Was any marriage valid before the Sacrament?

[MysticMissMisty]

Salvete, omnes!

OK, so, first off, I know the following question is very, very theoretical/hypothetical, but it is still an interesting one, I think.

Prior to the establishment of Marriage as a Sacrament in the Church, was any marriage conducted outside of that to-be-established Sacrament valid?

While there is likely not much if anything on this subject in modern Church documents, is there anything early on in Church historical documentation that might testify to an answer one way or another? If not, are there any modern standards we might use to answer this question?

Thoughts? Insights?

 

[EasterJoy]

Natural marriages between non-Catholics are normally valid, yes. It is true now and it was true way back when:

catholic.com/quickquestions/are-non-catholic-marriages-valid-in-the-eyes-of-the-catholic-church-what-if-a-catholi

 

[Gorgias]

Salvete, omnes!

OK, so, first off, I know the following question is very, very theoretical/hypothetical, but it is still an interesting one, I think.

Prior to the establishment of Marriage as a Sacrament in the Church, was any marriage conducted outside of that to-be-established Sacrament valid?

I’m not certain whether you’re asking about marriages that come into existence in the timeframe of the Church (~30AD and afterwards), or about any marriage anywhere and at any time? If the former, are you talking about a marriage between two Catholics, or between non-Christians?

Books on the theology and history of marriage are in print, and would be helpful to give you more information on the question. I don’t have access to any bibliographies at the moment, but when I get a chance, I’ll look for the materials I have and see if I can’t provide any references for you. Just looking at my bookshelf, I see a copy of Elliot’s “What God Has Joined…”. IIRC, it doesn’t provide a historical survey of the development of the sacrament, but it has good information about Church teaching about marriage.

By the same token, it might be helpful for you to browse a good Catholic publisher (e.g., Ignatius Press) and see what titles they have that might fit your needs.

Blessings,
G.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

I’m not certain whether you’re asking about marriages that come into existence in the timeframe of the Church (~30AD and afterwards), or about any marriage anywhere and at any time? If the former, are you talking about a marriage between two Catholics, or between non-Christians?

First of all, thanks for all your help!

As to your questions, I was actually referring to neither. I was referring to marriages between anyone conducted prior to the very establishment of the Sacrament of Marriage (in another words, in pre-Christian times), whether it was between Jews or non-Jews.

Iterum gratias tibi.

 

[bmonk]

Non-sacramental but valid marriages exist today–between the non-baptized, or a couple when one is baptized and the other is not. This indicates that, even before baptism and the other sacraments, valid natural marriages could exist.

After all, remember when marriage was established: Genesis 2:22-24 (in Eden):

When he [God] brought her [woman] to the man, the man said: “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of man this one has been taken.” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.

Marriage began even before the Fall!

 

[1ke]

First of all, thanks for all your help!

As to your questions, I was actually referring to neither. I was referring to marriages between anyone conducted prior to the very establishment of the Sacrament of Marriage (in another words, in pre-Christian times), whether it was between Jews or non-Jews.

Iterum gratias tibi.

Yes.

Validity and sacramentality are related, but not the same thing.

The unbaptized certainly marry validly. Christ indicates God established marriage “in the beginning”.

A valid marriage between the unbaptized is called a natural marriage.

A valid marriage between the baptized is also a sacrament.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Non-sacramental but valid marriages exist today–between the non-baptized, or a couple when one is baptized and the other is not. This indicates that, even before baptism and the other sacraments, valid natural marriages could exist.

After all, remember when marriage was established: Genesis 2:22-24 (in Eden):

Marriage began even before the Fall!

Yeah, that was kind of what I was just thinking about. Adam and Eve were presumably considered married before either the Jewish Law or before its Christian sacramental establishment. But, in what way, since the fully Christian realization had not yet occurred? Were some marriages considered valid and others not? If so, what determined this? Was it just the general rules found in Scripture/Tradition even though the ceremonial aspects had not, at the time of these marriages, yet been established? Once the specific Sacrament was established, then, were all previous marriages, even that, perhaps, of Adam and Eve and those conducted under Jewish laws, made invalid? Were only some of these made invalid? If so, again, which ones? (Granted, I’m not saying that Adam and Eve’s marriage was considered at the time invalid for them, just, in a technical sense, possibly after the establishment of it sacramentally.)

 

[1ke]

Once the specific Sacrament was established, then, were all previous marriages, even that, perhaps, of Adam and Eve and those conducted under Jewish laws, made invalid?

You seem to be confusing ecclesial law regarding the canonical form of marriage and divine law on marriage. They are distinct.

The canonical form of marriage applies only to Catholics and those marrying Catholics. It does not apply to non-Catholics.

The establishment of canonical requirements regarding the location, witnesses, and format of marriage ceremonies for Catholics has no impact at all on non-Catholics or their marriages.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

You seem to be confusing ecclesial law regarding the canonical form of marriage and divine law on marriage. They are distinct.

The canonical form of marriage applies only to Catholics and those marrying Catholics. It does not apply to non-Catholics.

The establishment of canonical requirements regarding the location, witnesses, and format of marriage ceremonies for Catholics has no impact at all on non-Catholics or their marriages.

All right. Perhaps, then, I mean to use, in place of “Sacrament/sacramental” “divienly-established” or “natural”? (I think I’m actually more confused now than when I started…)

OK, let me try to explain rather what I am getting at by a couple of example scenarios:
If a Jew, in pre-Christian times, were to marry, get a divorce for reasons other than those permitted under Christian circumstances, and then re-marry, being ignorant of/having no knowledge that such re-marriage was not divinely sanctioned, how would the validity of his marriage be understood? Would such an understanding have differed in the case of Gentile marriages of this sort? (I hope my questions are maiing some sense…)

 

[1ke]

All right. Perhaps, then, I mean to use, in place of “Sacrament/sacramental” “divienly-established” or “natural”? (I think I’m actually more confused now than when I started…)

OK, let me try to explain rather what I am getting at by a couple of example scenarios:
If a Jew, in pre-Christian times, were to marry, get a divorce for reasons other than those permitted under Christian circumstances, and then re-marry, being ignorant of/having no knowledge that such re-marriage was not divinely sanctioned, how would the validity of his marriage be understood? Would such an understanding have differed in the case of Gentile marriages of this sort? (I hope my questions are maiing some sense…)

We can’t really say. The Church can only make a judgment of a particular marriage that has been brought to it for such adjudication.

The Church makes no pronouncement upon marriages in general, because she cannot.

 

[bmonk]

I’d suggest this.

In general, the Church accepts as valid any marriage that is not shown to be invalid. However, between the baptized a valid marriage is also sacramental–which means if divorced, it is not thereby broken as a sacrament. It remains in effect until annulled.

On the other hand, in certain cases divorce is allowed when a marriage is not sacramental–such as the “Pauline Privilige,” when two non-baptized persons marry, but then one becomes Christian, and the other person seeks a divorce. Paul allowed the divorce in that case.

So, in principle, a “natural marriage” before the sacraments (including baptism) could be divorced. In general, I suspect, we would accept what the culture decided established or broke marriage. This would include Jewish provision for divorce, at least until Jesus clarified what the teaching should be.

But this sort of question is precisely why marriage is such a thorny issue for canon lawyers. . . .

 

[Ignatius]

Salvete, omnes!

OK, so, first off, I know the following question is very, very theoretical/hypothetical, but it is still an interesting one, I think.

Prior to the establishment of Marriage as a Sacrament in the Church, was any marriage conducted outside of that to-be-established Sacrament valid?

Jesus established all of the Sacraments, Therefore there was only natural marriage prior to when Jesus established the Sacraments and His Church. A natural marriage can be valid but not Sacramental.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

On the other hand, in certain cases divorce is allowed when a marriage is not sacramental–such as the “Pauline Privilige,” when two non-baptized persons marry, but then one becomes Christian, and the other person seeks a divorce. Paul allowed the divorce in that case.

So, in principle, a “natural marriage” before the sacraments (including baptism) could be divorced. In general, I suspect, we would accept what the culture decided established or broke marriage. This would include Jewish provision for divorce, at least until Jesus clarified what the teaching should be.

But this sort of question is precisely why marriage is such a thorny issue for canon lawyers. . . .

Hee. (I actually thought of this question due to my interests in pre-Christian antiquity, so, again, it’s pretty theoretical, though I suppose there could be some peripheral modern advantages in the abstract for others of discussing the question.)

So, anyway, then, what you are saying above is that God would very likely judge the morality/validity of marriages in pre-Christian cultures, Jewish or not, based on their good-faith understanding of what that term meant for their culture? Just want to make sure I’m clar; don’t want to put words into anyone’s mouth. So, then, any violation in pre-Christian times of any aspect of Christian marriage would not necessarily be considered sinful if that violation was done in ignorance of such Christian principles but still in conformity with that culture’s good-faith understanding of marriage?

 

[InNomineDomini]

So, then, any violation in pre-Christian times of any aspect of Christian marriage would not necessarily be considered sinful if that violation was done in ignorance of such Christian principles but still in conformity with that culture’s good-faith understanding of marriage?

Obviously, pre-Christians were all ignorant of specifically Christian principles of marriage—such as its sacramental nature—so I’m not sure what you’re driving at.

… natural marriage can exist between two non-baptized people,* assuming that no impediments exist. *

What would impediments involve? St. Thomas says that man is naturally inclined towards marriage, and especially to marriage’s two ends: the education of offspring, and the mutual support of the spouses.(newadvent.org/summa/5041.htm)

Anything that does not have these two ends in mind, and which is not between one man and one woman, is simply not marriage, even on the natural level, and so certainly would not be considered “valid.” Whether or not a particular culture was “aware” of what marriage is makes no difference: they either intended genuine marriage or they accomplished something that was not marriage. Yes, many cultures had individuals who were genuinely married.

All of this is the case today, and it has always been the case.

The only thing that the Christian dispensation changes, is that marriage has been elevated to a supernatural level, and not merely a natural one.

I don’t know if this helps or not, but that’s my two cents.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

… natural marriage can exist between two non-baptized people,* assuming that no impediments exist. *

What would impediments involve? St. Thomas says that man is naturally inclined towards marriage, and especially to marriage’s two ends: the education of offspring, and the mutual support of the spouses.(newadvent.org/summa/5041.htm)

The only thing that the Christian dispensation changes, is that marriage has been elevated to a supernatural level, and not merely a natural one.

I, too, was wondering what was meant by “impediments”.

Also, in what way was marriage elevated to a supernatural level? Is this in the sense of not putting assunder what God has brought together? Are there some other senses to it such as the mystical side of the union as expressed by Paul? Does “supernatural” here express both of these and more?

 

[1ke]

I highly recommend you get a copy of Michael Smith Foster’s book Annulment: The Wedding That Was. It will actually answer many of your questions and treat the Church’s teaching on marriage in a more holistic/structured way. You can probably get it on inter-library loan. It’s also on Amazon.

 

[1ke]

Also, in what way was marriage elevated to a supernatural level?

Between the baptized, it is a source of sanctifying grace.

And it is an image of Christ and his bride the Church.

 

[bmonk]

Hee. (I actually thought of this question due to my interests in pre-Christian antiquity, so, again, it’s pretty theoretical, though I suppose there could be some peripheral modern advantages in the abstract for others of discussing the question.)

So, anyway, then, what you are saying above is that God would very likely judge the morality/validity of marriages in pre-Christian cultures, Jewish or not, based on their good-faith understanding of what that term meant for their culture? Just want to make sure I’m clar; don’t want to put words into anyone’s mouth. So, then, any violation in pre-Christian times of any aspect of Christian marriage would not necessarily be considered sinful if that violation was done in ignorance of such Christian principles but still in conformity with that culture’s good-faith understanding of marriage?

It is the faith of the Church, in my understanding, that God will judge all persons according to what they knew or could be expected to know. That is, we cannot expect a 5th century BC Hittite to know of the Christian understanding of marriage, and so they would be judged according to their own cultural understanding and natural law. Divorce would probably be allowed, but, say, abusing your spouse would still be a sin against charity.

 

[Digitonomy]

Validity and sacramentality are related, but not the same thing.

A question then arises, are there any other sacraments which also exist in a non-sacramental form that the Church recognizes as valid? E.g. is there a valid but non-sacramental confirmation? Or is marriage unique in this aspect?

 

[Phemie]

A question then arises, are there any other sacraments which also exist in a non-sacramental form that the Church recognizes as valid? E.g. is there a valid but non-sacramental confirmation? Or is marriage unique in this aspect?

Marriage is unique in that respect. Marriage existed before Christianity. Not so the other sacraments. Christ elevated marriage to a sacrament for the baptized but that does not mean that only the baptized can be validly married. The couple at whose wedding he performed his first miracle were Jews.