being a sacrament apply in such a situation?

 

[Phemie]

What’s not valid?

So what happens if a marriage is valid but not sacramental? Does all the church teachings and canons other than it being a sacrament apply in such a situation?

For a marriage to be sacramental it has to be between two baptized people.

A Catholic married in the Church to, say, a Mormon or a member of the Salvation Army, would be in a valid natural marriage, not a sacramental one. If he/she married the same person outside the Church without 2 dispensations, one to be allowed to marry a non-baptized and another to be allowed to marry outside the Church, he/she would be in an invalid marriage.

 

[RyanBlack]

If the non-Catholic is a baptized Christian, the marriage is sacramental.