Why are marriages contracted outside of the Church invalid?

[twf]

I understand why a “marriage” attempted outside of the Church by a Catholic couple would be illicit, but I don’t understand why it would be invalid. In Latin theology (in contrast with Eastern theology), it is not the priest who confers the sacrament of marriage upon the couple, but the couple who confers the sacrament upon each other. Why then, if two baptized Catholics give their mutual consent, would a marriage outside of the Church be invalid and not just illicit? I study medieval history at university and according to my professors the medieval Church did consider such marriages valid but llicit. What’s changed?

 

[Just_Lurking]

What’s changed?

The rule was changed at the Council of Trent, in 1563. See here and look for Chapter I on the Decree on the Reformation of Marriage. Prior to this, secret marriage was considered illicit but still valid. The reason for the change is that the prior “illicit but valid” rule had proved to be ineffective at stopping the practice.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

Jesus entrusted His sacraments to the Church, and gave the Church the power to bind and loose (“what you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,” etc.). As members of the Roman Catholic Church, we are bound to follow the matter and form of the sacraments determined by the Church. One part of the form of the Sacrament of Matrimony is that it be witnessed by a priest or deacon.

On a practical note, it gives the Church the opportunity to make sure that couples are prepared for marriage before entering into it — to make sure the couples understand that, in order for it to be a valid marriage, it must be entered into with free and full consent of both partners, and must be permanent, exclusive, and open to life.

 

[puzzleannie]

I understand why a “marriage” attempted outside of the Church by a Catholic couple would be illicit, but I don’t understand why it would be invalid. .?

because Catholics are bound by canon law, as well as by natural law (and civil law of course). yes canon law can change, and was not even codified until later in church history, in the early middle ages, and it changes as necessary to protect marriage, insure validity with all it implies (free will, full concent, licity etc), and protect interests of spouses and children. above all because it is a sacrament as well as a covenant, and requires proper matter and form as well as the canon law conditions.

 

[Brendan]

I. Why then, if two baptized Catholics give their mutual consent, would a marriage outside of the Church be invalid and not just illicit? I study medieval history at university and according to my professors the medieval Church did consider such marriages valid but llicit. What’s changed?

A Sacrament has three aspects that must be present for a Sacrament to be valid

1. Matter - a male and a female - check
2. Intent of a valid minister - yes, the couple intends to marry - check

3, Form - they must do it in a manner approved by the Church

#3 is the element that is missing. Just as one cannot validly baptize by pouring water in the name of Larry, Moe and Curly, (error of Form), Marriage must be contracted according to the norms set out by the Church.

 

[twf]

Yes of course canon law can change, and the Church has the power of binding and loosing etc, I understood all that. I was looking for a theological explanation for why the marriage would be invalid and not simply illicit, and Brendan just provided that…thanks!

 

[Spirithound]

A Sacrament has three aspects that must be present for a Sacrament to be valid

1. Matter - a male and a female - check
2. Intent of a valid minister - yes, the couple intends to marry - check

3, Form - they must do it in a manner approved by the Church

#3 is the element that is missing. Just as one cannot validly baptize by pouring water in the name of Larry, Moe and Curly, (error of Form), Marriage must be contracted according to the norms set out by the Church.

But the baptismal formula “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” had been that way since that sacrament’s institution. Same with the Eucharist. Aren’t those words God’s words then? If the form of the sacrament is set by God, then the Church only discerns the form, not sets it, right?

 

[Just_Lurking]

But the baptismal formula “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” had been that way since that sacrament’s institution. Same with the Eucharist. Aren’t those words God’s words then? If the form of the sacrament is set by God, then the Church only discerns the form, not sets it, right?

You are correct. The required form for the sacrament of marriage is from changeable church law rather than unchangeable divine law, and so is somewhat different than the baptism example.

 

[benedictgal]

You are correct. The required form for the sacrament of marriage is from changeable church law rather than unchangeable divine law, and so is somewhat different than the baptism example.

Your example would work, except for one important detail. Of all of the sacraments (apart from the Holy Eucharist), Jesus spoke most forcefully about marriage. He stresses that was God has joined, no one may separate. Inasmuch as the bride and groom are the ministers of the Sacrament, they do so in the presence of Christ and His Church. Christ (in the presence of the ordained minister) is joining the couple in marriage.

Recall the consent portion of the vows. “Christ abundantly blesses this love. He has already consecrated you in baptism…” Christ was present at the wedding at Cana. His presence blessed the couple in more ways than one. Through the presence of the priest, deacon (or, if you are lucky enough, the bishop), Christ is there to bless the union of the couple.

Marriage outside of the Church means contracting a union without the all important blessing of Christ through the ministry of His Church. He left us the Sacraments as a lasting sign. But, he left the Church in the person of St. Peter and his successors, as the administrator of these Sacraments.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Your example would work, except for one important detail.

I don’t really understand your point. Are you saying that the Catholic Church was wrong for 1500 years for not imposing the current church rules regarding the form of marriage earlier?

 

[Brendan]

But the baptismal formula “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” had been that way since that sacrament’s institution. Same with the Eucharist. Aren’t those words God’s words then? If the form of the sacrament is set by God, then the Church only discerns the form, not sets it, right?

As mentioned above, the Form of a Sacrament has two ‘parts’ the unchangeable part instituted by God. In Baptism, as you mentioned, the immutable form is the Trintarian Formula.

The Church may also set conditions on such things as place, time and circumstances.

It is the pergoative of the Church, as the Guardian and Caretaker of the Sacraments, to place such conditions as it deems pastorally necessary on confection of the Sacraments.

 

[benedictgal]

I don’t really understand your point. Are you saying that the Catholic Church was wrong for 1500 years for not imposing the current church rules regarding the form of marriage earlier?

No, not at all. What I am saying is that God acts in all of the sacraments. However, His action means that His ordained minister needs to be present. Granted, in the case of baptisms, anyone can do it in an extreme emergency, so long as the water and proper Trinitarian formula are used, everything else needs an ordained minister.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes of course canon law can change, and the Church has the power of binding and loosing etc, I understood all that. I was looking for a theological explanation for why the marriage would be invalid and not simply illicit, and Brendan just provided that…thanks!

twf,
To expand upon what’s already been said, let’s look at the “consent” part. A couple is validly married if they freely express their consent “in the presence of the Church”. That part never changes. What does change is the question “who may represent the Church?” In earlier medieval times, the Church considered the couple themselves as the “representatives” of the Church, if you will.

How a couple satisfies the requirement of “in the presence of the Church” may be changed over time. That part, the Church does have complete control over.

 

[Just_Lurking]

How a couple satisfies the requirement of “in the presence of the Church” may be changed over time. That part, the Church does have complete control over.

Another example of this is when medieval Popes gave permission to certain abbots who were not bishops the ability to perform ordinations.

 

[FrDavid96]

Another example of this is when medieval Popes gave permission to certain abbots who were not bishops the ability to perform ordinations.

Not quite the same thing. For valid ordination, the minister must have the episcopal character (if not, no ordination occurs); It’s not simply a matter of being a representative of the Church, as with marriage.

 

[AJV]

Another example of this is when medieval Popes gave permission to certain abbots who were not bishops the ability to perform ordinations.

But this is a disputed view since there are differing ideas of the meaning of the documents, and moreover it is even less tenable theologically nowadays when the Episcopate is held to be a distinct order from the Presbyterate.

 

[Just_Lurking]

But this is a disputed view since there are differing ideas of the meaning of the documents, and moreover it is even less tenable theologically nowadays when the Episcopate is held to be a distinct order from the Presbyterate.

I got the impression from the deReeper article you sent me that with three instances, it was no longer disputed. Did I misread the article (likely!) or are there other articles that explain why it is disputed?

 

[Just_Lurking]

I found the paragraph from the article that gave me that impression:

Theologians now bow before these facts and their opinion is well expressed by Lennerz:

“Thus three Popes have authorized a simple priest to confer either the diaconate, or the diaconate and the priesthood. Hence it would seem that we must conclude that a priest, given a delegation from the Sovereign Pontiff, can be the minister of these Orders. It could not be maintained that these three Popes have erred in a matter as serious as that of the minister of the sacrament of Order. … To sum up: Sovereign Pontiffs have conceded this privilege to simple priests. Hence they can concede it. And thus a simple priest can, given a delgation from the Sovereign Pontiff, be the minister of the Orders of the diaconate and the priesthood”.

 

[AJV]

I got the impression from the deReeper article you sent me that with three instances, it was no longer disputed. Did I misread the article (likely!) or are there other articles that explain why it is disputed?

No, that is what de Reeper says but that is his view as a canonist which was disagreed with by other canonists and theologians (and it was written prior to the declaration of Vatican II on the Episcopate). Some maintain, for example, that the wording of the bulls is sufficiently vague as to claim that the ordinations were allowed to take place in the monasteries with a different bishop present instead of the Ordinary of the place - an eception from the customary right of Ordinaries to ordain their subjects.

Moreover de Reeper gives another conclusion which is his as a canonist (or more accurately, the view of the adherents to that position since he quotes the Jesuit, Fr. Henry Lennerz) and would not necessarily be maintained by all namely: “It could not be maintained that these three Popes have erred in a matter as serious as that of the minister of the sacrament of Order.” There are both canonists and theologians who maintain this position.

 

[Just_Lurking]

AJV, Thanks for the info again!