The Sacrament of Matrimony

[hcruz402]

Hello. I have a question (for my fellow Catholics of the Roman Rite).

So, first of all, I am keenly aware that the ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony are the bride and the groom (i.e., that the couple confers the Sacrament to each other), and that they do this through expressing their consent/the exchange of vows.

However, I do not understand the reasoning/logic, as to why the spouses are the ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony, considering the fact that the other six Sacraments, among the seven, are usually administered by an ordained person of the clergy (of the Church) (with the exception of Baptisms, that are done in emergencies), and that in order for a marriage to be considered sacramentally valid, in the eyes of the Church, Catholics must be married, in the presence of either a priest or a deacon, who witnesses the vows.

To that end, my question is this: Why is it, that, in the Sacrament of Matrimony, the ministers of the Sacrament are the bride and the groom, as opposed to the priest or the deacon that witnesses the marriage?

Any help would be highly appreciated.

Pax Vobiscum,

Herbert Cruz

 

[dans0622]

…

To that end, my question is this: Why is it, that, in the Sacrament of Matrimony, the ministers of the Sacrament are the bride and the groom, as opposed to the priest or the deacon that witnesses the marriage?

Any help would be highly appreciated.

…

Hello,

A dissertation could be spent answering that question. The basic reason (well, a basic reason) is that the contract and the Sacrament are united and they coincide with each other. In other words, when the contract is entered, the Sacrament is conferred at the same time. Since the Parties themselves are the only ones who can enter the contract, and it is their consent which makes the contract, it is also their consent which makes the Sacrament.

Dan

 

[Latinitas]

The former poster was correct, and I’ll give a fuller answer here.

Marriage as office of nature, was instituted before there was any clergy or priesthood, since it was instituted in the state of original justice. Cf. Gen. 2:18-25

Since the essence of marriage did not change with Christ’s coming (raising to a sacrament did not change its essence, only its dignity and signification), the fundamentals of marriage remain the same, namely that the two spouses can unite together.

What then is marriage? What type of thing is it? Considered in itself, it is a legal contract which

1) unites a man and a woman together
2) in a common and perpetual bond
3) for the purpose of generating and educating offspring

Considered as an act, it is in the strict Aristotelian-scholastic sense a human act.

These two things considered together ultimately explain all impediments to marriage.

Since marriage is a legal contract, it presupposes some external authority whereby such contract is recognized. For natural marriages, this could be either the state, a religious community, or simply universal local custom. But since marriage for the baptized is a sacrament, it means that the lawful authority for its administration is the Church. It should be noted here that the essence of the sacrament of marriage is the same as marriage itself, namely the contract (and not the priestly blessing, as many wrongly assume), otherwise the name would be in error, and marriage would not rightly be called a sacrament, which is heresy.

Now, since marriage is a contract subject to the authority of the Church, it follows that the Church has the power to declare certain such contracts null for various reasons. Thus, even though, considered in itself, a marriage could be valid if some expression of marrying was conveyed by the spouses, the Church, as the lawful authority to regulate marriage contracts among the baptized, can declare all marriages not celebrated before a priest to be null. An analogy might be helpful here. Considered in a pure state, it might be sufficient that a will be declared orally to be valid, but the state, as the lawful authority regulating wills, can declare that a will that is declared in writing and notarized be null.

As can be seen from this, certain impediments, such as wrong sex, lack of the use of reason, error, perpetual impotence etc. are due to the very nature of marriage, and the Church cannot but declare these to be impediments. Others, such as orders, crimen, etc. emerge from ecclesiastical decree, the authority of which is derived from the nature of marriage as a sacrament.

I hope this was helpful,
Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

The bridge and groom have to give their consent to the marriage, and also have to exchange vows. Therefore, that makes the parties the ministers of the Sacrament.

With Baptism and the other Sacraments, the priest/Bishop/other clergy are ministers of those Sacraments.

 

[powerofk]

Another reason is this:

Marriage is a mirror of the relationship that Jesus Christ has with His Church. As such, it is the exchange of vows that is the initiation of the sacrament. Because, unlike the other five sacraments, the Sacraments of Service (Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders) are continuous sacraments. In other words, one enters into matrimony, and one enters into orders (of course, when a man enters into the presbyterate level of orders, his soul is indelibly marked with the ability to confect the Eucharist and forgive sins in the name of the Church, but the vows of the Sacrament of Holy Orders are primarily obedience to the bishop/religious superior and service to the Church). But the vows need to be continually renewed in every decision that is made. The essense of the vows of marriage are similar - faithfulness to each other and service to the Church, most especially at the domestic level.

The sacraments of Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders are equal in dignity and are both necessary for building the Church. Just think about it - without priests, who would confer the sacraments? Yet without marriage, where would our priests come from? And though it seems fewer, there are many saints who came from the married vocation: St. Monica (mother of St. Augustine of Hippo), St. Thomas More, St. Katherine Drexel, St. Louis V (king of France), and most recently, Sts. Zelie and Louis Martin (parents of St. Terese of the Child Jesus) who were beatified and subsequently canonized together.

 

[Phemie]

However, I do not understand the reasoning/logic, as to why the spouses are the ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony, considering the fact that the other six Sacraments, among the seven, are usually administered by an ordained person of the clergy (of the Church) (with the exception of Baptisms, that are done in emergencies), and that** in order for a marriage to be considered sacramentally valid, in the eyes of the Church, Catholics must be married, in the presence of either a priest or a deacon, who witnesses the vows.**

Well, see, that’s not an absolute. The Church allows a lay person appointed by the bishop to witness a marriage and it’s valid and sacramental (as long as both the bride and groom are baptized). She also allows that when a priest, deacon or lay person appointed by the bishop will be impossible to find for an extended period of time, the couple marry validly as long as they exchange consent in front of two witnesses. It is the exchange of consent that creates the marriage.

 

[otjm]

And then there is the eastern theology of marriage, which has the priest administering the sacrament, rather than the couple with the priest merely as official witness.

 

[Phemie]

And then there is the eastern theology of marriage, which has the priest administering the sacrament, rather than the couple with the priest merely as official witness.

Yes, there you would never get a dispensation from form because that could only result in an invalid marriage. They can’t even marry in the Catholic church unless a priest is presiding.

I take it from this that a Protestant couple who would be considered validly married and would have to do nothing if they converted to Catholicism would, OTOH, have to be ‘remarried’ if they converted to one of the Orthodox Churches.

 

[Latinitas]

And then there is the eastern theology of marriage, which has the priest administering the sacrament, rather than the couple with the priest merely as official witness.

Yes, there you would never get a dispensation from form because that could only result in an invalid marriage. They can’t even marry in the Catholic church unless a priest is presiding.

I take it from this that a Protestant couple who would be considered validly married and would have to do nothing if they converted to Catholicism would, OTOH, have to be ‘remarried’ if they converted to one of the Orthodox Churches.

True, although, if I’m not mistaken it is still the spouses who are regarded as the ministers of the sacrament. It’s just that in this case, the priestly blessing is intrinsic to the form. The seperated Oroental churches are simply in error on this point.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Don_Ruggero]

True, although, if I’m not mistaken it is still the spouses who are regarded as the ministers of the sacrament. It’s just that in this case, the priestly blessing is intrinsic to the form. The seperated Oroental churches are simply in error on this point.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

From the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, published January 6, 1996:
*82. The obligation of the sacred rite

It should be noted that the obligation of the sacred rite, and thus of the priestly blessing, for the validity of the Marriage is specific to Eastern law. In the Latin Church, simply the presence of the local Ordinary, or the parish priest, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them is required. In the Eastern tradition, the priest, in addition to assisting, must bless the Marriage. To bless means to act as the true minister of the sacrament, in virtue of his priestly power to sanctify, so that the spouses may be united by God in the image of the flawless nuptial union of Christ with the Church and be consecrated to each other by sacramental grace.*

 

[MorEphrem]

From the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, published January 6, 1996:
*82. The obligation of the sacred rite

It should be noted that the obligation of the sacred rite, and thus of the priestly blessing, for the validity of the Marriage is specific to Eastern law. In the Latin Church, simply the presence of the local Ordinary, or the parish priest, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them is required. In the Eastern tradition, the priest, in addition to assisting, must bless the Marriage. To bless means to act as the true minister of the sacrament, in virtue of his priestly power to sanctify*, so that the spouses may be united by God in the image of the flawless nuptial union of Christ with the Church and be consecrated to each other by sacramental grace.

Beat me to it, thank you.

It’s quite evident in the wording of blessings and hymns of the rite in every Eastern and Oriental tradition it is the Church, through the priest, conferring the sacrament (even the entire act of coronating the couple is very obviously the priest conferring something upon them). To say otherwise about marriage according to the Eastern and Oriental wedding rites is to falsely (and erroneously) impose Latin theology over the legitimate traditions of other Churches.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Beat me to it, thank you.

It’s quite evident in the wording of blessings and hymns of the rite in every Eastern and Oriental tradition it is the Church, through the priest, conferring the sacrament (even the entire act of coronating the couple is very obviously the priest conferring something upon them). To say otherwise about marriage according to the Eastern and Oriental wedding rites is to falsely (and erroneously) impose Latin theology over the legitimate traditions of other Churches.

 

[Vico]

From the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, published January 6, 1996:
*82. The obligation of the sacred rite

It should be noted that the obligation of the sacred rite, and thus of the priestly blessing, for the validity of the Marriage is specific to Eastern law. In the Latin Church, simply the presence of the local Ordinary, or the parish priest, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them is required. In the Eastern tradition, the priest, in addition to assisting, must bless the Marriage. To bless means to act as the true minister of the sacrament, in virtue of his priestly power to sanctify*, so that the spouses may be united by God in the image of the flawless nuptial union of Christ with the Church and be consecrated to each other by sacramental grace.

Yet it is not a necessity for validity. CCEO
Canon 832

1. If one cannot have present or have access to a priest who is competent according to the norm of law without grave inconvenience, those intending to celebrate a true marriage can validly and licitly celebrate it before witnesses alone:
   INDENT in danger of death;
   (2) outside the danger of death, as long as it is prudently foreseen that such circumstances will continue for a month.
2. In either case, if another priest, even a non-Catholic one, is able to be present, inasmuch as it is possible he is to be called so that he can bless the marriage, without prejudice for the validity of a marriage in the presence only of the witnesses.
3. If a marriage was celebrated in the presence only of witnesses, the spouses shall not neglect to receive the blessing of the marriage from a priest as soon as possible.[/INDENT]

 

[MorEphrem]

Yet it is not a necessity for validity. CCEO
Canon 832

1. If one cannot have present or have access to a priest who is competent according to the norm of law without grave inconvenience, those intending to celebrate a true marriage can validly and licitly celebrate it before witnesses alone:
   INDENT in danger of death;
   (2) outside the danger of death, as long as it is prudently foreseen that such circumstances will continue for a month.
2. In either case, if another priest, even a non-Catholic one, is able to be present, inasmuch as it is possible he is to be called so that he can bless the marriage, without prejudice for the validity of a marriage in the presence only of the witnesses.
3. If a marriage was celebrated in the presence only of witnesses, the spouses shall not neglect to receive the blessing of the marriage from a priest as soon as possible.[/INDENT]

This is becoming tangentially off-topic, but the last I will say is does that sound reflective of Oriental theology or a necessary concession mandated to be written in? If one looks at the rite of betrothal or crowning (I have the Syriac one specifically in mind), I have absolutely no idea how it could be performed without a priest and without blessings (one of the hymns explicitly says “we are the bride and bridegroom who today have come to the Church to ask the blessing of the priesthood!” More explicit a verse than that I don’t think there can be). The reality of this canon and the development of the Tradition are completely incoherent.

Alas, the question pertained to the Roman rite. In that regard, the question has been sufficiently answered.

 

[Vico]

This is becoming tangentially off-topic, but the last I will say is does that sound reflective of Oriental theology or a necessary concession mandated to be written in? If one looks at the rite of betrothal or crowning (I have the Syriac one specifically in mind), I have absolutely no idea how it could be performed without a priest and without blessings (one of the hymns explicitly says “we are the bride and bridegroom who today have come to the Church to ask the blessing of the priesthood!” More explicit a verse than that I don’t think there can be). The reality of this canon and the development of the Tradition are completely incoherent.

Alas, the question pertained to the Roman rite. In that regard, the question has been sufficiently answered.

Since the Catholic Church is united in the sacraments, however with variations in discipline, that of marriage must be able to answer every situation, including the unusual circumstances. It shows, however, that the ceremony of blessing is not a requirement for validity, but a matter of discipline for the whole Church, Latin and eastern sui iuris churches. The Church gives it non-ceremonial blessing through the grant of an exception to the norm. This must be because there is also the possibility of dispensation from the Catholic form of marriage with the radical sanation.

 

[Phemie]

Yet it is not a necessity for validity. CCEOCanon 832

1. If one cannot have present or have access to a priest who is competent according to the norm of law without grave inconvenience, those intending to celebrate a true marriage can validly and licitly celebrate it before witnesses alone:INDENT in danger of death;
   (2) outside the danger of death, as long as it is prudently foreseen that such circumstances will continue for a month. 2. In either case, if another priest, even a non-Catholic one, is able to be present, inasmuch as it is possible he is to be called so that he can bless the marriage, without prejudice for the validity of a marriage in the presence only of the witnesses.
2. If a marriage was celebrated in the presence only of witnesses, the spouses shall not neglect to receive the blessing of the marriage from a priest as soon as possible.[/INDENT]

Compares with CCL 1116Can. 1116 §1. If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter into a true marriage can contract it validly and licitly before witnesses only:
1/ in danger of death;
2/ outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month. I must say that our parish’s mission often goes longer than a month without seeing a priest. For several years I’ve known it to see a priest at Christmas and Easter if they were lucky and the weather cooperated. For a couple of years a Sister of Mercy was there as administrator and the bishop had her witness at least one marriage.
§2. In either case, if some other priest or deacon who can be present is available, he must be called and be present at the celebration of the marriage together with the witnesses, without prejudice to the validity of the marriage before witnesses only.
Off topic, but wasn’t Canon 1117 amended several years ago? I just noticed that the Code on the Vatican website still has the following. Should it not have the parts I struck out removed?Can. 1117 The form established above must be observed if at least one of the parties contracting marriage was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it -]and has not defected from it by a formal act,/-] without prejudice to the prescripts of ⇒ can. 1127,

 

[Vico]

Compares with CCL 1116Can. 1116 §1. If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter into a true marriage can contract it validly and licitly before witnesses only:
1/ in danger of death;
2/ outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month. I must say that our parish’s mission often goes longer than a month without seeing a priest. For several years I’ve known it to see a priest at Christmas and Easter if they were lucky and the weather cooperated. For a couple of years a Sister of Mercy was there as administrator and the bishop had her witness at least one marriage.
§2. In either case, if some other priest or deacon who can be present is available, he must be called and be present at the celebration of the marriage together with the witnesses, without prejudice to the validity of the marriage before witnesses only.
Off topic, but wasn’t Canon 1117 amended several years ago? I just noticed that the Code on the Vatican website still has the following. Should it not have the parts I struck out removed?Can. 1117 The form established above must be observed if at least one of the parties contracting marriage was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it -]and has not defected from it by a formal act,/-] without prejudice to the prescripts of ⇒ can. 1127,

They do not update their site. There have been many changes to the CIC, CCEO, and Pastor Bonus. Some of which are shown below:

1998 – Ad tuendam fidem / To Protect the Faith (CIC, CCEO)
2009 – Omnium in mentem (CIC, CCEO)
2010 – New Norms from CDF (e.g., attempted sacred ordination of a woman)
2011 – Quærit semper (Pastor Bounus)
2015 – Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus (CIC cann. 1671-1691)
2015 – Mitis et misericors Iesus (CCEO cann. 1357-1377)

The Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts has also issues many clarifications, including the 1997 declaration On the celebration of Mass for married priests and the 2000 declaration: On the non-admittance to Holy Communion for those who are divorced and remarried.

Here is a list: gcatholic.org/documents/tag/canon.htm

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Yet it is not a necessity for validity. CCEO
Canon 832

1. If one cannot have present or have access to a priest who is competent according to the norm of law without grave inconvenience, those intending to celebrate a true marriage can validly and licitly celebrate it before witnesses alone:
   INDENT in danger of death;
   (2) outside the danger of death, as long as it is prudently foreseen that such circumstances will continue for a month.
2. In either case, if another priest, even a non-Catholic one, is able to be present, inasmuch as it is possible he is to be called so that he can bless the marriage, without prejudice for the validity of a marriage in the presence only of the witnesses.
3. If a marriage was celebrated in the presence only of witnesses, the spouses shall not neglect to receive the blessing of the marriage from a priest as soon as possible.[/INDENT]

The provision of the law allows for the exchange of consent before witnesses; however, the involvement of the priest is to be supplied, because of its essential nature, either by bringing in a validly ordained non-Catholic priest to grant the blessing or having the blessing given after the fact as soon as possible – since it is essential. There is no parallel requirement for this in the western code because there are different theologies operative regarding marriage.

 

[Vico]

The provision of the law allows for the exchange of consent before witnesses; however, the involvement of the priest is to be supplied, because of its essential nature, either by bringing in a validly ordained non-Catholic priest to grant the blessing or having the blessing given after the fact as soon as possible – since it is essential. There is no parallel requirement for this in the western code because there are different theologies operative regarding marriage.

The canons of both Latin and eastern state that the marriage before only two witnesses, without any priest, does not invalidate. See: " without prejudice for the validity of a marriage in the presence only of the witnesses."

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The canons of both Latin and eastern state that the marriage before only two witnesses, without any priest, does not invalidate. See: " without prejudice for the validity of a marriage in the presence only of the witnesses."

For the occidental Church, marriage may be contracted before a deacon, a properly delegated lay person according to canon 1112 or according to the provision of canon 1116.

In the case of the East, only the priest (or bishop) can impart the blessing by which he is the minister of the sacrament, as was articulated by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches above. He must supply the blessing to the marriage even after the fact – because, again, his role is different relative to the Mystery of Crowning than what is operative or the Sacrament of Marriage in the west. In the west, the couple themselves are the ministers of the sacrament and the priest, deacon or delegated lay person is the official witness who receives the consent in the name of the Church…a role all together different from what prevails in the East.