T
theCardinalbird
Guest
I was wondering if marriage existed before the fall?
- Status
W
Wesrock
Guest
Yes. Adam and Eve were married before the Fall. Prior to the Fall:
On the seventh day, they married.
The Gospel of John also, if you count the days it makes reference to from its beginning, has the wedding at Cana on the “seventh day.” Which, given how it’s opening starts the same way Genesis does and is a midrash on creation, is certainly intentional.
And
Jesus also uses the above section in his teaching on marriage. Gn 3, immediately after the Fall, also sees Eve referred to as Adam’s wife multiple times.
On the seventh day, they married.
The Gospel of John also, if you count the days it makes reference to from its beginning, has the wedding at Cana on the “seventh day.” Which, given how it’s opening starts the same way Genesis does and is a midrash on creation, is certainly intentional.
Last edited:
A
Arwing
Guest
CCC 1605
1603 says “the vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator.”
Quotations are from Genesis 2.
1603 says “the vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator.”
Last edited:
J
jack63
Guest
OK…I’ll bite…no doubt I believe what was just said here. However, if the idea/tradition/“state of being” of marriage existed before the fall, how come the sacrament of marriage has only existed for about 800 years?
en.wikipedia.org
Marriage - Wikipedia
L
LML
Guest
You may be confusing the sacramental rite with the sacramental nature…See CCC 1601-1666 for complete understanding. But, to condense it, marriage was always part of God’s plan, dating to creation, making it sacramental in nature. The marriage sacramental rite was not codified until, as you say, 800 years ago, but the absence of the rite up to that point did not make marriage any less of a sacrament.
J
jack63
Guest
No I don’t believe I am confused. I quickly read the CCC as suggested. I certainly see the sacramental nature of a man and a woman who live together, care for their children, and provide for their children presently and through inheritance. No doubt such a union is a holy thing and sacramental 1000 years ago before the official sacrament of marriage. I believe it I ingrained is us by our creator that we strive for such a union.
Why take 1184 years to codify this?
In a way I’m also responding to the OP by asking “What is marriage?”. The description I provided directly above is often the exception and not the rule.
Last edited:
L
LML
Guest
Why did it take as long as it did to codify the Sacrament of Reconciliation as we know it today, or the Sacrament of Holy Orders as it is today, or the rites used today for every sacrament…I guess scripturally, we might say that one day of God’s time is a thousand years of ours?
W
Wesrock
Guest
The west has always considered the spouses to be the ordinary ministers of marriage, and the legality was often handled by the state. However, due to questions of validity and probably better organization, the western Church eventually required that marriages be witnessed by the clergy to be valid. As the Church is responsible for dispensing sacramental graces, it has the authority to do this.LML:
No I don’t believe I am confused. I quickly read the CCC as suggested. I certainly see the sacramental nature of a man and a woman who live together, care for their children, and provide for their children presently and through inheritance. No doubt such a union is a holy thing and sacramental 1000 years ago before the official sacrament of marriage. I believe it I ingrained is us by our creator that we strive for such a union.
Why take 1184 years to codify this?
In a way I’m also responding to the OP by asking “What is marriage?”. The description I provided directly above is often the exception and not the rule.
The Orthodox also hold that there are seven sacraments. It should be again noted that the sacramental graces are dispensed through the Church, whether being the seven proper ones we have or sacramentals.
J
jack63
Guest
OK you asked for it…I would not quote Wikipedia without checking its references by the way. Wikipedia is simple, accessible, and usually correct. I’ve learned that I’ll lose people quickly if I go for real references. With that being said, even when I represent myself by spider-man, I care deeply about my references.Wikipedia provides two reasonable references that confirm what it says. Both are available on google books.
The first one…
- Francis Schüssler Fiorenza; John P. Galvin, eds. (1991). Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives. 2. Fortress Press. p. 320. ISBN 978-1-4514-0795-2. Retrieved 7 October 2014.
It refers the Pope’s responses to the Cathar sect and their view of marriage. The Council (or Synod) of Verona responds to their (the Cathar’s) views by referring to marriage as a sacrament in 1184. This first we have the Catholic church talking about the sacrament of marriage.
The second one…
- Monger, George P. (2004). “Christian Weddings”. Marriage Customs of the World: From Henna to Honeymoons. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC CLIO. pp. 70–71. ISBN 978-1-57607-987-4. OCLC 469368346.
This dates the sacrament of marriage to a publication of a book of common prayer that dates to 1439.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
Marriage existed since the beginning, Jesus raised it to a sacrament.
J
jack63
Guest
The point of all of this, is that the Catholic church’s entry into playing a role in marriage is relatively recent. What is marriage? There are some absolutes here I believe, but some uncertainties too…it took well over 1000 years to codify this. If it were simple, it would not have taken so long to define marriage…
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
What are some of the uncertainties?
S
stpurl
Guest
Jack, the Immaculate Conception was not ‘confirmed’ by Church documents until 1854. The teaching itself however existed from the time of the apostles.
IOW, don’t assume that because you don’t see a ‘written document’ in the church that whatever is written didn’t ‘exist until that date’.
The date is when the Church responded because for some reason or other the teaching started to get ‘questioned’, and the Church responded in writing to make it crystal clear.
In AD 1184 as you referenced, most people weren’t even literate anyway.
And even in AD 1854, literacy was STILL not high in the world.
IOW, don’t assume that because you don’t see a ‘written document’ in the church that whatever is written didn’t ‘exist until that date’.
The date is when the Church responded because for some reason or other the teaching started to get ‘questioned’, and the Church responded in writing to make it crystal clear.
In AD 1184 as you referenced, most people weren’t even literate anyway.
And even in AD 1854, literacy was STILL not high in the world.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
I use Wikipedia too.
O
otjm
Guest
(SIGH!) Let’s go back to the Baltimore Catechism: A sacrament is an outward sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace.
That says nothing about any ceremony nor any ritual.
As to a couple living together (today), even having children is not a sign in particular that the couple intends to be married (as in have a covenant relationship until death). Ask people who are living together but have refused to go through a marriage ceremony; they do not intend permanence (but one of the other might hope for it); normally one leads and the other follows as to the lack of ceremony; and it is extremely unlikely either one has any sense whatsoever of any sacramentality of their relationship.
As noted, there are a number of matters which the Church has held since the beginning which were not explicitly set forth until much later, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption being two right off the top of my head.
Society has changed phenomenally since 1100 AD, and it was more homogeneous between 33 AD and 1100 than it is between 1100 and 2119. Secularism, which got a running start with the French Revolution has done more to separate people from faith than just about anything else prior to it. There is no reason to believe that the church suddenly invented a sacrament post 1100 other than a major lack of knowledge of sacramental theology.
And to this day, in the Roman rite, we have a large number of people who think the priest marries the couple. What they “think” has no impact on reality. The reality is that the couple administer the sacrament to each other; the priest is only the witness; and that (the couple administering) has been going on since Christ ascended. What occurred in the 1100’s was a clarification issued because of some heretical or near heretical beliefs. Nothing was invented or created then.
That says nothing about any ceremony nor any ritual.
As to a couple living together (today), even having children is not a sign in particular that the couple intends to be married (as in have a covenant relationship until death). Ask people who are living together but have refused to go through a marriage ceremony; they do not intend permanence (but one of the other might hope for it); normally one leads and the other follows as to the lack of ceremony; and it is extremely unlikely either one has any sense whatsoever of any sacramentality of their relationship.
As noted, there are a number of matters which the Church has held since the beginning which were not explicitly set forth until much later, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption being two right off the top of my head.
Society has changed phenomenally since 1100 AD, and it was more homogeneous between 33 AD and 1100 than it is between 1100 and 2119. Secularism, which got a running start with the French Revolution has done more to separate people from faith than just about anything else prior to it. There is no reason to believe that the church suddenly invented a sacrament post 1100 other than a major lack of knowledge of sacramental theology.
And to this day, in the Roman rite, we have a large number of people who think the priest marries the couple. What they “think” has no impact on reality. The reality is that the couple administer the sacrament to each other; the priest is only the witness; and that (the couple administering) has been going on since Christ ascended. What occurred in the 1100’s was a clarification issued because of some heretical or near heretical beliefs. Nothing was invented or created then.
Last edited:
M
Mintaka
Guest
In the ancient world, marriage was something that happened at home, between families. It never happened in a public place, in any ancient society I can think of. The big deal was the groom coming to collect the bride, or the bride’s relatives taking her to the groom’s house. Contracts were made between families of individuals.
In medieval times around the world, population grew a lot. It was no longer the case that everyone in the neighborhood went to the wedding or knew all about it. And a lot of people started lying about whether or not they had married X person, or getting married with no witnesses and then abandoning the bride or groom after having sex a few times.
So especially in Europe, but also around the world, there began to be an insistence that marriages take place in public or in front of many witnesses. Elopements and kidnappings became crimes punished by government instead of something feuded out between families. Marriages of minors could be repudiated by their guardians. Coercion into marriage by kinfolk or guardians was forbidden. And so on.
It was at this time that the Church (at least in the West) commanded that marriages take place at the doorway or on the open porch at the front of a church, in full view of the whole town. Later, it became the rule that it take place inside church, with the priest officiating and registering the marriage.
All this was about canon and civil law, and about the rights of the bride and groom to be treated fairly before the law – to keep thieves from stealing their wealth or their dignity.
Stuff like impediments and annulments already existed before any of this, btw. It was just that families or individuals would fight it out, or to go the bishop and complain.
If you want to hear about this, the marriage history of Christian Franks and Visigoths are big on explaining why the Church does what she does. Saints became martyrs through bugging early kings about the sacramentality of Christian marriage.
In medieval times around the world, population grew a lot. It was no longer the case that everyone in the neighborhood went to the wedding or knew all about it. And a lot of people started lying about whether or not they had married X person, or getting married with no witnesses and then abandoning the bride or groom after having sex a few times.
So especially in Europe, but also around the world, there began to be an insistence that marriages take place in public or in front of many witnesses. Elopements and kidnappings became crimes punished by government instead of something feuded out between families. Marriages of minors could be repudiated by their guardians. Coercion into marriage by kinfolk or guardians was forbidden. And so on.
It was at this time that the Church (at least in the West) commanded that marriages take place at the doorway or on the open porch at the front of a church, in full view of the whole town. Later, it became the rule that it take place inside church, with the priest officiating and registering the marriage.
All this was about canon and civil law, and about the rights of the bride and groom to be treated fairly before the law – to keep thieves from stealing their wealth or their dignity.
Stuff like impediments and annulments already existed before any of this, btw. It was just that families or individuals would fight it out, or to go the bishop and complain.
If you want to hear about this, the marriage history of Christian Franks and Visigoths are big on explaining why the Church does what she does. Saints became martyrs through bugging early kings about the sacramentality of Christian marriage.
B
Beryllos
Guest
The history of marriage is a fascinating side-topic, but it would be good to bring the discussion back to the Original Question:
Of course we recall Adam and Eve in Genesis, which gives strong support to the idea of marriage before the fall. However, one of the sayings of Jesus suggests we should examine the matter more closely:
There is also the well known clause of marriage vows:
So here is a related question: If marriage does not exist at the resurrection, when men and women and all creation are restored forever to their original perfection, how could it have been different in the garden of Eden before the fall?
J
jack63
Guest
It seems like somebody could start a thread (or write a book) on the history of the institutionalization of the marriage sacrament. I’ll let this thread focus on some of the more theological aspects of marriage, but a few things.
I do see where people are coming from to say marriage has always been sacramental, but the church got involved in witnessing the sacrament between about 1200 and 1500. I can agree with that.
There are things I still don’t understand though…for another thread. I don’t really understand the comparison of the definition of marriage to something like the assumption of Mary. It doesn’t make sense that the institutionalization of the marriage sacrament didn’t happen until much later because societal limitations (e.g. illiteracy) while the Trinity was basically agreed upon relatively soon after the death of Christ. I don’t understand why the church would administer the sacrament of baptism from the start, but play no role, even as a witness, in the sacrament of marriage.
Perhaps when I have some energy
I’ll start a new thread. Thanks for the responses.
I do see where people are coming from to say marriage has always been sacramental, but the church got involved in witnessing the sacrament between about 1200 and 1500. I can agree with that.
I didn’t know that. That is good to know. I thought the priest married the couple.
There are things I still don’t understand though…for another thread. I don’t really understand the comparison of the definition of marriage to something like the assumption of Mary. It doesn’t make sense that the institutionalization of the marriage sacrament didn’t happen until much later because societal limitations (e.g. illiteracy) while the Trinity was basically agreed upon relatively soon after the death of Christ. I don’t understand why the church would administer the sacrament of baptism from the start, but play no role, even as a witness, in the sacrament of marriage.
Perhaps when I have some energy
I’ll start a new thread. Thanks for the responses.
Last edited:
E
edward_george1
Guest
Off topic and anti-Catholic proselytism. Flagged.
-Fr ACEGC
-Fr ACEGC
- Status