DOGM ATIC THEO LO GY XI

T H E PO H L E -P R E U SS SER IES O F DOGM A T IC T E X T -B O O K S i. 2.

3456. 7-

8.
9-

10.
ii.

12.

God: His Knowability, Essence and A t tributes. vi & 479 pp., $2.00 net. The Divine Trinity, iv & 297 pp., $1.50 net. God the Author of Nature and the Su pernatural. v & 365 pp., $1.75 net. Christology. iii & 310 pp., $1.50 net. Soteriology. iv & 169 pp., $1 net. Mariology. iv & 185 pp., $1 net. Grace: Actual and Habitual, iv & 443 pp., $2 net. The Sacraments in General. Baptism. Confirmation, iv & 328 pp., $1.50 net. The Holy Eucharist, vi & 408 pp., $1.75 net. The Sacrament of Penance, iv & 270 pp., $1.50 net. Extreme Unction. Holy Orders. Matri mony. iv & 249 pp., $1.50 net. Eschatology. iv & 164 pp., $1 net.

THE S A C R A ME N T S
A DOGMATIC TREATISE

BY
THE RT. REV. MSGR. JOSEPH POHLE, Ph .D.,D.D.
F O R M E R L Y PR O FE SSO R O F A PO L O G E T IC S A T T H E C A T H O L IC U N IV E R S IT Y O F A M E R ICA

A D A P T E D AN D E D IT E D BY

A R T H U R PREUSS V O L U M E IV Extreme UnctionHoly Orders Matrimony

Second, R
evised

E d itio n

B. HERDER BOOK CO.

17
Sou th G
reat

B R

roadw ay, and ussell

St . L

ou is,

o.

68,

S t ., L o n d o n ,

W. C.

1918

N IH IL

OBSTAT F . G. Holweck, Censor Librorum

Sti. Ludovici, die 2. A pril 1918

IM P R IM A T U R Sti. Ludovici, die 3. A p ril 1918 Joannes J. Glennon Acrhiepiscopus Sti. Ludovici

Copyright, 1917 by Joseph Gummersbach

A ll rights reserved Printed in U. S. A .

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE I N T R O D U C T I O N ....................................................................i P art I. E xtreme U n c t io n ........................................................ i In tro d u ctio n ..............................................................................I C h . I. Extreme Unction a True Sacram ent...................... 4 i. Divine In stitu tion .........................................................5 2. Matter and F o r m ........................................................16 3. Sacramental E f f e c t s .................................................. 24 C h . II. Necessity of Extreme U n c t i o n ............................35 C h . III. The M in ister..............................................................38 Ch. IV. The R e c i p i e n t ........................................................ 44 Part II. H oly O r d e r s ............................................................. 52 Introduction................................................................................ 52 C h . I. Holy Orders a True S a c r a m e n t............................54 1. Divine Institution ......................................................... 54 2. Matter and F o r m ........................................................62 3. Sacramental E f f e c t s .................................................. 72 C h . II. Division of O r d e r s .................................................. 78 1. The E piscopate..............................................................8 2. The P r i e s t h o o d ......................................................... 94 3. The D ia c o n a t e ............................................................. 99 4. The Subdiaconate and the Four Minor Orders . 106 C h . III. The M in ister..............................................................116 C11. IV. The R e c i p ie n t ........................................................125 1. Conditions of Valid R e c e p tio n ................................. 125 2. Clerical C e l i b a c y ........................................................130 P art III. M a t r i m o n y ............................................................. 140 Introduction................................................................................MO C h . I. Marriage Between Christians a True Sacrament . 147 1. Nature of the Sacrament and its Divine Institution 147 2. Matter and F o r m ........................................................ 164 3. Sacramental E f f e c t s .................................................. 168

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

C h . II. The Properties of Christian Marriage . . . . 1 7 2 1. U n i t y ..............................................................................172 2. I n d is s o lu b ility ............................................................. 183 3. Extrinsic Dissolubility in Exceptional Cases . . 201 C h . III. The M in ister............................................................. 214 C h . IV. The R e c i p i e n t ....................................................... 217 C h . V. The Churchs Control over Christian Marriage Impediments ....................................................... 221 1. The Church Has Control over the Sacrament of M a r r i a g e .............................................................. 221 2. The Churchs Control over Christian Marriage is of Divine Right and Independent of the State . . 229 3. The Church Has the Right to Establish Diriment I m p e d im e n t s ........................................................ 234
Index

243

PART I E X T R E M E U N C T IO N
IN T R O D U C T IO N

E xtrem e Unction, says the Tridentine Council, w as regarded by the Fathers as the completion o f Penance and o f the whole Christian life .1 O utw ardly the intimate relation existing be tween the tw o Sacram ents o f E xtrem e Unction and Penance is evidenced by the fact that the same Council deals with E xtrem e Unction in con nection with Penance, as it deals with Confir mation in connection with Baptism .2 Aside from the decrees o f Trent, the dogmatic teaching o f the Church on E xtrem e Unction is stated most fully in the fam ous Decretum pro Arm enis, issued by Pope Eugene IV , in 1439. The name E xtrem a Unctio became a technical term in the W est towards the end o f the tw elfth century. T he adjective E xtrem e does not mean that the anointment given in this Sacram ent
1 C o n e. T r id ., S e ss . X IV , D e E x tr . U n c t.: " S a c ra m cn tu m extrem a e u n c tio n is n o n m odo p o cn ite n tia e , se d e t to tiiis ch ristia n a e v ita e co n su m m a tiv u m c x istim a tu m est a P a tr ib u s ." ~ C o n e . T r id ., S c ss . V I I .

EXTREME UNCTION

is the last, or that the subject must die after its reception. T his is a superstitious belief which has often led to neglect and procrastination. H ow unfounded it is appears from the fact that theologians count the restoration o f bodily health among the effects o f E xtrem e Unction, though, o f course, this is a secondary effect, conditioned upon the state o f the patients soul. . E xtrem e Unction is called the last anointment 11 in a purely liturgical sense, because it is preceded i by the anointments conferred in Baptism, Con1( firmation, and H oly Orders. E xtrem e Unction can be administered only to persons who are dangerously ill, and hence is also called the Sacram ent o f the departing (sacramentmn exeuntium ) .3 D r. Toner thinks that, having regard to the conditions prevailing at the time when the name was introduced, it is much more probable that it was intended originally to mean the unction o f those in extrem is/ i. e. the dying. 4 T his theory derives probability from the fact that the corresponding name, sacramentum exeuntium , became current during the same period. In the E ast the technical term for Extrem e Unction is yto eAcnov i/ e. the holy oil, or
3 C fr . C o n e. T r id ., S c ss . X I V : tam quam firm issim o quod am f r a e " R e d e m t'to r n o stcr . . . e x tr c m a c s id io m u n ir it. u n c lio n is sa era m en to Unern vita e * 1 . J. T o n e r in th e C a th o lic E n c y c lo p e d ia , V o l. V , p. 716.

INTRODUCTION

evx&aiov, % e. prayer-oil, from w , prayer, and % \aiovf oil. T he latter name is very appropriate, as prayer and oil constitute the external sign o f the Sacram ent.5 In M ilan, at the time o f St. Am brose,0 it was known as the imposition o f hands upon the infirm. 7 E xtrem e Unction is a Sacrament o f the N ew ) Lazv instituted by Jesus Christ, in which the sick, . who are seriously ill, by the anointing zvitli holy \ oil and by the prayer o f the priest, receive the grace o f God fo r the good o f their souls, and often also o f their bodies. ' The correctness o f this definition will be shown in the process o f our treatise, which we shall divide according to the scheme we have adopted for Baptism and Confirmation.
14. 8 C f r . S t. A m b ro se , D e P o e n it., I> c. 8. 7 S e e th e M a n u a le A m b r o s ia n u m ,
C J a m es V ,

p u b lish ed by M a g is t r e t t i, A. D. 1903, fro m a c o d e x o f th e e le v e n th c e n tu r y , V o l. I , pp. 79 sq q ., 94 sq q ., 147 sqq.

CH APTER I
E X T R E M E U N C T IO N A TR U E SA C R A M E N T

T o prove the sacramental character o f E xtrem e U nction we must show that it is a visible sign communicating invisible grace, instituted by Jesus Christ fo r the salvation o f souls. T he argument rests mainly on the Epistle o f St. James and on ecclesiastical Tradition.

S E C T IO N i
D IV IN E IN S T IT U T IO N i. of P r o t e s t a n t V a g a r ie s vs. t h e T e a c h in g

t h e C h u r c h . It is doubtful whether the Cathari, the W aldenses, the W iclifites, and the H ussites merely rejected the Sacram ent o f E x treme Unction or form ally denied it. Luther and the rest o f the so-called Protestant Reform ers openly denied the sacramental character o f the rite.

a) Luther could not consistently uphold E xtrem e U nc tion after repudiating the Epistle o f St. James, upon which the Church bases her teaching with regard to this Sacra ment, and which he contemptuously called a letter o f straw , unworthy o f the Apostolic spirit. Calvin went so fa r as to denounce E xtrem e U nction as fictitious and a piece o f histrionic hypocrisy. 1 T h e symbols of the Lutheran and Calvinistic sects affirm that while Extrem e Unction m ay have been a Sacram ent in the early Church, it was a merely tem porary institution, which lost its efficacy when the charismatic g ift o f healing ceased. Present-day Protestants generally adhere to this theory and regard the Jacobean rite either as identical with the ancient gratia curationum, now extinct, or as a sort
1 I n s lit ., I V , 19, 18.

EXTREME UNCTION

o f natural remedy. Am ong the Anglicans, however, there has recently been a revival o f Catholic teaching and practice.2

b) The Council o f T ren t defines the sacramen tal character o f E xtrem e Unction against the Protestant R eform ers as follow s: I f anyone saith that Extrem e Unction is not truly and prop erly a Sacrament, instituted by Christ our Lord, and promulgated by the blessed Apostle James, but is only a rite received from the Fathers, 01* a human figment, let him be anathema. 3 The Council explains its meaning more fully in Chapter I, D e E xtrem a Unctione, o f its X lV t h Session: This sacred unction o f the sick was instituted by Christ our Lord as truly and properly a Sacra ment o f the N ew L aw , insinuated indeed in M ark [vi, 13], but recommended and promulgated to the faith fu l by James the Apostle and cousin o f our Lord. Ts any man/ he saith, sick among you? Let him bring in the priests o f the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name o f the L ord : and the prayer o f faith
2 C f r . T o n e r in th e C a th o lic E n c y clo p ed ia , V o l. V , p. 7 1 7 . 8 S ess. X IV , D e E x lr . U n c t., can . 1 : " S i q n is d ix e r it, e x tr e rnam u n c tio n e m n on esse v e r e et prop rie sa cra m en tu m a C h r isto D o m in o nostro in stitu tio n et a bea to Ia c o b o A p o s to la p rom u lg a tu n t, se d ritu m tan tm n accep tu m a P a tr ib u s ant figm e n tu m h u m a u u m , an athem a s i t . (D e n z in g e r -B a n n w a r t, E n c h ir id io n S y m b o lo r u m , D e fm itio n u m ct D e clara tion um d e R e b u s F id e i e t M o ru m , 12th ed ., F r e ib u r g 19 10 , n. 926. T h is u s e fu l w o r k is q u o ted th ro u g h o u t th e p re s e n t tr e a tis e as D e n z in g e r -B a n n w a r t. )

DIVINE INSTITUTION

shall save the sick m an ; and the L ord shall raise him u p ; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him. [Jas. V , 14 sq.] In which words, as the Church has learned from Apostolic tradition, re ceived from hand to hand, he teaches the matter, the form , the proper minister, and the effect o f this salutary Sacram ent. 4
Some o f the older Scholastics, notably Peter Lom bard, St. Bonaventure, and H ugh o f St. V ictor, held, in oppo sition to the more common view , that the Sacram ent of E xtrem e Unction was instituted by the Apostles after the descent o f the H oly Ghost and by H is inspiration. T h is thesis can now no longer be maintained in the face o f the Tridentine declaration that the Sacram ent was in stituted by Christ H im self and recommended and pro m ulgated to the faithful by St. James.

2. P r o o f fr o m R e v e l a t i o n . W e have al ready quoted the Scriptural locus classicus for our dogma as reproduced in the Tridentine definition. It runs as follow s in the original G reek: AaOevd
rt5 tv

vjxlv TrpoaKaXcaaadw to v s ttpea fivT tpow i Trj<s KK\f]cria<;} hr* avTOV} aXeii{/avres avTov
e atw A

Kal Trpoaev^daOwaav ovofiaTi tov Kvpiov,

ev ra>

K a t ry ei>xrj tt} s 7 r ia r e 9 awcra t o v Kafivovraf <

Kal ly t p u a v r o v o Kvpios K&v afw.pTia<s rj ireiroir]Kto<;} afadrjcreTai

aura>_ 4 I b id ., ca p . 1 : " In s titu ta e st a u tem sacra h a ec u n c tio in firm o ru m tam quam v c r e e t p ro p ric sa cra m en turn N o v i T e s ta m e n ti a C h r isto D o m in o n o stro a p ud M a r c u m quidem in sin u a tio n , p e r la c o b u m autern A p a s to lu m a c D o m in i fra tre m fid e lib u s co m m e n d a tu m a c p rom ulg a tu m : In fir m a tu r , in q u it, q u is in v o b is / e tc . Q u ib u s ve r b is, u t e x a p ostolica tr a d itio n e p er m an us accep ta E c c le s ia d id ic it, d o c e t ma-

EXTREME UNCTION

Is any man sick among you? L et him bring in the priests o f the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name o f the Lord: and the prayer o f faith shall save the sick man; and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him! 3 H ere we have all the essential characteristics o f a Sacrament.
a) There is, first, an external sign or rite, con sisting o f matter and form. T h e anointment with oil 5 is a visible act, like the ablution perform ed in the administration o f Baptism. T h e prayer pronounced by the priest over the sick man ( super eum , eV avrov, not pro eo, wrep avrov), and which St. James calls prayer of faith , 6 m anifestly constitutes the form. T o this external sign or rite the Apostle ascribes in ternal g ra ce: sa lvatio n ( salvabit , o w e i), u p raisin g (alleinabit, eyepel), and especially forgiveness o f s in s (s i in pCCCatis sit, rem itten tur ei, Kav xaprlas rj 7 ro u < re7 ir)K > i, (peOrjcrerai avrw). This effect, which is produced ex opere operato in the properly disposed recipient, cannot possibly be confounded with the charismatic, nor yet with the natural cures reported elsewhere in the N ew Testa ment.7 Finally, the divine institution o f this prayer-unction is at least intimated by St. James. F or in the first
teria m , form an t, p ro p riu m m in istru m e t e ffe c tu m h u iu s sa ltita ris sacram e n ti. " ( D e n z in g e r -B a n n w a r t, n. 9 0 8 ). (5 U n g e n te s eu m o le o , a\el\f/a p res a v r b v \a lio0 O r a tio fid e i, ei'X') T rjs i r i }) 7 C fr . i C o r . X I I , 28: " gratia c u r a tio n u m , x & p io fia la fid r w v . C fr . M a r k V I , 13. O n th e d is tin c tio n m e n tio n e d in th e te x t a b o v e see O sw a ld , D ie L e h r e vo n den hi. Sa kra m e n te n , V o l. I I , 5th ed ., pp. 261
*qq-

crew s-

DIVINE INSTITUTION

place he mentions it along with a number o f positive precepts. Secondly, he says that the act is performed in the name o f the Lord (in nomine Domini, ev ovo/xan tov K v p l o v ) , that is to say, by command or through the power o f the Lord. I f Extrem e Unction is administered by command o f the Lord, it must be directly instituted by H im ; if by H is power, the same conclusion is inevitable, for no one but God can cause a visible sign to effect forgiveness o f sins.8 b) T h e Tridentine Fathers observe that the Sacrament o f E xtrem e Unction is insinuated in the Gospel of St. M ark ; which raises the question whether St. M ark really knew this Sacram ent. The passage (M a rk V I , 1 3 ) : [T he Apostles] anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them, is understood o f the Sacra ment o f E xtrem e U nction by St. Thom as, St. Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, Am brosius Catharinus, Maldonatus, Berti, Sainte-Beuve, and other illustrious theologians. B ellarm in e9 and Suarez,10 however, and with them the great m ajority of Catholic divines, are opposed to this in terpretation fo r the follow ing reasons: ( 1 ) Th e anointment o f which St. M ark speaks, affected only the body. T h e sick who were anointed were restored to health. Th e rite described by St. James, on the other hand, results in forgiveness o f sins, a distinctly spiritual effect. (2 ) The anointment recorded by St. M ark was admin istered not only to the sick, but to the lame and blind, not only to Christians, but to unbelieving Jews and gen tiles ; whereas the sacred unction of St. James was strictly limited to the sick among the faithful.
8 C f r . T r e n k le , D e r B r i e f d e s h i. J a k o b u s, pp. 384 sq q ., F r e ib u r g 1894. 8 D e E x tr e m a U n c tio n e , c. 1. \0 C o m m e n t. in S u m m a m I l l , disp . 39. sect. i , n. 4. T lie o l.,

10

EXTREME UNCTION

(3 ) Th e power o f healing described by St. M ark was clearly a charismatic g ift, for our Divine Saviour had shortly before commanded H is Apostles to heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils, a d d in g : F reely have you received, freely give. 11 N ow since the charismata are not a permanent institution, but may cease tem porarily or altogether, the anointing o f the sick according to St. James belongs to an altogether different category, fo r it postulates the priesthood as its dispen ser and consequently must last as long as the priesthood lasts, namely, to the end o f time.12 But how, in view o f these facts, could the Council o f T ren t say that the Sacrament of Extrem e Unction is in sinuated by St. M ark? Because the anointment which St. M ark describes was a type o f the sacred unction promulgated by St. James. Insinuatum, in the con text o f the Tridentine decree, as Berti notes, does not mean introductum, but praefiguratum. 13

3. P r o o f fro m T r a d i t i o n . Even if there were no express P atristic testimony available to show the existence o f E xtrem e Unction during the first five centuries o f the Church, the fact could be established by an argument from pre scription.
a) The Sacrament o f E xtrem e Unction is to-day known and administered throughout the world, in the Greek 14
1 1 M a ttli. X , 8. 12 F o r o th e r d iffe r e n c e s b e tw e e n th e tw o a n o in tm e n ts see B c lla r in in e , D e E x tr . U n c t., c. 3 ; A lb . a B u iBano, I n s tit. T h e o l. D o g m a t., ed . G o t tfr . a G ra u n , V o l. I l l , p. 19 7, I n n s b r u c k 1896. 13 C fr . B e n e d ic t X I V , D e S y n . D io e c c s ., V I I I , t , 2 ; B illu a r t , D e E x tr . U n e t., a rt. 1. 14 T h e G r e e k sch ism a tic C o u n c il o f J e ru s a le m , o f 1672, c o n fe s s e s : " S e p tim u m e st u n c tio , quam vocatit u s ev x ^ X a io v , cin 'iu d u p le x efTectus

D IV IN E IN S T IT U T IO N

il

schismatic as well as in the L atin Church. It was known to the Council o f Constantinople o f 1672 and to the Greek Em peror M ichael Palaeologus in 1274.15 It was recom mended to the faith fu l by the councils o f W orm s (868), M ayence (847), Aix-la-Chapelle (836), and Chalons (8 1 3 ).16 T h is brings us to the schism o f Photius (869). T h e liturgical books take us still farther back. Thus the Sacram entary o f Pope St. G regory the G r e a t17 and the newly discovered Euchologium o f Serapion o f Thm uis ( + about 362) 18 contain the rite o f adm inistering and blessing the holy oils. The Nestorians and Arm enians, who no longer have the Sacram ent o f Extrem e Unction, knew it in form er times, as their ancient rituals testify.19 Since these sects cut loose from the Rom an Church as early as the fifth century, the Sacram ent o f E xtrem e U nction must have form ed part and parcel o f the A pos tolic Tradition. A ll the facts that have so fa r come to light point towards the time when the Sacram ent was promulgated by St. James.

b) But how_ are we_to_explain_ jthe__rela tive s c a rc ity !^ P atristic testimonies in fa vo r o f E x treme U nction?
e st, anim ae n im ir u m co r p o r isq u e sana tio ." ( I la r d o u in , C o n c il., X I , 2 7 5 ). i s " A liitd [sa cr a m e n tu m ] extr e m a u n c tio , q u a e s e c u n d u m d o ctrin a m b. I a c o b i tn firm a n tib u s a d h ib e tu r ." (D e n z in g e r -B a n n w a r t, n. 4 6 5 ). On th e p re s e n t-d a y p r a c tic e of th e G r e e k s c h ism a tic C h u rc h see C. R h a llis , I le p i r w v u v a r r jp lu v rrjs fie r a v o la s K al r o v e v x & a l o v , A t h en s 1905. 10 C f r . C o n e . C a b ilo n . I I ( 8 1 3 ) , ca n . 48: " S e c u n d u m b. A p o s to li Ia c o b i d o c u m e ittu m , c u i etiam d o c u m en ta P a tr u m co n so n a n t, in fir m i o le o , qtiod ab e p iscop o b e ite d icitu r, a p r e s b y te r is tin g i d e b e n t. S ic en im a it: In firm a tn r q u is, e tc. N o n est ita q u e p a rv ip e n d e n d a h u iu stn o d i m e d icin a , q u a e a n im ae c o r p o r isq u e m e d e tu r la n g u o r ib u s . ( I la r d o u in , C o n c il., I V , 10 40). 17 A p u d M ig n e , P . L ., L X X V I I I . 233 sq. 18 E d ite d by W o b b e r m in in A lt

c h r is tlic h e S t c k e aits der K ir c h e g y p te n s , L e ip z ig 1898. 10 C f r . D e n z in g c r , R it u s O rie n ta liu m , V o l. I I , pp. 483 sqq., W r z b u r g 1864.

12

EXTREME UNCTION

P artly, no doubt, by the Discipline o f the Secret, but m ainly by the fact that this S acra ment, regarded merely as a complement o f Pern ance, did not become conspicuous and, further^ more, was not in frequent demand at a time when many o f the fa ith fu l died as m artyrs, w hile others subjected themselves to public penance or post poned Baptism until th e y w e re o n their death-becir Such P atristic evidence as we possess onTthe subject has reference to the E p istle o f St. James, which may_be_said.to be_the. pivot around.AvJikh. the whole T radition revolves. ;
T h e earliest extant witness is Origen. A fte r enumerat ing the different ways o f obtaining remission o f sins, this writer ( + 2 5 4 ) comes seventhly to the hard and la borious w ay of penance. H e quotes the Psalm ist in sup port of confession and adds: In this is fulfilled also what St. James the Apostle says: I f anyone is sick, etc. 2 L et it not be objected that several o f the means 0 o f grace mentioned by O rigen (martyrdom , alm sgiving, etc.) are not Sacraments, for he puts the anointment of the sick on a par with Baptism and Penance, which he undoubtedly regarded as true Sacraments. St. Chrysostom says the dignity o f the priesthood springs from the power of forgiving sins, which is exer cised in administering the sacred unction to the sick. N ot only in our regeneration, he writes, but likewise after regeneration, have they the power to forgive sins. F or the Apostle says: Is any man sick among you?
20 Horn, in L e v ., I I , n. 4 ( M ig n c , P . G ., X I I , 4 18 ).

DIVINE INSTITUTION

13

L et him bring in the priests o f the Church/ etc.21 T h e most striking Patristic authority on the subject is Pope Innocent I. Th e words o f St. Jam es/ he says, must without doubt be taken or understood of the faith ful who are sick, who m ay be [law fully] anointed with the holy oil o f chrism, of which, having been pre pared by the bishop, not only priests, but all Christians may avail themselves fo r anointing in their own need, or in that of their connections. W e notice the superfluous ad dition o f a doubt, whether a bishop m ay do what is said to priests, fo r the reason that bishops, hindered by other occupations, cannot go to all the sick. But if the bishop is able to do so, or thinks anyone spe cially w orthy o f being visited, he, whose office it is to consecrate the chrism, need not hesitate to bless and anoint the sick person. F or this unction m ay not be given to penitents [. e. to those undergoing canonical penance], inasmuch as it is a kind o f Sacrament. F or to persons to whom the other Sacraments are denied, how can it be thought that one kind o f Sacram ent can be g ra n te d ? 22 This remarkable, though in several respects obscure pas sage, is clear on at least fou r points: ( 1 ) The anointing o f the sick with the holy oil of
21 D e S a c e r d o tio , I I I , 5 ( M ig n e , P . G ., X L V I I I , 6 4 4 ). S e e B o y l e s tr a n s la tio n ( O n th e P r ie s th o o d , 2n d e d ., p. 4 1 , D u b lin 1 9 1 0 ) . 22 E p . 25, c. 8 : " Q u o d V , 14] ion e s t dubittm d e U d elib u s a cg r o ta n tib u s a ccip i v e l in te lle g i deb e r e, q u i sa n cto o leo ch r ism a tis p c r u n g i p o ss u n t, q u o ab e p isc o p o c o n fe c to n o n so lu m s a ce r d o tib u s , s e d o m n ib u s u t i C h r istia n is lic e t in su a a u t sttorum n e c e ssita te u n g e n d u m . C e te r u m illu d su p e r ilu u m v id e m u s a d ie ctu m , n t d e ep iscop o a m b ig a tu r q u o d p r e s b y tc r is d ictu m c st, quia e p isco p i o c c u p a tia n ib u s a liis im ped iti a d o m n e s la n g u id o s ire n on p o s s u n t. C e te ru m s i e p is c o p u s au t potest au t d ig n u m d u cit a liq u e m a se v is ila n d urn, c t b e n e d ic e r e e l ta n gere ch r ism a te s in e c u n c ta tio n e p o te st, c u iu s c s t ipsnm ch rism a c o n fic c rc . N a m p o e n ite n tib u s [s c il. p u b lic is t istu d in fu n d i n o n p o te st, quia g e n u s e st sa c r a m e n ti; nam q u ib u s r e liq u a sa cram cn ta n e g a n tu r , q u om od o u u u m genus p u ta tu r p o sse c o n c c d i? " (D e n z in g e r -B a n n w a r t , n. 9 9 ).

[lac.

14

EXTREME UNCTION

ch rism was regarded as a genus sacram enti from which public penitents were exclu d ed ; (2) Th e Sacrament o f the sick was administered by priests and bishops, but only the bishops had power to bless the o il; (3 ) E xtrem e Unction was administered to the faith fu l when they were sick ; (4 ) The term chrisma does not refer to Confirmation, because that Sacrament is mentioned earlier in Pope In nocents letter,23 but must be understood in the wider sense o f oil blessed fo r purposes of anointment. Incidentally also it seems from Pope St. Innocents let ter that in his day laymen in case o f urgent necessity w ere permitted to apply the holy oil to themselves or oth ers near and dear to them. Needless to say, such lay anointment was not a Sacrament but merely a sacramen tal. A nother important testimony is that of John Mandukani (M ontagouni), Catholicos o f the Arm enians from 480 to 487. T his patriarch, who is called the second Chrysostom , in one o f his addresses inveighs against magic incantations in case o f sickness as an abuse cur rent even among the clergy. The faithful, he writes, despise the g ifts o f grace; for the Apostle says: I f anyone is sick, etc. T h ey [the shepherds] themselves have gone astray, they have relinquished the grace o f God, prayer, and the oil o f anointment, which is prescribed by law for the sick, seeking refu ge [rather] in incantations and magic writings. 2 4 In a homily ascribed to St. Caesarius o f A rles ( + 542) we read: A s often as some sickness comes, let him
23 S e c D e n z in g e r -B a n n w a r t, n. 98. 24 H o n 1., 26, c itc d b y M . S c h m id , H e ilig e R e d e n d e s J o h a n n e s M a n d u k a n i, pp. 222 sqq. C f r . K e r n , S a cra m . H xtr. U n c t., pp. 46 sq. De

DIVINE INSTITUTION

15

who is ill receive the B ody and Blood o f Christ, and then anoint his body, in order that the Scripture m ay be fulfilled which says: I f anyone is sick/ etc. Behold, brethren, how whoever in his infirmity has recourse to the Church, deserves to obtain health o f body and for giveness o f sins. 25 T h is coupling of the remission of sins with bodily healing recurs in another homily o f St. Caesarius, in which he says that the person anointed with the sacred chrism receives both health o f body and remission o f sins, fo r the H oly Ghost has given this promise through James. 26
25 S e r m ., 265, n. 3: a liqu a in fir m ita s s u p e r v e n e r it, co r p u s e t sa n g u in em C h r is ti ille , qtti a eg ro ta t, a ccip ia t et in d e co r p u sc u h im sttttm u n g a t, u t illu d q u o d scr ip tu m e st im p le a tu r in e o : In firn ta tu r aliqttis, e tc. V id e tc , fr a tr c s , q u ia q u i in in fir m ita te ad E c c le sia m citcu rrer it, e t co r p o r is sa n ita te m r e c ip e r e e t Q u o tie s p ec c a to ru m in d u lg e n tia m m e r e b itu r o b tin e r e . ( M ig n e , P . L . , X X X I X , 2238 s q ., A p p e n d .) L a t e r t e s t i m o n ie s an d e x a m p le s o f th e r e c e p tio n o f E x t r e m e U n c tio n fro m th e fo u r t h to th e n in th c e n t u r y a r e g iv e n b y K e r n , D e S a cra m . E x t r . U n c t., pp. 6 -50 . 20 S e r m ., 279 , n . 5.

S E C T IO N 2
M A TTER AN D FORM

The matter o f a Sacrament, generally speaking, is the natural act which has been raised by our L ord to the supernatural sphere. In certain of the Sacram ents, however, which make use o f ma terial, tangible objects, these are sometimes called the m atter' o f the Sacrament, in the sense o f remote matter, while the application o f them is the proximate matter. The remote m atter o f E xtrem e Unction is pure olive oil blessed by a bishop. T he proxim ate mat ter is the act o f anointing the organs o f sense. The sacramental form lies in the w ords: B y this holy unction, etc.
i. T h e R e m o te M a t t e r o f t h e S a c r a m e n t.

St. James, in saying, Anointing him with oil, employs the word A cuov, which literally means oil o f olives. Consequently oil of olives is the remote matter o f the Sacrament o f Extrem e U nc tion. T his deduction is expressly confirmed by the Decvetum pro Arm enis.1
l " M a te r ia cst o leu m o liv a c per c l'isc o p u m D a n n w a rt, n. 70 0). b c n c ^ ic tu m ." (D c n z in g e r-

l6

MATTER AND FORM

17

a) A ll other oils, such as that derived from nuts, ses ame, etc., are not valid matter for E xtrem e U nction.2 T h e olive oil used in the administration o f this Sacrament must fu r tlT ^ iio r ^ S e j^ c T w jth p u t ^ x ture o f any. other substance, such as perfum e, fo r the oil used in anointing the sick is ^simplyjxalled oleum (from olea, o liv e), or in Greek, IKaiov, not chrisma (xvpov, chrism ), like that em ployed in Confirmation. T h e Nestorians add a little w ater and a pinch of ashes or dust from the sepulchre o f some saint. T h is m ixture they call hanana or taibutha,3 and the rite of applying it to the sick a mere sacramental among these heretics has gradually usurped the place o f the Sacram ent o f E xtrem e Unction.4 In Russia a little wine is added to the oil in mem ory o f the good Sam aritan, but this custom cannot be very ancient because the A rchpriest Archangelsky, who has made a study o f the subject, says that no such m ixture is men tioned in the Russian rituals o f the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.5 In the Greek Church, this custom is un doubtedly older, as it is mentioned in the profession of faith o f M etrophanes Kritopulos, composed in the year 1625,0 and by Sim eon o f Thessalonica, who died in 1429. O live oil is soothing, penetrating, and invigorating, and thusjip^y_symj2ol]ze_the_hcaliiig-iincLstrcng-thejiixig-jiaw-er o f the Sacram ent. T h e unction, says the Tridentine Council, very aptly represents the grace o f the H oly Ghost, with which the soul o f the sick person is invisibly anointed. 7
2 O n th e u s e , b y d is p e n sa tio n , o f c o tto n s e e d o il, see H e r d e r s K ir c h c n le x ik o n , V o l. I X , 2nd e d ., c o l. 712 , F r e ib u r g 1895. 3 " G ratia ta lis s a n c ti. 4 C f r . B e n e d ic t X I V , O p era I n c dita , p u b lis h e d b y I lc i n c r , p. 359, F r e ib u r g 1904. s A r c h a n g e ls k y , In q u is itio de E volu tio n c H is t r ic a R itu s B c n c d ic tio n is O l d , pp. 1 : 3 sq q ., S t. P c te rs b u r g 1895. n C fr . K im n ie l, L ib r i S y m b o lic i E c c lc s ia c O r ic n ta lis, A p p e n d ix , p. 154, J e n a 1843. 7 C on e. T r id ., S css. X IV , Dc

i8

EXTREME UNCTION

b) T h at the oil must be blessed or consecrated before use is the unanimous testimony o f all ages. T he question arises whether such consecration is m erely a matter o f precept or whether it is an es sential requisite for the validity o f the Sacrament.
Tradition since Pope_Innocent J insists.on ihe_oil .being blessed by a bishop, which in d icatesjh at this-blessing-is-iL, condition of validity. The Church has understood the m atter th ereoF [ i r e . o f Extrem e U nction] to be oil blessed by a bishop, says the Council o f T rent.8 Though the question has never been authoritatively decided, it is advisable to use no other oil than that blessed by a bishop, in order not to endanger the validity o f the Sac rament. A decree o f P au l V ( 1 6 1 1 ) proscribes as rash and bordering on error the proposition that E x treme Unction may be validly administered with oil not consecrated by a bishop.9 In 1842, the Congregation of the H oly Office, reaffirming a previous decree, replied neg atively to the query whether a parish priest, in case of necessity, could validly use oil blessed by himself. Though theologians agree that the blessing o f the oil used for E x trem e'U n ctio n is*an episcopal prerogativeT" most o f them h o ld 10lh a t^ r i^ ts "c a irb e empowered by the^ Pope to perform this function. In the East they have
B x tr . U n c t., cap . i: " N a m u n c tio d ic tu m ." (D e n z in g e r -B a n n w a r t, n. a p tissim e S p ir ittis S a n c t i g ra tiom , qua in v is ib ilitc r anim a a cg r o ta n tis in u n g itu r , rc p r a e se n ta t. O n th e fitn ess o f th e u s e o f o liv e o il s e c G ilir, D ie hi. S a k r a m c n tc d e r h ath. K ir cU c , pp. 245 s q q .; K e r n , D e S a c r. E x lr . U n c t., pp. 11 5 sq. 8 S ess. X I V , D c E x lr . U n c t., c a p . j : " I n tc U c x it cn im E c c tc s ia , viateriatn esse o le u m ab e p iscop o b en e90 8). 0 [P r o p o sitio n e m ] q u o d itcm pe sa cra m cn tu m c x tr e m a e u n c tio n is olco cpiscopaH b c n c d ic tio n c n o n con sccra to n tin istra ri v a lid c p o ssit . . . e sse tem crariam et c r ro r i p ro x im a m . (D e n z in g e r -B a n n w a r t, n. 16 28 ). 10 S e e , f o r in sta n c e , S u a r e z , Com ten t, in S u m m a m T h c o l., I l l , disp. 40, sect. 1, n. 8.

MATTER AND FORM

19

done so fo r many years, and the custom among the U niats has the express approval o f the H oly See.11 In regard to the schismatics one may say either that they have the tacit approbation o f the Pope or that the reservation o f episcopal pow er does not extend to them. 12

2.

T he

P r o x im a t e

M atter

of

E xtrem e

U n c t i o n . St. Tames says that the sick a re anointed with oil, but gives no hint how o r j o w hat parts o f EHe~bo^yTlie~oil is applied. The anciHTt fuaIs^show_a_great_diversity_of^practice in th is je g a r d .13
In the Eastern Church,14 the parts usually anointed are the forehead, chin, hands, _an d , knees (sometimes the forehead nostrils, knees, mouth, breast, and both sides o f the hands; or the forehead, knees, lips, breast, and h and s).15 Th e Roman Ritual says the oil should be applied to the organs o f the five external senses_(eyes, ears, nostrils, lips, hands), to the feet, and, in the case of male patients, where the custom exists., and.the_condition o f the subject permits_of his being m oyed, t o jh e loins or reins.18 A s the unction o f the loins is now alw ays omitted (c fr. C odex Inris Canonici, can. 947, 2) it
11 S e e th e C o n s titu tio n o f C lem e n t V I I I , o f A u g . 30, 159 5, w h ic h says: " N o n su n t c o g e n d i p r e s b y te r i g r a cc i, o lea sa n cta p ra e te r ch rism a ab e p isco p is la tin is d io e c c sa n is accip e r c , q u u m h u iu s m o d i olea ab e is in ip sa o leo r u m ct sa cr a m e n to r u m e x h ib ilio n e c x v e te r i r itu c o n fic ia n tu r se n b e n c d ic a n tu r . ( B u lla r iu m R o m a n u m , ed. T a u r ., V o l. X , p. 2 12 ). C fr . B e n e d ic t X IV , De Synodo D io e c c sa n a , V I I I , 1, 4 ; K e r n , D e S a c r . E x tr . U n c t., pp. 119 sqq . 12 C f r . P . J . T o n e r in th e C a th o lic E n c y c lo p e d ia , V o l. V , p. 724. 13 C fr . M a r te n c , De A n tiq u is E c c lc s ia e R itib u s , I , 7, 3. 14 C f r . G o a r , E u c h o l., p. 440. 15 C fr . G . J a q u e m ie r, L 'E x t r e m e O n c tio n c h c z le s G r c c s ," in th e E c h o s d O r ic n t, 1899, p. 194. 10 D e e r , p ro A r m e n is (1 4 3 9 ): " . . . q u i [in tim itis'] in h is lo c is un g e n d u s e s t : in o c u lls p ro p ter v isu m , in a tiribtts p ro p te r a u d itu m , in n o r i b u s p ro p te r o d o ra tu m , in ore propt e r g u s tu m v e l lo c u tio n c m , in mani-

20

EXTREME UNCTION

cannot belong to the essence o f the Sacrament. The same holds true o f the anointing o f the feet which may be omitted for any reasonable cause ( Codex h iris Canonici, can. 947, 3 ) .17 W hether the remaining five unctions are necessary for the validity of the Sacrament hire divino or merely by ecclesiastical precept, is a contro verted question. The older S cholastics held with S t. T h o m a s18 that all five are strictly essential. M odern theologians differ j3n this point. The best o f them have long inclined to the view favored by Albertus M agnus,19 ^that a single unction is sufficient J o r J h e validity o f the Sacrament. In taking this ground they were impelled by a number o f reasons, which D r. Toner briefly sum marizes as fo llo w s: No ancient testimony mentions the five unctions at all, much less prescribes them as necessary, but most o f them speak simply o f unction in a w ay that suggests the sufficiency o f a single unction; the unction o f the five senses has never been extensively practicecl in the East, and is not practiced at the present time in the O rthodox Church, while those U niats who practice it have simply borrowed it. in modern times frorn^ Rom e; and even in the W estern Church down to the eleventh century the practice was not very wide spread, and did not become universal till the seventeenth century, as is proved by a number of sixteenth-century rituals that have been preserved. 2 The new Code of 0 Canon Law says (can. 947, 1 ) that in case of necessity
b u s p ro p ter ta ctu m . in p ed ib u s p rop tcr g r cssu m , in r e n ib u s p ro p te r deIccta tio n cin tb i v ig c n te m ." (D cn zin s ic r-lia n n w a rt, n. 70 0). C fr . T o n er, C a th o lic E n c y c lo p e d ia , V o l. V , P 72$. 17 C fr . S u a r e z , C o m m en t, in S . T h c o l., I l l , disp. 40, sec t. 2, 11. 6. i s S u m m a T h c o l., S u p p le m c n tu m , qu. 32, a rt. 6 : Ilia u n c tio ab o m n ib u s o b s c n 'a tu r , qu a e fit ad q u in qtie s e n s u s q u a si d e n e c e ssita te sac r a m e n ti." 10 C o m m e n t, in S e n t ., I V , d ist. 23, a rt. 16. C f r . K e r n , D c S acra m . E x tr . U n c t., p. 138. 20 C a th . E n c y c lo p e d ia , V , 724. C fr . K e r n , D c S acra m . E x tr . U n c t., pp. 133 s q .; B a lle r in i-P a lm ie r i, O p. T h c o l. M o r a l., V o l. V , 3 rd ed ., pp. 686 sq q ., P r a ti 1900.

MATTER AND FORM

21

one unction is sufficient, [applied] on one o f the sense organs or, more correctly, on t h e J i^ e b ja d r w ith rjh e shorter fo rmula prescribed,; but the obligation remains to supply the other unctions when the danger ceases.

3. T h e F o r m o f t h e S a c r a m e n t . In the L atin Church, fo r the past five hundred years, the form employed at each unction, with mention o f the corresponding sense or faculty, has been that prescribed by Eugene I V in the D ecretum pro Arm enis. It runs as follow s: Through this holy unction and H is own most tender mercy, m ay the L ord pardon thee whatever faults thou hast committed by sight (hearing, smell, taste, touch, w alking, carnal delectation). 21
a) T his form was not alw ays in use. M any others, substantially different in both sense and wording, were at various times employed in the W est and in the E a s t ; 22 whence it may be concluded that our L ord spe cifically determined the form o f E xtrem e Unction only in so fa r as it must be a prayer for the sick. T his de mand is complied with in the shorter form ula permitted in urgent cases by dccrce o f the H oly Office o f 1906: B y this holy unction m ay the L ord pardon thee w hat ever faults thou hast committed. 23 H ence neither mention o f the senses, severally or in globo, nor any express reference to the divine m ercy is essential for
21 D c c r c tu m p ro /ir m c n i s : " P e r istam sa n cta m u n ctio n e m c t su a m p iissim am m iserico rd ia m in d u lg en t tib i D o m in u s, q u id q u id p e r v is u m , ( a u d itu m , o d o ra tu m , g u s tu m e t tocu tio n e m , ta ctu m , g r c ssu m , lu m b oru m d c lc c ta tio n e m ) d c liq n is ti. " C f r . C o n e. T r id ., S e ss . X I V , cap . 1. 22 C fr . M a r te n e , D c A n tiq u is E cclc s . R itib u s , I , 7, 4 ; a s e le c tio n in K e r n , D c S a cra m . E x tr . U n c t., pp. 14 6 -15 2 . 23 " P e r istam sa n cta m u n c tio n e m in d u lg ca t tib i D o m in u s , q u id q u id d e liq u is t i." ( A c ta S. S e d is , V o l. X X X I X , p. 2 7 3 ).

22

EXTREME UNCTION

the validity o f the Sacrament. Neither o f these ideas, in fact, is expressed in the present Greek or in any of the ancient Latin formulas. I f the prayer o f faith spoken o f by St. James is the sole requisite of validity, it follows that a priest would probably administer the Sacram ent validly (though not, o f cours, licitly) if he were to omit the words prescribed by the Rom an Ritual for each separate unction and simply, after giving all the unctions, pronounce the first oration follow ing them in the Ritual, which embodies the prayer that form erly constituted the essential form o f E xtrem e Unction in the Church o f Narbonne.

b) A nother controverted question is whether a m erely indicative form , such as I anoint thee/ etc., would be sufficient fo r the validity o f the Sacrament.
A lbertus M agnus, Paludanus, Durandus, and other eminent Scholastics, followed by a number o f modern writers (M orinus, Becanus, Tournely, etc.), hold that the indicative form is sufficient. The Thom ists and the Scotists maintain the opposite view, basing their contention chiefly on the Jacobean demand : Or cut (Trpooev&aOoicrav) super cum. B ut the problem cannot be solved by a priori reasoning; it must be dealt with historically. H istory tells us that the indicative form has been widely used in the E ast and still more widely in the W est.24 T his form occurs in the most ancient ritual that has come down to us, that o f the Celtic Church: I anoint thee with sanctified oil in the name o f the Trinity, that thou
21 S e c , e. g th e s o -c a llc d A m b rosiana, a p ud M a r t n c , D e A n t i q u is E e c le s ia e R itib u s , I , 7, 4 : " U n go tc o leo sa n ctifica to in n o m in e D o m in i, u t m ore m ilitis v n c tu s praep a ratus ad h icta m acrea s p o ssis sttp era re c a t e n a s . "

MATTER AND FORM

23

mayest be saved for ever and ever. 25 Pope Benedict X I V insists on the validity o f the indicative form , but at the same time admonishes parish priests to employ the form prescribed in the Rom an Ritual, which, he says, most assuredly cannot be altered by private authority without committing a grave crime. 2 The congruity o f 0 the deprecative form is shown by the Rom an Catechism ,27 and its necessity is defended by De Augustinis.28 It should be noted, however, that an indicative sentence m ay be virtually deprecatory,2 and that all the formulae o f 9 Extrem e U nction which we know to have been used at some time or other in the Church, have in fact virtually embodied a petition.30 H ence F r. K ern is fu lly ju sti fied in concluding that the validity o f the form in itself, 1. e. necessitate sacramenti, does not require an explicit mention o f the act o f anointing, or o f any sacramental e f fect, or o f the divine m ercy, or o f the organs anointed, but that the sole essential requisite is a (form al, or at least virtual) prayer for the recipient.31
25 " U n g o te d e o le o sa n ctifica to in n o m in e T r m ita tis , u t sa lv e r is in s a e c u la s a e c u lo r n m . (A p u d W arr e n , T h e L itu r g y a n d R itu a l o f th e C e ltic C h u r c h , p. 16 8 ). 26 D e S y n o d o D io e c e sa n a , V I I I , 2, 3. 27 P . I I , c. 6, n. 7. 29 C f r . J o h n X I , 3 : " L o r d , b e h o ld , h e w h o m th o u lo v e s t is s ic k . 30 E . g ,, th e a n c ie n t fo r m u la o f th e C h u r c h o f T o u r s : " U n g o te o le o sa n c to in n o m in e P a tr is et F i li i e t S p ir it u s S a n c ti, o b se cra n s m iseric o r d ia m , e tc . 31 S e e K e r n , D e S a cra m . E x tr . U n c t., p p . 1 5 2 -16 6 .

2d D e

R e S a cra m en ta ria , V o l. I I ,

2 n d e d p p . 3 75 sqq.

S E C T IO N 3
S A C R A M E N T A L E FFE C TS

T he fact that E xtrem e Unction produces in ternal grace is clearly stated in St. James E pis tle (salvabit, alleviabit, remittentur peccata). Nevertheless it is not easy to decide w herein the principal effecT~oT~he Sacram ent ( effectus pri m arius) consists. O ur only safe guide in the m atter are the decisions o f various councils. T he Decretum pro~Armenis merely"saysj: __lLThe_effect [o f this Sacram ent] is the healing ofth e mind and, so fa r as is expedient,_of the body also. 1 T his is more fu lly explained by the CCouncil~of Trent, which defines: I f anyone saith that the sacred unction o f the sick does not confer grace, nor remit sin, nor com fort the sick, but that it has now ceased, as though it had been o f old only the grace o f w orking cures, let him be ^ anathem a. 2
^ A cco rd in g to this authentic declaration the
1 " E ffe c tu s vcro est m e n tis sanatia , c t in q u a n tu m a u tcm e x p e d it, ip s iu s ctiam c o r p o r is. (D c n z in g e r B a n n w a r t, n. 700). 2 S css . X I V , D e E x tr . U n c t., cap . 2: " S i q u is d ix e r it, sacram in firm oru m v n c tio n e m n o n c o n fc r r c g r a Ham n c c r c m itte r e p eccata n c c atlevia r c in firm o s. se d iam ccssa sse, q ua si olim ta n tu m fu c r it gratia cu r a tio n u m , anathem a s i t . " (D e n z in g c r -B a n n w a r t, 11. 9 2 7 ).

24

SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS

25

Sacrament~.of-~Extreme -Unction produces., three principal effects ( 1 ) It confers grace and fo rgives sin; (2 ) It,c o m forts the sick, and (3 ) It conditionally, restores health,to.,thebady.
1. T h e F ir s t an d P r in c ip a l E ffe c t o f E x H e a lin g a n d S tr e n g th e n

tre m e U n c tio n : in g t h e S o u l.

A ccordin g to the Decretum pro Arm enis E xtrem e U nction heals the mind/ T his effect must have reference to the impending death struggle, for the Sacram ent w as instituted for the dying.

a) H ow is this effect produced in the soul? E xtrem e Unction, be it remembered, belongs to the Sacraments of the living and therefore presupposes sanctifying grace. Hence, when the Tridentine Council says that this Sacra ment confers grace, it must mean an increase o f sancti fyin g grace and a claim to all those actual graces that flow from the nature o f the Sacrament. N ow it belongs to the nature o f the Sacram ent that it ( O alleviates or com forts the sick and (2) strengthens the soul. These tw o effects Calleviatlo confirm atio), according to the in d en tm e definition, are produced simultaneously, s i n c e j h e l^ b i i T ment ""excites a great confidence n f T fijQ Iiyin c-in crcy, w hicK""in turn supports' - t h e r e c i p i ent and enables. him to bear more e^ily~theHrf{^nvcniences and pains oThis sickness "and to J resisTm ore readily t h e jc m ^ i-

tfonroiltlieTclevil^r'*
The reality o f the first-mentioned effect can be shown
3 C o n e. T r id ., S e ss . X I V , D e E x tr . U n c t., cap . 2.

26

EXTREME UNCTION

from the scriptural use o f the terms salvare (<twv) and alleviare (ydpav). These words designate absolute effects o f the Sacrament, and hence cannot have reference to the body alone, because the Sacraments are intended prim arily fo r the soul. In so fa r as it strengthens the soul fo r the final conflict. .Extrem e, U nctionJs_related to_ Confirmation, which enables the recipient to sustain tjje battle o f life^__ In so fa r as it alleviates, i. e. com forts the sick, it has a special relation to Penance. Both these fea tures constitute E xtrem e Unction a consecratory as well as a medicinal rite. Th e fact that it cannot readily be repeated seems to indicate that this Sacram ent imprints a sort o f character (qaasi-character) . b) Father Joseph K ern, S. J., in a remarkable treatise D e Sacramento Extrem ae Unctionis, published at Inns bruck in 1907,4 insists that the proper object of E xtrem e Unction is the perfect healing o f the soul ( perfecta sanitas animae) with a view to its immediate entry into glory, unless indeed it should happen that the restoration of bodily health were more expedient. H e holds that this view m ay be traced to the Fathers, that it is expressed in the ancient rituals, clearly propounded by Bl. Albertus M agnus, St. Bonaventure, St. Thom as, Durandus, Inno cent V , and practically all pre-Tridentine theologians up to Ruardus Tapper.5 T his teaching, says the learned Innsbruck Jesuit, far from being opposed to, is in full conform ity with, that o f Trent. It was only under the influence o f the Protestant Reform ation that it began to wane. The denial o f purgatory with its corollary that the souls o f the just enter immediately into glory, led
4 Pages 8 1-114 . F o r an e x te n d e d r e v ie w , w ith a sy n o p sis, o f th is h ook see th e I r is h T h e o lo g ic a l Q u a rte r ly , V o l. I I ( 1 9 0 7 ) , N o . 7, p p . 3 30 -3 45. & B o r n 1488, d ie d 1559. T a p p e r w a s o n e o f th e m o st e m in e n t th e o lo g ia n s w h o to o k p a rt in th e C o u n c il o f T r e n t . S e e B u c h b e r g e r , K ir c h iic h c s lla n d le x i k o n , s. v.

SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS

27

to an attenuation o f the traditional teaching on the part o f Catholic theologians. T h is tendency is particularly noticeable in the writings o f Suarez. Jansenism with its rigoristic notions and its exaggerated view s o f di vine justice and vengeance, did not improve the situation. A s the older view gradually fell into desuetude, theolo gians forgot that Extrem e Unction remits temporal pun ishments and preserves the soul from purgatory, which, according to the ancient Fathers, really was its main o b je c t; lit anima eius deque pura sit post obitum ac infantis, qui stathn post baptisma moritur, as the socalled Penitential o f St. Egbert o f Y o r k has it.G T o gain all the fruits o f E xtrem e Unction, the recipient m ust be rightly disposed. I f he is rightly disposed, it follows from F ather K ern s argument that the remission o f all temporal punishments still due to his sins must be one, indeed the principal, effect o f the Sacrament. O f course this full effect is gained only by those who receive the sacred unction with due preparation and great devotion at a time when they are still able to cooperate with the sac ramental grace. T h e objections raised against his view are effectively refuted by Father K ern .7 M ost important among them are these fo u r: (1) I f Extrem e U nction had for its main object the remission o f temporal punishments, the M ass, prayer, and indulgences for the dead would lose their value and impor tance. Anszuer: N o one ever knows fo r certain whether a de parted person has observed all the conditions necessary for gaining the full sacramental effect of Extrem e U nc tion, and therefore it will still remain a duty o f Christian
d P o e n i t . E g b ., I , c. P . L L X X X I X , 4 16 ). 15 ( M ig n e , 7 D e S a cra m . E x tr . U n c t., pp. 190 sqq.

28

EXTREME UNCTION

charity to offer up Masses, prayers, and indulgences for the departed. (2) The plenary indulgence granted by the Church to the dying would be useless. Answer: T hat the dying man gains this indulgence may be a secondary effect o f Extrem e Unction. (3) E xtrem e Unction would be on a level with m artyr dom. Answ er: B y no means. It is the peculiar privilege of a m artyr to go straight to Heaven, provided he has im perfect contrition for his sins, no matter how defective his disposition m ay otherwise be.8 T his privilege is not claimed for Extrem e Unction. (4 ) Extrem e Unction, in Father K ern s hypothesis, is not sufficiently differentiated either in character or purpose from Baptism. Answ er: E xtrem e Unction, in order to obtain its com plete effect, requires more o f the recipient than Baptism, namely, faith fu l cooperation with the grace o f the Sacra ment. The two Sacraments differ essentially in the fo l lowing points: (a ) That Extrem e Unction demands more of the re cipient than Baptism, follows from the fact that (b) Baptism is ( a ) the Sacram ent o f spiritual regeneration; (/?) the m ystic representation o f the death, burial, and resurrection o f Christ ; and ( y ) the efficient cause o f our incorporation with the mystical body of Christ ; whereas Extrem e Unction is none o f these things. It is consoling to have a truth so long forgotten re stored to its proper place in dogmatic and moral theology.
8 H cn cc th e a n c ic n t e c c le sia stic a l m a x im : " I n iu n a m oral pro m a rty r e .'' fa c it m artyri, q u i

SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS

29

Father K ern s thesis is apt to arouse interest and sharpen the sense o f duty in the clergy as well as the faithful, thereby leading to a more frequent and devout reception o f the Sacram ent o f the dying. A t the same time it is calculated to increase the confidence o f the living in the fate o f their brethren who have departed this life fortified by a Sacrament which, if properly received, w ill spare them the sufferings o f purgatory. Since, however, the counsels o f D ivine Providence are inscrutable and the w ays o f men obscure and tortuous, we must never cease to pray fo r the poor souls.

2. t io n :

T h e S econd E f f e c t o f E x tre m e U n c C u re o f th e S p ir itu a l D e b ility

C a u s e d b y S in , a n d R e m is s io n o f S in s , V e n i a l a s W e l l a s M o r t a l . St. Janies exp ressly teach es: I f he fth e sick n ja rfw h o is anoin ted w ith the^ ac^ cl_ unction] be in sins, th ey shall be fo rg iv e n him . 9 T h e T r i 3e n n n ^ C o u n a r s a y s : ^ 'E x tr e m e U n ctio n ] blots out sins, i f there be an y still to be expiated, as also the rem ains o f sins. 10 T h e question a r ises: W h a t sins does E x tre m e U n ctio n blot out venial sins, m ortal s in iT o rm e r e ly the d e b ilityjin d depression caused by the consciousncss_of_haying. sinned ? T h e o lo g ian s a r e jio t unanim ousjpjaJhjs^subject. A dis tinction m ust be d raw n betw een the rem ains o f sin ( reliquia peccati ) and sins ( peccata ). are rem itted by the Sacram en t. B oth

0 " E t s i in p ec ca tis sit, rem itp ia n do , ac p e c c a ti r e liq u ia s absterte n tu r c i (J a c . V , 1 5 ) . s it." (S e s s . X I V , D e E x tr . U n c t., 10 " D e lie ta , s i quae s in t adirne e x cap . 2 ).

30

EXTREME UNCTION

a) T h at E xtrem e Unction cures the soul and strengthens it against the debility caused by sin, it is this debility which the Tridentine Council calls the remains o f sin, is the unanimous teaching o f all theologians.
Another advantage j>f the sacred_unctiqn/ says the Roman Catechism ,11 is that it frees_the soul from the languor and infirmity which it has contracted from sins, and from all the other remains o f sin. Sin, especially if it has grown to be a habit, leaves in the soul a certain debility or moral weakness, which makes the last battle with the powers of darkness more difficult. T his weakness the Tridentine Council means by the re mains o f sin, as can easily be shown by exclusion. T h e remains o f sin mentioned by the Council may mean one, or more, or all o f the fo llo w in g : ( 1 ) Th e eternal punishment o f sin. But this cannot properly be called a relic o f sin because it stands and falls with sin and is not forgiven unless the guilt has first been blotted out. (2) The temporal punishments due to_sin. These are a real remnant o f sins forgiven, and are cancelled by E x treme Unction according to the disposition o f the recipi ent, ex opere operato} 2 H owever, this is not the primary object for which Extrem e Unction was instituted, but rather appertains to indulgences and works of satisfaction, and hence we are dealing with a merely secondary effect o f the Sacrament, though if the recipient is properly disposed, this effect is infallible.
11 C at. R o m ., D e E x tr . U n c t., q u. 14: " A l t e r a est sacrae u n c tia n is uti/itas, q u o d anim am a la ttg uore e t in firm ita te, quant ex p ecca tis can tr a x it, ct a c e tc r is o m n ib u s p cc c a ti 12 C f r . r c liq u iis lib c r a t. S t. T h o m a s, S u m m a cantra G e n tile s, I V , 73.

SACRAM EN TAL EFFECTS

3i

(3 ) Concupiscence. Concupiscence is a relic not of ac tual but of original sin, and hence can no more be removed by E xtrem e Unction than by Baptism. (4 ) Form er m ortal sins omitted in confession, or new ones committed since the last confession. M ortal sinsTunconsciously omitted in confession are forgiven together with those actually confessed. Freshly committed mortal sins belong before the tribunal o f Penance. O f course, this proves no more than that the remission o f mortal sins is not a prim ary and proper effect o f E xtrem e U nc tion.

b) Does E xtrem e U nction remit mortal sins, or only venial sins?

T h ere can be no doubt that St. James has reference to personal or actual sins when he says that sins are fo r given in E xtrem e Unction. It is not so clear whether he means venial sins, or m ortal sins, or both. T h e Scotists limit the efficacy o f E xtrem e U nction to venial sins. E x treme Unction, they say, is essentially a Sacrament of the living, and mortal sins committed after Baptism can be forgiven only in the tribunal o f Penance. W hile this in terpretation is not directly opposed to the Tridentine de cree, it leaves open the question whether the Council did not also have in mind mortal sins. The general term peccata or dclicta seems to indicate that it did. A careful study of St. James Epistle renders this interpretation certain. M ere sins o f weakness are to the Apostle a matter of course. In speaking o f them he says, F or in many things we all offend. 13 In speaking of the Sacrament of Extrem e Unction, however, he employs the hypothetical
13 J a s. I ll, 2: "In m u llis en im o ffe n d im u s o m n e s.

32

EXTREME UNCTION

p h rase: I f he [the sick man] be in sins, thereby evi dently meaning mortal sins. Bellarmine, Tournely, Sainte-Beuve, Tepe, Kern, and other theologians probably go too far when they assert that Extrem e Unction is in tended per se and directly for the remission of mortal sins, even though only ex secundaria institntione. I f this were true, Extrem e Unction would not be a Sacrament of the living, but a Sacrament of the d ead ; Penance could not in justice be termed a second plank a fter shipwreck, 14 and the power of the keys could be dispensed with. W e can imagine only one case in which Extrem e Unction could forgive mortal sins without trenching on the Sacra ment o f Penance, namely, if a dying man were unable to confess his sins and had at least im perfect contrition. In that case Extrem e Unction, as a sacramental rite, would remit his sins e x opere operato, though only per accidens. Th e necessitas m edii o f Penance is safeguarded by the con dition that if the patient recovers, he must submit himself to the power of the keys, i. e. go to confession and ask for the priestly absolution. W ith this limitation we may sub scribe to O sw ald s dictum : E xtrem e Unction not only completes the Sacrament of Penance, but in certain cases takes its place. 15

3.

h ir d

( C o n d it io n a l )

E f f e c t :__T h e

R e s t o r a t io n o f B o d il y H e a l t h . T he restora.tion o f bodily health is a secondary and puxely conditional effect o f E x tre m e U nction. T h e con dition upon w hich it depends is expressed thus by the Dccretum pro Arm cnis and the Council o f
14 C f r . C o n e. T r id ., D e P o c n it., c a n . 2. m D ie L ehre vo n d en S c ss . X IV , tu c n tc n , I I , 28 2; c f r . K e r n , D e S a cram . E x tr . U n c t., pp. 169 sqq.

h i. S a k r a -

SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS

33

T r e n t: W hen it is expedient for the souls sal vation,^.16

Does the Sacrament alw ays restore health when it is e x pedient for salvation ? Sanitatem corporis interdum, itbi saluti animae expedient, consequitur, says the T riden tine Council. H ow are we to interpret interdum ? St. Thom as holds that the patient will surely recover after receiving E xtrem e U nction if his recovery will redound to his spiritual benefit.17 D r. O sw ald goes so fa r as to assert that the Sacrament o f the dying has a charismatic effect sim ilar to that produced by the gratia curationum. H ow ever, it is more reasonable to assume that the restoration o f bodily health, if it lies in G ods p l a n t s effected by the powers o f nature, stimulated snpernaturally by the Sacrament. W e preter t lie~~explanation given by the older Scholastics and approveH~T5y~" the Council o f Trent, viz .ijthat the Sacrament of Extrem e Unction, b y relieving an xiety, banisHmg'Tear7^i?ing^ccJnTr fo rt, and inspiring confidence in G o clV lTi'ercy-and'humble resignation to H is will, reacts favorably- orTthe physical condition oT T h e'p atien tT T f tliis explanation is correct, th e- sacramental effect ifi question can be expected only when the priest is called in time and the body not too badly ravaged by disease.18 Th e reality o f this effect is proved by theologians from the words o f St. Jam es: A n d the prayer o f faith shall save (ffwo-ei) the sick m an: and the L ord shall raise him up (eyepei). Though, as we have seen,10 these expresi c " U b i sa lu ti an im ae e x p e d ie n t . " (D e n z in g e r -B a n n w a r t, n . 90 9 ). 17 C f r . th e S u p p le m e n t to th e S u m m a T h e o lo g ic a , w h ic h , w h ile it w a s n o t w r itte n b y th e A n g c lic D o c to r h im s e lf, but p re s u m a b ly by h is f a v o r it e d is c ip le R e g in a ld o f P ip e rn o , u n d o u b te d ly re fle c ts h is opinio n s. 18 C fr . K e r n , D e S a cra m . E x tr . U n c t., pp. 205 sq q ., 19 4 -20 5. 10 V . su p ra , N o . 1.

34

EXTREME UNCTION

sions refer prim arily to the soul, it is the constant belief o f Tradition that they also include the body. The A postle employs positive rather than hypothetic terms, because he regards the supposition that the recovery of bodily health must redound to the patients spiritual benefit as a matter o f course, and, secondly, because the spiritual saving and raising up o f the sinner are absolute effects which, by reacting upon the body, m ay restore bod ily health.2 0
20 C fr . J. S c h m itz , D e E ffe c tib u s S a c ra m e n ti E x tr e m a e XJnctionis, F r e i b u r g 18 93; K e r n , D e S a cra m . E x tr . U n c t., pp. 19 4 -2 1 5 .

C H A P T E R II
N E C E S S IT Y OF E X T R E M E U N C T IO N

A Sacram ent is necessary fo r salvation either as a means ( necessitate m edii) or by w a y o f precept ( necessitate praecepti).
1. E x t r e m e U n c t io n is N o t N e c e s s a r y a s a M e a n s o f S a l v a t i o n . T his is evident fro m the fa c t that the S acram en ts o f the liv in g presuppose the state o f s a n c tify in g g race, and the g ra ces be stow ed by E x tre m e U n ctio n can, in case o f neces sity, be supplied by e x tra o rd in a ry h elps.1
It follow s that one who is dangerously sick is not obliged to have a desire for Extrem e Unction ( votum sac ramenti) if he cannot actually receive it. H ow ever, if his conscience is burdened with mortal sin, for which he has only im perfect contrition, and he finds him self unable to go to confession, Extrem e Unction m ay be for him the only, and therefore a necessary, means o f salvation.

E x t r e m e U n c t io n is N e c e s s a r y b y W a y o f P r e c e p t . T heologians are not a greed as to w h eth er or not a person w h o is

h eth er

2. W

1C f r .

Codex

J u r is

C a n .,

can .

944.

35

36

EXTREME UNCTION

seriously ill is per se under a grave obligation o f seeking this Sacrament. a) St. Thomas, Suarez, Gotti, Billuart, and the m ajority o f modern authors hold that no such obligation exists. B illu a r t2 points out that the phrases inducat presbyteros and ungi debent in the Epistle o f St. James have been interpreted by various synods as embodying merely a counsel, not a command. T he Council o f T ren t speaks of E xtrem e Unction as a c sacr amentum iidelibus < commendatwn which it would be a crime to con temn. N ow mere neglect or refusal to receive a Sacrament is not contempt. B illuart adds that if E xtrem e Unction were absolutely necessary for salvation, the Church could not suspend the ad ministration o f this Sacrament, as she sometimes does during an interdict, because a divine law is alw ays binding. b) Peter Lombard, St. Bonaventure, Peter Soto, and Tournely, on the other hand, interpret the inducat presbyteros o f the Jacobean Epistle as a divine command and the ungi debent as an ecclesiastical preccpt.
B illuarts appeal to the Tridentine Council is not con vincing, for that Council interprets the words o f St. James as follow s: T his unction must be applied to the sick, 3 and rejects the assertion that Extrem e Unction
2 D e E x tr . U n c t., a rt. 7. 3 . . c ss c h a n c u n c tio n c m iitfirm is a d h ib 01 d a m ." (S css. X IV , cap . 3 ; D e n z in g e r -B a n n w a r t, n . 9 1 0 ).

NECESSITY

37

is a human figment or a rite received from the Fathers, which neither has a command from God, nor a promise o f grace. 4 M oreover, thoughtless neglect or obstinate re fusal to receive the Sacram ent undoubtedly verges on that contempt o f which the Council says that it involves a heinous crime and an injury to the H oly Ghost H im self. 5 T h e new Code o f Canon L aw says (can. 944) that no one is permitted to neglect Extrem e U nction and that those who have charge o f the sick (physicians, nurses, relatives, etc.) should exercise great care and diligence, in order that this Sacram ent is administered while the pa tient still has command o f his reason. Christ would not have instituted a special Sacram ent for the dying if it were m erely useful. Extrem e U nction is necessary. O nly on this assumption is there any force in the well-known argu ment that congruity demands a Sacrament o f the nature o f E xtrem e Unction in the septenary number o f the Sac raments. Justly, therefore, does D r. Schell observe: The necessity and obligation o f Extrem e Unction is o f divine right and follow s from the simple fact that this S ac rament was instituted by Christ. . . . In sickness and danger o f death the duty o f properly providing for body and soul is self-evident; there is no need o f an express law . 0
4 " H a n c u n c tio n e m v e l H gm cn tu m e ss e h u m a n u m v e l r itu m a P a tr ib u s a ccep tu m n e c n iand attim D e i n e c p ro m issio n em g r a tia e h a b en te m (/. c .) . 5 " N e c v e ro ta n ti sa cr a m e n ti con te m p tu s a bsqu e in g e n ti s c e le r e et ip s in s S p ir it u s S a n c t i in iu ria e ss e p o t e s t " (/. c . ) . C f r . S e ss . X I V , can . 3 ; D e n z in g e r -B a n n w a r t , n. 928. 0 K a th . D o g m a tik , I I I , 2, 636 sq. K e r n c o n te n d s th a t th o s e w h o a rc s ic k u n to d e a th a re o b lig e d su b g ra vi to r c c c iv e E x tr e m e U n c tio n . ( D e S a cra m . E x t r . U n c t., pp. 364 *q q .)

C H A P T E R III
T H E M IN IS T E R

T he Sacram ent o f Extrem e U nction can be validly administered only by presbvtersT^TT e. bishops and priests. T his is an article o f faith, fo r the Tridentine C ouncil says: T he proper ministers o f this Sacrament are the, presbyters ^ f the C h u rch ; by which name are to be understood in that place [James V , 15] not the elders by age, 01* the forem ost in dignity am ong the people, but either bishops, or priests rightly ordained by bishops. . . 1 A nd again: I f anyone saith that the presbyters o f the Church, whom Blessed James exhorts to be brought to anoint the sick, are not the priests who have been ordained by a bishop, but the elders in each community, and that fo r this reason the priest alone is not the proper minister o f E xtrem e Unction, let him be anath ema. 2
1 S css . X I V , D e E x tr . U n c t., cap . 3 : " . . . o u t e f'isco /'i aut sa c e r d o lc s ab ip sis r ite o r d in a ti. 2 S c ss . X I V , D e E x tr . U n c t., c a n . 4: " S i q u is d ix e r it, p re sb y tc r o s E c c lc s ia e , q u o s b ea tu s Ia c o b u s add u ce n d o s esse ad in firm um in u n g e n d u m h o rta tu r, tion e ss e saccrd o te s ab ep isco p o o r d in a tos, se d a e ta te s e n io r e s in q u a r ts com m u n ita tc, ob id q u c p ro p riu m e x tr e m a c u n c tio n is m in istru m n on e sse so lu m sa ce rd o tem , an ath em a s it . (D e n z in g c r -B a n n w a r t, n. 9 2 9 ).

38

THE MINISTER

39

It is not difficult to prove this dogma from Sacred Scripture and Tradition. 1. P roof fr o m S a c r e d S c r ip t u r e . St. James says by implication that the presbyteri Ecclesiae (irpcafSvTepoL tip iKKkrjaias) alone can administer the Sacram ent o f E xtrem e Unction.
I f the sacred unction were nothing but a natural or charismatic cure o f the body, there is no reason w hy it should be administered by priests. T h e natural min isters in that case would be physicians, or deacons, or lay persons endowed with the gratia curationum. Th e Protestant contention that St. James meant the elders o f each community was rejected by the Tridentine Coun cil, which defines that Trpeo-fivTepoi. Trjs KKfojma'i means mem bers of the sacerdotal college, men ordained by the bishop and empowered to administer the Sacrament o f Penance, o f which E xtrem e Unction is the complement.

2. P roof fr o m T r a d it io n . T h e Sacram ent o f E xtrem e Unction has never been administered in the Church by any other persons than validly ordained priests. O rigen and St. Chrysostom re garded its administration as a sacerdotal privi lege. Pope Innocent I (40 2-417) says in his fam ous letter to Bishop Decentius o f Eugubium , already quoted by us on a previous page: W e notice the superfluous addition o f a doubt whether a bishop m ay do what is said to priests, fo r the reason that bishops, hindered by other occupa tions, cannot go to all the sick. But if the bishop

40

EXTREME UNCTION

is able to do so, or thinks anyone specially w orthy o f being visited, he, whose office it is to consecrate the chrism, need not hesitate to bless and anoint the sick person. 3 Church history furnishes no instance o f the administration o f Extrem e U n c tion by deacons or laymen.
B ut what does Pope Innocent mean when in the same letter he s a y s : The holy oil o f chrism . it-is-permitted not only to priests but to all C h ristians to use for anointing in their own need or that o f .th e it-fa m iliesZ ?4 T h is passage led the famous Carmelite Thom as N et ter, of W alden (-f- 1430), Launoy,5 and latterly Boudinhon,Gto assume that at the.tim e.of P op ejn n o cen t the F irst lay persons of either se x were permitted to_ administer^ Extrem e Unction to themselves and their f amilies in case o f necessity:" But "to" interpret the Popes letter thus is to make him contradict himself. B y vindicating the right o f adm inistering this Sacrament to bishops as well as simple priests, the Pontiff m anifestly meant to exclude deacons, and, a fortiori, laymen. W hat, then, is the meaning o f his rather obscure .dictum? Th e words o f the Pontiff may be interpreted in three different ways. The first and simplest explanation is that the anointment administered by laymen was not a Sacrament but merely a sacramental. This explanation gains weight from the fact that at the time o f Pope Innocent I, consecrated ele ments, like baptismal w ater and chrism, were often enis E p ., 25, c. 8 (D e n z in g e r -B a n n w art, n. 9 9 ). ( L a tin t e x t q u o te d su pra, p. 13, n o te 2 2 ). 4 . . . non so lu m sa e e r d o tib u s, s e d o m n ib u s u ti C h r istia n is lic e t in sua a n t su o r u m n e c e ssita te in u n g e n d o [a/, u n g e n d u m ]. G O p era O m n ia , V o l. I , pp. 569 sqq. 0 R e v u e C a th o liq u e 1905, p. 400. des , E g lis e s ,

T H E M IN IS T E R

4i

ployed fo r other than sacramental purposes, e. g. the res toration o f health.7 Another interpretation (Bellarm ine, E stius) is that the Pontiff employs the gerund inun gendo passively, thereby indicating that all Christians may use the holy chrism to have themselves and their fam ilies anointed in their need. A third explanation is suggested by D r. S c h e ll: The Popes decision is prob ably to be understood as applying to a sort o f unction by desire in case o f necessity (an analogue o f lay confession), showing the patients good w ill to do w hat is in his power. 8 L au noys 9 distinction between the ordinary and the extraordinary minister of Extrem e U nction has no basis in Tradition. Clericatus 10 asserts that in case o f urgent necessity a priest may administer E xtrem e Unction to him self. This view is untenable because priests are not exempt from the general rule that no one can administer a Sacrament to himself.

3. I n c id e n t a l T h e o l o g ic a l P r o b l e m s . E x treme Unction may be validly administered by one priest 0 by several priests. 1* a) One priest is sufficient fo r the validity o f tlieJSacram ent. T his clearly appears from tlfe constant teaching and practice o f the Latin Church. T he Decretum Grcitiani expressly_declares that one priest m ay anoint a sick person.11
It is true that St. James speaks o f presbyteri in the plural. But this does not mean that several priests are
7 C f r . P e r r o n e , D e E x tr . U n c t., n . 4 1. 8 K a th . D o g m a tik , I I I , 2, 623. 0 O p era O m n ia , V o l. I , pp. 569 eqq. 10 D e c is . d e E x tr . U n c t., 11. 75. 1 1 D e e r . G ra t., 1. V , tit. 40, c. 14 : " S a c e r d o s u n o p ra e se n te e le r ieo et etia m so lu s p o te st inftrm um u n g e r c ."

42

EXTREME UNCTION

required to administer the Sacrament. It is simply a pop u lar and fam iliar w ay o f sa y in g : L et the sick call fo r priestly ministrations, just as one might say: Let him call in the doctors, meaning, Let him procure med ical aid. In other words, the plural stands by a figure o f speech (enallage) for the singular, as in Luke X V II , 14 : Go, show yourselves to the priests. Doubtless St. James did not wish to exclude the participation of a number o f priests where they were available. This may have been the case in Jerusalem, Antioch, or Corinth ; but there were many places where only one bishop or presbyter could be summoned. Surely in such places the faithful were not to be deprived of this important and necessary Sacrament. In the O rth od ox!!. ( schismatic) -C h urch , o f the East it has been custom ary for seven priests to_t.ake part in the administration of~the Sacrament. O w ing partly to the difficulty of obtaining the simultaneous pres ence of so many priests, and partly perhaps to a misunder standing o f the rite, the Nestorians abolished E xtrem e Unction altogether and substituted in its place a new rite ( cornu gratiae sancti), which is perform ed by a single priest with oil m ixed with dust from the grave of St. Thom as the Apostle. b) T h e Oriental custom of the administration of E x treme Unction by seven (or sometimes three) priests,12 to which we have just referred, seems at one time to have been known also in the W est.13 Some schismatic theolo gians 14 hold that one priest cannot administer the Sac rament validly.15 W e on our part have rather to con sider the question whether and under what conditions
12 V .

G o a r, E u c h o l., p. 438.

i g C fr .

C.

R h a llis ,

I le p i

tu v

13 C f r . M a r tc n e , D c A n tiq . E c c le s ia c R itib u s , I , 7, 3. 14 E . g ., S im e o n o f T h c s s a lo n ic a .

nvGrripLwv r ijs n e r a v o la s x a l r o v e v x & a l c v , p. 11 4 , A th e n s 1905.

THE MINISTER

43

Extrem e Unction can be validly administered by a number o f priests conjointly. There are three possibilities to be considered. n/ ( i ) I f one o f the priests perform s the unctions while another pronounces the prayer, the rite is invalid, because m atter and form o f a Sacram ent constitute an indivisible whole.16 (2 ) I f the Sacrament is administered by several priests, each in turn perform ing the complete rite, both matter and form, in regard to one or more o f the several senses, the ceremony is probably valid, because in that case the par tial acts coalesce into one whole, as when one priest consecrates the bread and another the wine during the same M ass.17 (3 ) I f the whole rite is perform ed by several priests either simultaneously or successively, provided the unc tions are properly perform ed and the prayers simultane ously recited by all, all cooperate in adm inistering the Sac rament, just as at ordination all the priests ordained celebrate the same M ass with the bishop. I f the whole series o f unctions is perform ed by several priests suc cessively, it is likely that the first alone administers the Sacrament, while the others m erely confer a sacra mental.18
i c C fr . S u a r e z , C o m m e n t, in S . T h ., I l l , d isp . 43, s e c t. 2, n. 3. 17 C fr . th e S u p p le m e n t to th e S um tn a T h e o lo g ica o f S t. T h o m a s , q u . 29, art. 2, ad 3. 18 O n th e m in is te r o f th e S a c ra m e n t o f E x t r e m e U n c tio n th e stud e n t m a y p ro fita b ly c o n s u lt C h r. P e s c h , P r a e le c t. D o g m a t., V o l. V I I , 3 rd ed ., pp. 279 s q q .; K e r n , D e S a cra m . E x t r . U n c t., pp. 263 sqq.

C H A P T E R IV
THE R E C IP IE N T

T h e conditions o f valid adm inistration of _Extreme Unction on the part o f the recipienjt_are th re e : ( i ) H e must be baptized; (2) he must be sick o f a disease which is judged dangerous, and , (3) he must be morally responsible. 1. T h e R e c i p i e n t M u s t b e B a p t i z e d . B ap tism is the spiritual.door to all the Sacraments. H ence no unbaptized person, how pious soever or how well prepared, can validly receive E x treme U nction.-^This has been the invariable teaching and practice o f the Catholic Church, based on St. James Epistle: Is any man sick amonq you (& vfuv i. e. you who are baptized C h ristian s). 1
T h e R e c i p i e n t M u s t b e S i c k of a D i s e a s e W h i c h is J udged D a n g e r o u s . T he D ecretum pro Arm enis defines: T h is S acram en t must not be given except to one who is sick and ju d g ed likely to die. 2 Substantially identical w ith this declaration is that o f the Tridentine
2.
n is i infirm o, d c c u iu s m ortc tim c tu r , dari

1 Iae. V , 14. 2 " H oc sa era m cn tu m

non

d c b c t ."

(D en zin ger-B an n w art,

11. 700).

THE RECIPIENT

45

Council, that T his unction is to be a pplied to the sick, but to those especially who are in such dan ger as to seem to be about to depart t liis lif e 7 3 ,~~^ T his teaching is also based on tlie'Epistle~of~St. James. W hen the Apostle says: I f any man is sick 4 am ong you, he plainly means so sick that he can no longer betake him self to a priest.
a) In the Latin C hurch E xtrem e U nction has alw ays been known as th e .S a c ram en t_p.l the departing ( sacra m entum e x e u n tiu m ). This explains how some Catholics got the mistaken notion^thaf once a man had this 'Sacra^ merit TdmimsterTdTo~himselfrHis^account witHThe world was closed a b d ie f w hich at times resulted in much de lay ancTnegligence. In the M iddle A g e s/ says O swald, the reception of Extreme* U nction was often regarded as a complete break with the world, a form al exit from the various relations o f denizens o f this terrestrial globe. One who had been anointed in a dangerous illness and happened to recover, was treated as if he had come back from the other world. H e was not allowed to continue his conjugal relations nor to take an oath; in fact he was held to all practical intents and purposes to be dead. c In the Greek Church the faith fu l are regularly anointed with holy oil on M aundy T hursday as a preventive o f dis ease. P rovost M altzew writes on this su b ject: Though the sacerdotal O rdo prescribes that a priest should not ad minister this Sacrament to subjects who are in good
3: 8 Sesa. X I V , D e E x tr . U n c t., cap. " . . . e ss e h a n c u n c tio n e m inv id e a n tu r .

(D en zin ger-B an n w art,

n. 910 ).
4 In firm a ri, dcrOtfveiv. ts D ie hi. S a k r a m e n te K ir c h e , I I , 296. der hath.

firm is a d h ib en d a m , Hits v c r o praese r tim , q iti in e x itu vita e c o n s titu ti

46

EXTREME UNCTION

health, it is an ancient custom in the Greek as well as in the Russian Church (at M oscow and N ow gorod) that the bishop applies the holy oil once a year, on H oly T h u rs day, to the healthy. 6 T he Greek theologian A rcudius inveighs against this custom as an abuse bred by ignorance and greed. Goar seeks to ju s tify it by saying that the anointment admin istered in H oly W eek is not regarded as a Sacrament, but merely as a ceremony or sacramental. A ccording to Sainte-Beuve 7 the example of the Greek Church proves that E xtrem e Unction can be validly ad ministered to persons in good health. T h is assertion drew a sharp criticism from Benedict X I V .8 Rhallis 9 and M esolaras 10 have shown that the sacramental anoint ment o f persons not ill with any disease is widely prac ticed in the kingdom o f Greece and the Patriarchate of Constantinople, whereas the Russian Church officially teaches that Extrem e Unction can be validly administered only to those who are seriously sick. The Catholic Church holds that no one who _ not is seriously ill can receivc Extrem e Unction, even though he be in danger o f death from external causes, as a soldier going into battle or a condemned criminal ascendm g'tlie scaffold. ^ I f a man is dangerously ill, however, it makes no difference, so far as the Sacrament is concerned, whether his sickness arises from an internal disease or. an external lesion. Senile decay q u alifiesjor Extrem e U n c tion when it has advanced so far that death seems prob able { scn ectus est m o r b u s ) . C alvins jibe that the
o A . M altzew , D ie d e r orth o d o x-k a th . K ir c h e g c n la n d c s , p. 549, B erlin 7 D e E x tr . U n c i., disp.
S a h ra m e n te d es M or4.

8 D e S y n o d o D io c c e sa n a , V I I , 5, 42,

1898. 7, art. 1.

0 Rhallis, o f . cit. (see page su pra , 11. 15), p. 115. in E n c h ir id io n , pp. 218 sq.

THE RECIPIENT

47

Catholic Church anoints semi-putrid corpses (cadavera

sem i-m o rtn a ), is meaningless, for it is the danger of

death ( perictdum m o rtis ), and not the death struggle ( articidus m o rtis), which the Church regards as m arking the proper time for the administration o f the Sacrament. W e advisedly say, the C hurch; because unfortunately it can not be denied that, beginning with the tw elfth and thirteenth centuries, sacerdotal greed often caused the faithful, especially o f the poorer class, to forego E xtrem e Unction altogether or to postpone it until it was too late.11 Repeated protests on the part o f bishops and councils failed to uproot this deplorable abuse,12 which was fu r thered by the erroneous teaching of the Scotists that led people to conclude that Extrem e Unction should be post poned until the patient was no longer able to commit even a venial sin. O ur schismatic critics are justified in cen suring this grievous abuse ; but it would be unjust to blame the Church fo r it. The Tridentine Council is in accord with Tradition when it says that E xtrem e Unction is to be applied to the sick, especially to those who are in such danger as to seem to be about to depart this life . 13

b) It is forbidden to receive E xtrem e U n ction more than once in the course o f the same sickness. T his brings us to_the question o f the rcpctitioiTof the Sacrament.
Th e Tridentine Council says:
11 V . P elliccia, D e C h r ist. E c c le siae P o litia , 1. V I , scct. 2, c. 3, 1. i2 C f r . K ern , D e S a cra m . E x t r . U n c t., pp. 282 sqq. 13 C fr. C at. R o m ., P . II, c. 6, 9. T h e anointm ent o f the dead mentioned in the w ritings of the PseudoD ion ysius ( D c E c c lc s . H ie r ., V I I ,

I f the sick ,reco ve r

2 ), and which form ed the subject o f a discussion between the Latin s and the G reeks at the Council o f Florencc ( A . D . 1439), was not the Sacram ent o f E xtrem e U nction , but a mere cerem ony. C fr. the T h e o l. Q u a r ta ls c h r ift, o f T bin gen , 1904, p. 382.

48

EXTREME UNCTION

after receiving this unction, they m ay again be..aided_by the succor o f this Sacrament, when they fall into_another like danger of death. 14 Hence, though E xtrem e U nc tion is not, as regards repetition, in the same class with Baptism, Confirmation, and H oly Orders, it differs essen tially from Penance and H oly Communion, which can be received often. O nly in M atrim ony do we find some thing o f the same quasi-character, as neither party to~a m arriage can again receive this Sacrament validly while the other lives. ~ T here was an ancient Latin custom, also found among the Copts, o f adm inistering E xtrem e Unction on seven successive days, or repeating it seven times by as many different priests. Theologians do not know what to think of this. F r. Schmid 15 and G u tb erlet10 hold that the seven unctions coalesced into one sacramcnt. T h e Scotists maintain that, when Extrem e Unction is administered ac cording to the present Roman rite, there are seven differ ent partial Sacraments. Father K ern on the other hand maintains 17 that each separate rite is fully sacramental and concludes from the fact that this practice is still in vogue in the O rient that, speculatively speaking at least, Extrem e Unction may be repeated during the same sick ness. H ow ever, this view is difficult to reconcile with the teaching o f Trent.

3.

he

R e c ip ie n t M ust

be

M orally R e

A s one o f the effects o f Extrem e Unction is the cure of the spiritual debility caused
s p o n s i b l e .
14 Scss. X I V , D e E x tr . U n c t., cap. 3: " Q u o d s i in firm i p ost su sccptam h a ve u n ctio n e m c o n v a lu e rin t, ite r u in h u iu s sa cr a m c n ti su b sid io iu v a r i p o tc r u v t, 171mm in a liu d s im ile v ita e d iscr im en in c id c r in t."

IB Z e its c lir ift f iir hath. T h e o lo g ie , Innsbruck, 1901, p. 261.

10 H ein rich s D o g m a tis ch c T h e o lo g ie , V ol. X , p. 231. 17 D e S a cra m . E x tr . U n c t., pp.

342 sqq.

THE RECIPIENT

49

by sin,18 those_only who are m orally accountable and capable_of committing sin (either mortal or v e n ia l), are fit to receiye this^Sacrament. E x treme Unction, being the complement and con summation o f Penance, is evidently intended for penitents who have led a life not entirely free from sin.19
a ) Upon this dogm atic basis rests the ecclesiastical practice o f refusing E xtrem e Unction to infants who have not yet attained the use o f reason and to adults who have alw ays been insane or idiotic. Theoretically, those also who have led a stainless life are incapable o f receiv ing the Sacram ent o f the dying. But such holiness is attainable only by virtue o f a special grace like that granted to the Blessed V irgin M ary.20 Children who have attained the use o f reason can and should receive Extrem e Unction when they are dangerously ill.21 b) Suarez,22 A tzberger,23 K ern ,24 and other theologians claim that one need not have committed a sin in order to be able to receive E xtrem e Unction, the real purpose o f the Sacrament being to strengthen the soul fo r its last struggle. In order to square this theory with the pres ent form ula o f administration the w riters in question are compelled to interpret the latter as though it re a d : In dulgcat tibi D e u s culpam , s i adsit, et reliquias chis, si
18 V . su p ra , pp. 29 sqq. 10 C fr. the S u p p lc m e n tu m to the S u m m a T h e o lo g ic a o f St. Thom as, qu. 32, art. 4, ad 2. 20 See P ohle-Preuss, G r a ce : A c tu a l an d H a b itu a l, 2nd ed., p. 116, St. L ou is 1917. 21 C fr. Sainte-R cuve, D e E x tr . U n c t., disp. 7, art. 3. 22 C o m m e n t, in S . T li., I l l , 42, sect. 2, n. 7 23 In Schecfoens H a n d b u c h hath. D o g m a tik , V o l. I V , 3, F reib u rg 24 D e S a cra m . E x tr . U n c t., 307 sqq. disp. sqq.
d cr

749, i93pp.

50
nccesse sit.

EXTREME UNCTION

T his artificial construction does not inspire confidence. Theologians generally are convinced, and their conviction is borne out by experience, that even the most saintly men and women, and the best-behaved chil dren do not escape ordinary venial sins ( pcccata quotidiana ) ,25 and hence no m orally responsible person is likely to receive Extrem e U nction without having those peccata and reliquiae p eccati which the Sacrament is calculated to blot out. Q uite a different question is this, whether Extrem e Unction, like Penance, presupposes personal sins com mitted after Baptism, or whether it may exercise its effects upon the debility contracted before Baptism. The S. Congregation o f the Propaganda has decided 2 that one 0 who is baptized during a serious sickness should be given Extrem e Unction immediately afterw ard, and hence it is safe to say that spiritual debility of whatever kind, whether due to sins committed before or after Baptism, is cured by the Sacrament of the dying.27
R e a d i n g s : Besides the general works on the Sacraments men tioned in Pohle-Preuss, T h e Sacram cnts, V ol. I, pp. 3 and 4, the student may consult the follow ing: St. Thomas, Sum m a T hcolog ica , Snpplem entum , qu. 29 sq . ; Idem, Contra G entiles, IV , 72, and the commentators, especially Suarez, C om m ent, in S . T h e o i, III, disp. 39 sqq., and Billuart,

D e E xtrem a U nctione.

* Card. Bellarmine, D e E x trem a U nctione. A. Victorelli, D c E x trem a U nctione, 1609. N. Scrarius, S.J., D e Sacram ento E x trcm ae U nctionis, Mayence 1611. J. Launoy, D e Sacram ento U nctionis Infinn orum , Paris 1673. Rosignoli, Tractatus de Sacram cntis P oenitcn tiae ct E xtrcm a e U nctionis, Milan 1706. De Gactanis, D e Suprcm a U nctione, 1747. Benedict X IV , D e Synodo
ii

2r. V . C o n e. T r id ., Scss. V I , cap. (D cnzinger-B anm vart, n. 804). 20 Sept. 2 i, 1821.

27 C fr. art. 6.

B illuart, D e

E x tr .

U n c t.,

THE RECIPIENT

5i

D ioeccsana, I. V II I. *Sainte-Beuve, D e Sacram ento U nction is InUrmorum E x trcm a e, in Migne, TJieol. C urs. C om plet., Vol. X X IV . M. Heimbucher, D ie hi. O elu ng , Ratisbon 1888. Ign. Schmitz, D e E ifectib u s Sacram enti E x trem a e U n ction is , Freiburg 1893. Boudinhon in the R ev u e Catholique des g lises, 1905, pp. 385 sqq. *J. Kern, S. J., D e Sacram ento E x trem a e U nctionis, Ratis bon 1907. W . Humphrey, S.J., T h e O n e M ediator, or Sacrifice and Sacram ents, pp. 188-201, London 1890. A . Devine, C.P., T h e Sacram ents E x p la in ed according to the Teaching and D o c trine o f the C atholic C hurch, pp. 383-399, 3rd ed., London 1905. P. J. Toner, art. E xtrem e Unction, in the C atholic E n cyclopedia, V ol. V , pp. 716-730 W . McDonald, T he Sacra ment of Extrem e Unction, in the Irish T heo log ica l Quarterly, V ol. II (1907), No. 7, pp. 330-345. P. J. Hanley, T reatise on the Sacram cnt o f E x tr em e U nction, New Y o rk 1907. Th. Slater, S.J., Q u estio n s o f M oral T heo logy, Repetition o f E x

treme Unction, pp. 368-387, New Y o rk 1915. Non-Catholic w orks: J. H . Blunt, S acram ents and S acra m ental O rdinances, London 1867; M organ D ix, T h e Sacram ental S y stem , New Y o rk 1893 ; F. Kattenbusch, in the N e w S ch aitH crzo g E ncyclopedia o f R elig io u s K n ow led g e, V ol. IV , pp. 251 253, New Y o rk 1909; Puller, T h e A n oin tin g o f the S ic k in S cr ip ture and T rad ition , London 1904. (P u llers contentions arc criticized and, so far as necessary, refuted by Dr. T oner in his article in the C atholic E ncyclopedia, V ol. V , pp. 716-730).
* T h e asterisk b efo re an auth or s name indicates that his treatm ent o f the su bject is especially clear and thorough. A s St. Thom as is invarably the best guide, the omission o f the asterisk befo re his name never m eans th at we consider his w ork infc rio r to th at o f other w riters, T h ere are vast stretches o f theology which he scarcely touched.

P A R T II H O LY ORDERS
IN T R O D U C T IO N

Between the priesthood {ordo in esse) and ordination to the priesthood ( ordo in fieri), there is a distinction similar to that between the m ar ried state and matrimony. The election o f a pope is not a Sacrament, and it is possible to conceive o f a divinely instituted priesthood into which a man could enter without receiving a Sacrament. In order, therefore, to show that H oly O rders is a true Sacrament, it is not enough to prove that the priesthood has been divinely instituted; it must also be demonstrated that the act by which a man becomes a priest is a true Sacram ent ( sacramentum ordinis, or, more correctly, ordinationis). In other words, we must prove that the distinction between the clergy ( from K\ijPo :) a lot, or something assigned by lot, < especially the portion o f an inheritance, an allot ment) and the laity (from Aaos, the people),1 is based upon a Sacrament.
l C fr. C o n e. T r id e n t.,

Sess. V I I , can. 10.

52

INTRODUCTION

53

A specific question to be answered is whether the three hierarchical orders existing in the C ath olic Church, the episcopate, the priesthood, and the diaconate, are sacramental, and w hat is the nature o f the subdiaconate and the fo u r minor orders.

CHAPTER I
H OLY ORDERS A TRUE SACRAM EN T

S E C T IO N i
D IV IN E
i. H e r e tic a l

IN S T IT U T IO N
vs. th e T e a c h in g of th e

V a g a r ie s

Luther denied the existence o f a Christian priesthood, and his example was followed by Flacius Illyricus, M artin Chemnitz, and other faithful disciples. a ) Calvin hesitated to deny the sacramentality o f the imposition o f hands by which the Church introduces her ministers into office. 1 Melanchthon, after many ter giversations, in the later editions o f his L o c i admitted ordination to be a Sacrament. To-day nearly all Protes tant sects reject the episcopal form o f church govern ment and with it all semblance o f a Sacrament of Order.

C h u r c h .

b) The Catholic doctrine on the subject is thus authoritatively stated by the Council o f T ren t: I f anyone saith that O rder, or sacred ordination, is not truly and properly a Sacram ent instituted by Christ the L o rd ; or that it is a kind o f human figment devised by men unskilled in ecclesiastical
l I n s lit ., I V , 14, 20: " Im p o sitio in v itu s p a tio r v o c o r i sa cra m cn tu m , > cm m a n uum , qua E c c lc s ia c m in istri 1 ito in te r ordin a ria sa cra m cn ta n on
in su u m u n its in itia n tu r , ut non n u m c r o ."

54

DIVINE INSTITUTION

55

m atters; or that it is only a sort o f rite fo r choos ing ministers o f the word o f God and o f the Sac raments ; let him be anathem a. 2
Th is canon does not decide the question whether and to w hat extent the different orders participate in the sac ram entality o f H oly O rders, but m erely declares in gen eral terms that the rite o f ordination is a true Sacrament. T his teaching can easily be demonstrated from Scrip ture and Tradition.

2. P r o o f f r o m S a c r e d S c r i p t u r e . T hough it seems that Christ called H is Apostles to the priesthood without any special cerem ony,3 H e un doubtedly instituted a sacram ental rite fo r the purpose o f transm itting the power o f orders ( po~ testas ordinis), for H o ly Scripture speaks o f an external sign combined with internal grace, which can derive its efficacy only from being divinely in stituted. a) T he external sign is the imposition o f hands ( manmtm impositio, Vifleoa xup^v, xaPO via). TO T he prayer mentioned in connection w ith this ceremony does not seem to be the sacramental form , but merely a w orth y preparation fo r the re ception o f the Sacrament.
2 Sess. X X I I I , can. 3: " S i q u is d ix e r it, o r d in e m s iv e sa cra m ordin a tion em n o n esse v e r e et p ro p r ic sa cra m eu tu m a C h r isto D o m in o ins titu tu m , v e l esse fig m en tu m qu od dam hum an um e x co g ita tu m a v ir is reru m e ccle sia stica r u m im p e r itis , a u t
e s s e ta n tu m ritu m q uo n d am e lig e n d i m in istro s v e r b i D e i et sacram cn to ru m , an a th em a s i t . (D enzinger-

B an n w art, n. 963).
3 C fr. Card. Bellarm ine, D e Sacram en to O r d in is, I, 2.

56

HOLY ORDERS

In the sixth chapter o f the A cts we are told that the disciples, at the bidding o f the Apostles, chose seven deacons. These they set before the Apostles, and they praying, imposed hands upon them ( kou Trpoaevid/xevoi rtOrjKav avrols T s 7 a< 4 The m atter o f the Sacra ment is here plainly indicated. It is the im positio ma nmim. Th e prayer m ight be taken for the fo rm , were it not that the aorist ttpoaevia/xevoi seems to indicate a mere preparation for the imposition o f hands, connected with this rite in a purely external way. T his is still more clearly brought out in the biblical account o f the ordina tion o f Paul and Barnabas, where we re a d : Then they, fasting and praying (nyorewavres Kal irpoaev^afievoL) and imposing their hands upon them ( nal mdivTts Tas Xtipas avTois), sent them aw ay. 5 H ere prayer is put on a level with fasting as a preparation for the sacred rite. It is important to note that Paul and Barnabas exercised the power which they had themselves received, by or daining priests for the different churches. A cts X I V , 22 : A nd when they had ordained to them priests in every church (x P0T0vV(TavTes TrpecrjivTepov<;) and had prayed with L fasting (7rpoon>|a/u)'oi fieTa v^oreiwv), they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed. 0 T hat the power o f ordination was to be transmitted by means o f an external rite appears from St. P au ls com mand to his disciple T im o th y : Impose not hands lightly upon any man (^ei/aas Ta^e'cos prjbevl lira W e i ) 7

b) T he imposition o f hands communicates

4 A ct, V I , 6: " H o s sta tu c r u n t an te co n sp ce tu m /lp o sto lo r u m ct or a n te s im p o s u e n in t c is v ia n u s. 5 A ct. X I I I , 3: " T u n c ic iu n a n te s ct o ra n tes im p o n c n tc sq u c c is m an tis, ditn iscru n t illo s .

0 A ct. X I V , 22: " E t q u u m c o n s t itu is s c n t illis p er sin g ttla s c c c lc sia s p r c s b y tc r o s ct o r a ssc n t cum icittnatio n ib u s, c o m m c n d a v c rv n t c o s D om in o, in quern c r c d id e r u n t. 7 1 Tim . V , 22: " M a n u s c ito n e m in i im p o s u c r is ."

DIVINE INSTITUTION

57 St.

divine grace. T his can be shown from P a u ls Epistles to Tim othy.

I admonish thee, he says

(2 Tim . I, 6 ), that

thou stir up the grace o f God ( t o T o i i eo )> which is in thee by the imposition o f my hands (81a t rjs liriOiaews rwv x uP^v pov) A careful analysis o f this text leads to the follow ing conclusions: ( 1 ) A ccording to the context the grace conferred on Tim othy by the imposition o f hands was to qualify him for the w orthy administration o f the episcopal office, and consequently this particular aia cannot be identical either w ith Confirmation or E xtrem e Unction.8 St. Chrysostom paraphrases the Pauline passage as fo llo w s: E xcite anew the grace which thou hast received fo r the purpose o f presiding in the Church. 9 (2 ) Xdpiafia here cannot simply mean a charismatic g ift (gratia gratis d a ta ), fo r St. P aul frequently employs the term as a synonym o f x/315 ( caritas, gratia gratum fa c ie n s ) ,10 and this meaning is clearly demanded by the context o f the passage quoted, which enumerates the qualities that render men pleasing in the eyes o f God. 2 Tim . I, 7 : F or God hath not given us the spirit o f fear, but o f power, and o f love, and o f sobriety. 11 M ore over, a permanent grace which is capable o f being kin dled anew by the personal efforts of its possessor can not be a charismatic gift, but must be identical with sanc tifyin g grace. A sort o f parallel passage to the one just analyzed is 1 Tim . IV , 14: N eglect not the grace that is in thee
8 C fr. M a rk X V I , 18. 0 H orn, in 2 T im ., 1. 10 C fr. Rom. V , 16; V I , 23; 1 Cor. X I I , 31. 11 2 Tim . I, 7: N o n en im d e d il n o b is D e u s sp iritu m tim o ris, sed v ir tu tis et d ilc c tio n is ( d y d n i j i ) et s o b r ie ta lis ."

58

HOLY ORDERS

(row v crol xa/no/mros), which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition o f the hands o f the priesthood (/era 7ri0(mos t w x eL v Tv TrpecjpvTepov) 12 H ere again the P permanent grace communicated by H oly O rders is de scribed as an effect o f the imposition of hands, the only difference being that the Apostle does not speak of the rite as administered by his own hands, but by the presbyterium .13 But what had prophecy to do with the ordination o f Tim othy? St. Paul probably means that he himself was prophetically inspired when he chose his favorite disciple for episcopal honors.14

c) T hat the rite o f ordination was instituted by Christ follows from the scriptural teaching that this rite is a visible sign conferring invisible grace. No one but the God-man H im self could establish this connection. The institution o f the Sacrament probably took place between the R es urrection o f Christ and H is Ascension.
3. P roof fr o m T r a d i t i o n . A n argument from T radition m ay be construed (a ) from the consentient teaching o f the Catholic Church, the Greek schismatics, and heretical s e c ts ;15 (b) from ancient ordination form ularies that have come down to us, and (c) from the express testi mony o f the Fathers. W e shall confine our selves to the latter.
12 i Tim . I V , 14: " N o l i n eg liIS On the m eaning o f this term g ere graliam , q u a e in te est, quae efr. Ch. I I , Sect. 1, in fra , data est tib i p e r p rop h etia m cum 14 C fr. 1 Tim . I, 18. im p o sitio n e m an uum p r c s b y te r ii. ir. C fr. Goar, E u c h o l., pp. 194 sqq.; D enzingcr, R it. O r ie n t., I, 416 sqq.

DIVINE INSTITUTION

59

St. G regory o f N yssa s a y s : The same power of the word renders sublime and honorable the priest, who by the newness o f ordination has been singled out from the m ultitude; he who was yesterday and previously one from among the people [i. e. a laym an], suddenly becomes a commander, a presiding officer, a teacher o f righteous ness, the dispenser o f hidden mysteries. . . . Though in his external appearance he is the same as he was before, yet in his invisible soul, by a certain unseen power and grace, he is transform ed into a higher being. 16 St. Chrysostom says in his fam ous treatise O n the Priesthood : T h e office o f the priesthood is exercised on earth, but it ranks amongst things that are heavenly, and with good reason. F o r it was neither a man nor an angel nor an archangel nor any other created power, but the Paraclete H im self that established this ministry. . . . I f you consider what it is for a man clothed in flesh and blood to be able to approach that pure and blessed nature [o f the angels], you w ill easily understand to what a dignity the grace o f the H oly Ghost has raised priests. 17 This sublime dignity is acquired by ordination. I f the pledge o f the H oly Spirit no longer existed/' says the same writer, there would be no Baptism and no remis sion o f sins, . . . nor should we consume the m ysteries; for the mystic Flesh and Blood does not exist except by the grace o f the H oly Ghost. N o r should we have priests, because without such a descent, [H oly] O rders would be impossible. 18 St. Jerome deduces the validity o f orders conferred by
10 O ra t. in B a p t. C h r is t i P .G ., X L V I , 582). (M ig n e,
A T r e a tis e in S i r B o o lis by S a in t J o h n C h r y so s to m , 2nd ed., pp. 36,

17 D e S a c e r d o t., I l l , n. 4 (P . G ., X L V I I I , 642). T ran slatio n by P . B o yle, C .M ., O n th e P r ie s th o o d .

18 H orn, d e

R e s u r r e c t.

1910. 11. 8 (.P .G ., L , 432).

M o r t.,

37. D ublin

6o

H O LY ORDERS

hcrctics from the fact that Baptism administered by them is valid.19 St. Augustine puts the tw o Sacraments on the same le v e l: E ach is a Sacrament and is given by a certain consecration: the one when a man is baptized, the other when he is ordained, and therefore in the Catholic [Church] it is not permitted to repeat either. 20 H e asks the Donatists to explain w hy the Sacrament o f the bap tized cannot be lost, while the Sacrament o f the ordained can be lost. I f both are Sacraments, which no one doubts, how is the one not lost [by apostasy], while the other is? N o injury should be done to either Sacra ment. 21 In a treatise on the dignity o f the priesthood, often ascribed to St. Am brose, but probably composed by Pope Sylvester II, we re a d : W ho gives the episcopal grace, O brother? God or m an? Y o u answer without hesita tion : God. B ut God gives it through man. A man im poses his hands, God showers down H is grace. The priest raises his right hand in supplication, and God blesses with H is m ighty right hand. Th e bishop confers the order, God bestows the dignity. 22 T h e Sacrament o f H oly O rders has alw ays been ad19 A d v . L u c if . , n. u : " S i in fid e su a b ap tizato b a p tiza n s n o c c r e n o n p o tu it, e t in fid e sua sa c e r d o tem co n s t ilu lu m n o n in q u in a v it. 20 C o n tr. E p . P arn xcn ., I I , c. 13, n. 28 (M ignc, P . L ., X L I I I , 70 ): U tr u m q u e cn im sa cra m cn tu m c st c t quadam co n se c r a tio n e d a tu r, H ind qu u m ba p tiza tu r, istu d q u u m ordin atu r, id c o q u c in c a th o lica [ E c c lc s ia ] u tr u m q u e n on lic e t itc r a r i." 21 Op. c it., I I , n. 30: " I p s i e x p lic e n l, qtiom odo sa cra m cn tu m boptis a ti non p o ssit a m itti et sacram enturn o r d in o ti p ossit a m itti. S i c n im u tr u m q u e sa cra m cn tu m c st, q u o d n cm o d u bita t, cu r illu d n o n a m ittiN c u t r i sa cra m en to in iu ria fac ien d a c s t . ~2 D e D ig n it. S a c e r d o t., c. 5: " Q u is da t, fr o te r , cp iscop a lem gratia n t? D e n s an h o m o t R c s p o n d c s s in e d u b io : D c u s . S c d tam cn p er h o m in cm dat D c u s . H o m o im p on it v ta n u s, D c u s la r g itu r gratiam . Sac e r d o s im p on it su p p lic c m d cxtcra m , ct D e n s b c n e d icit p o te n ti d e xte r d . E p is c o p u s in itia l o rd in cm , ct D e u s tr ib u it d ig n ita te m ." O ther Patristic testim onies ap ud A lb ert a Hulsano, I n s tit. T h c o l. D o g m a t., ed. G. a tu r f

Graun, V ol. I l l , pp. 249 sqq., Innsbruck 1896; Palm icri, D c R o m . P on t if., 2nd ed., pp. 76 sqq., Rome 1897.

DIVINE INSTITUTION

6i

ministered in the Church. T h e F ourth Ecum enical Coun cil o f Chalcedon (4 5 1) forbade bishops to ordain un w orthy candidates to the episcopate, the priesthood, or the diaconate, under penalty o f being deprived o f their office and dignity.23 Sim onistic ordinations were strictly prohibited by the councils o f O rleans (5 3 3 ), B raga (5 6 3 ), Toledo (653), and the Second Ecum enical Council o f Nicaea (78 7). Th e Patristic Tradition was continued by the School men 2 up to the threshhold o f modern times.25 4
23

Canon 2, ap ud H ard ouin , C on -

c il., I I , 601.
24 C fr. P etr. Lom bard., S e n t ., IV , dist. 2 4.

25 T h e befittingness o f the sacram ental character o f O rders is w ell shown by Gihr, D i e hi. S a k r a m e n te d e r ka tli. K ir c h e , V o l. I I , 2nd ed., pp. 282 sq.

SECTION 2
M ATTER AND FO R M

i. T h e M a t t e r . In trying to ascertain what constitutes the matter o f this Sacrament, we must make a distinction between the three m ajor orders on the one hand, and the subdiaconate and minor orders on the other. W e are here con cerned only with the so-called m ajor or sacred orders (the episcopate, the priesthood, and the diaconate), because the others, as we shall see presently, are not sacramental. In the O rient the Sacram ent o f H oly Orders is conferred solely by the imposition o f hands (manuum im positio), whereas in the L atin Church the delivery o f the instruments ( traditio instrumentorum) form s an important part o f the ordination rite. The question a rise s: W hich o f these two ceremonies constitutes the matter o f the S acra ment? There has been a celebrated controversy on this subject. a) St. Bonaventure,1 Peter Soto,2 M orinus, Goar, M artene, Tournely, Perrone, Franzelin, Schwetz, Oswald, Pesch, Tepe, and the m ajority
l C o m m e n t, in S e n t ., I V , dist. 24, p. 2, art. i, qu. 4. 2 D e J n stit. S a c c r d ., lect. 5.

62

MATTER AND FORM

63

o f present-day theologians hold that the imposi tion o f hands is the sole m atter o f the S ac rament.
Th e arguments in favor o f this view are very strong, not to say conclusive. . a) A s we have seen,3 H oly Scripture ascribes the con ferring of grace exclusively to the imposition o f hands. W e cannot reasonably assume that the Bible omits to mention the rite which constitutes the essential matter o f the Sacrament, insisting on something entirely non-essen tial.4 M oreover, the rite o f ordination is undoubtedly older than the Book o f the Gospels, which plays so im portant a part in the " traditio in stru m e n to ra m /?) T h e Fathers and the Church councils held during the first nine centuries do not mention the " traditio instru m e n to ru m but m erely speak o f the im positio ma n t is (xupoTovia, xpo0e(na) ,c as does the Council o f Trent.0 T his silence cannot be explained by the D isci pline of the Secret. y ) The delivery o f the instruments is not mentioned in any ritual composed before A . D. 900.7 The early Scho lastics speak o f it as a m erely declarative and consequently non-essential cerem ony.8 H ence the rite cannot have been introduced earlier than the tenth century and must be of ecclesiastical institution. M ay it not be possible that the Church received from
3 V . tu p ra , Sect. i. 4 C fr. 2 T im . I, 6. 5 See the testim onies collected by

8 T h u s H ugh o f St. V ic to r ( + about 114 1) says o f the rite o f ordination to the priesthood: " A c c ip iu n t et eo lie e m cu m v in o c t poten a m cum h o s t s d e m an u episc o p i, q u a te n u s h is in s t r u m e n t s pote sta tem s c a c c e p isse co g n o sc a n t plac a b ilc s D e o h o stia s o ffe r e n d o ." (D e S a c ra m ., I I , 3, 12).

Pcsch , P r a c le c t. D o g iu a t., V o l. V I I , 3rd etl., pp. 310 sqq., F reibu rg 1909. 0 Scss. X I V , D e E x t r . U n c t., cap. 3; Scss. X X I I I , cap. 2 and 3. 7 C fr. M orinus, D e S a c r is E c c le sia e O r d in a tio n ib u s, A n tw erp 1695.

64

H OLY ORDERS

Christ the power to determine the specific matter o f this Sacrament, but failed to exercise that power until the tenth century ? W e answer that this hypothesis is incom patible with the teaching of the Tridentine Council,0 and, moreover, intrinsically improbable, because we can not reasonably assume that the Church degraded the original rite instituted by the Apostles to the rank of a non-essential ceremony and in its place adopted an en tirely new one.10 S) O ur fourth and final argument is that the Greek Church has alw ays employed the im positio m aniium as the sole rite o f ordination from the beginning to the present day. N o r was the Greek teaching or practice on this head ever denied or challenged in the course of the many debates held at Florence, 1274, and at Lyons, 1439, with a view to reunite the two churches. D e Lugo maintained 11 that both rites the imposition o f hands and the giving o f the instruments constitute the m atter o f the Sacrament, the one for the East, the other for the W est. T his view was approved by Cardinal F ra n zelin 12 and recommended by M sgr. Gutberlet.13 But it seems to us incompatible with the Catholic doctrine o f the unity and immutability of the Sacraments. The Church has never claimed the right to change either the matter or the form o f any Sacram ent.14 I f the im positio m anuum constitutes the sole matter o f the Sacrament, it follows that the traditio instntm cntorum is a non-essential ceremony added by the Church and that the subdiaconate and the four minor orders, in
o Sess. V I I , can. i ; c fr. PohleT reuss, T h e S a cra m e n ts, V ol. I, pp. jo i sqq. 10 C fr. B enedict X I V , D c S y n o d . D io c c c s ., V I I I , 10, 10. 11 D c S acram . in G e n e r e , disp. 2, scct. 5, n. 85 sqq. 12 D c S a cram . in G e n e r e , 4th cd., pp. 47 sq., Rom e 1888. 18 See tlie Innsbruck Z e its c h r ift f i lr ka th . T h c o lo g ic , 1901, pp. 621 sqq. l* C fr. T o lile-rreu ss, T h e Sacra m e n ts, V ol. I, pp. 107 sqq.

MATTER AND FORM

65

which there is 110 imposition of hands, are not sacra mental rites.

b) T he view held by Dominicus Soto, Capreolus, G regory o f V alentia,15 Gonet, Estius, and many other Scholastic theologians, that the deliv ery o f the instruments constitutes the matter o f the Sacram ent, whereas the imposition o f hands is accidental and merely a m atter o f integrity ( materia integrans), m ay now be considered ob solete.
Th e advocates o f this theory derived their main argu ment from the D ccretu m pro A r m cn is o f Pope Eugene IV , which says: T h e sixth Sacram ent is O rder, o f which the m atter is that by the givin g o f which O rder is conferred, as the priesthood by the giving o f the chalice with the wine and the paten with the b re a d ; the diaconate by handing [to the ordinand] the Book o f the Gospels; the subdiaconate by the giving o f the empty chalice w ith an empty paten resting upon it, etc.10 B ut the D ecrctu m pro A r m cn is (draw n almost lit erally from St. Thom as O pu sca lu m dc F id c i A rticitlis ct S cp tc m S a cr a m cn tis), while it possesses very high authority, is not an cx-ca thcd ra decision, but merely a papal instruction issued fo r the purpose o f effecting con form ity between the Arm enian and the Roman rites. H ence its characteristic reference to the Roman Ritual,
15 D e O r d ., disp. 9, qu. 1. 10 D e e r , pro A r m e n . (D enzingcrP>annwart, n. 7 0 1 ): S e x tu m sac ra m en tu m e s i o r d in is , c u iu s m a teria e st illu d , per c u iu s tr o d itio n e m c o n fe r tu r orda, s ic u t p re sb y te r a tu s trad itu r p e r ca licis cum v in o c t p aten a e cu m p a n e p o r r e c tio n c m ; d ia co n a tu s vero p er lib r i eva u g eliorttm datio n e m ; su b d ia eo n a tu s v e r o p er calic is v a c u i cum pa ten a v a cua s u p e r p osita tr a d itio n e m ; c t sim ilite r d e a liis , etc.

66

HOLY ORDERS

which expressly prescribes the imposition o f hands, a practice that had long been in use among the Arm enians.17 Benedict X I V correctly estimates the import o f the D ccretum for our purpose when he s a y s : It is therefore nec essary to admit that Pope Eugene spoke of the integrating and accessory matter and form [of the Sacram ent], which he desired the Arm enians to add to the imposition of hands long employed by them, in order that they might conform themselves to the custom o f the Latin Church. 18 In the light o f this interpretation it is easy to refute D ollingers specious contention that the D ecretu m pro A rm cn is, because o f its false teaching on the subject of H oly Orders, furnishes an argument against the infalli bility o f the Pope.18

c) Bellarmine, D e Lugo, H allier, Vasquez, M aldonatus, Ledesma, Billuart, Berti, Gotti, and others hold that the imposition o f hands and the delivery o f the instruments conjointly constitute the matter o f the Sacrament. T his view has found two eminent modern defenders in Cardinal B illo t2 and M sgr. Gutberlet.21 0
Assum ing that Christ, in instituting the Sacrament of H oly O rders, determined its matter and form only in a gcneric way, leaving the specific determination to the
17" E t s ic cic a lioru m o rd in u m fo r m is , p rou t in P on tiH ca li R o m a n o la ic c o n tin c tu r . (D enzinger-B annw art, I. c .) 18 D e S y n o d . D io c c c s ., V I I I , 10, 8: " N c c c s s c c st ig ilu r fa tc r i E u f cm u m lo cu tu m esse d e tnateria ct fo r m a in tc g ra n tc c t a cccsso ria , quant op ta vit ab A r m c n is s u p c r a d d i inm tum im p osition * iam din ab illis
c.dhibitac, u t E c c lc s ia c la tin a e m orib u s s c a cco m m o d a rcn t. id D ollinger, D c r P a p s l u n d das C c n c il, new edition under the title, D a s P a p sttu m , by J. F ried rich , Mun-

ich 1892. 20 D e S a cra m ., V o l. I I , 4th ed., thcs. 30. 21 In IIcin rich-G utbcrlet, D og m a t. T h c o lo g ic , V ol. X , pp. 288 sqq.

MATTER AND FORM

67

Church, the writers o f this group describe the traditio

instrum entorm n as a palpable sign o f the grace conferred by the im positio mamtum, and therefore as a co-essential factor form ing a moral whole with the im positio. T h e

author o f the S u p p lem en tu m to the Su m m a T h eolog ica 22 says that when a man is ordained to the priesthood, the imposition o f hands symbolizes and bestows the power of absolution, while the delivery o f the instruments (chalice and paten) symbolizes and bestows the power o f conse cration. I f we examine this theory in the light o f the arguments adduced above under a ) , we find that it is not well founded. The Bible, the Fathers, the councils, and the ancient liturgies all agree that the imposition o f hands alone is essential to the Sacram ent o f H oly Orders. A s, however, the pars tutior must alw ays be followed in the administration of the Sacraments, the Church in her ordinations strictly carries out the ceremony o f the de livery o f instruments.

2. T h e F o r m . T h e difference o f opinion e x isting with regard to the m atter o f Iio ly O rders involves a similar difference in regard to its form . I f the imposition o f hands constitutes the sole matter o f the Sacram ent, the form must be sought in the prayer accom panying this rite.
The sacred anointment which the Church uses in ordain ing bishops and priests is an ancient ceremony, de scribed by Pope St. Leo the Great, but it does not form part o f the essential m atter o f the Sacrament and there22 S u p p le m e n tu m , qu. 37, art. 5.

68

HOLY ORDERS

fore does not affect its form, though it is well to remember that the Tridentine Council pronounced anathema against those who despise this beautiful rite.2 3 a) In ordaining a priest to the episcopacy, the conse crating bishop and his two assistants place the Book of the Gospels upon his neck and shoulders, touch his head with their hands, and together pronounce the w ords: " A c c ip e S p iritual sanctum . T hen the consecrator alone recites the follow ing prayer: P rop itiare, D o m in e, supplicationibus nostris ct in clin ato super hunc fam ulum tuum cornu gratiae sacerdotalis benedictionis tuae in eum in fu n d e virtutcm . H ere we have two separate and distinct

prayers, one imperative in form, the other precatory. Church historians tell us that the imperative form, A c cipe S p iritu m sanctum , which is likewise employed in the ordination o f priests and deacons, is o f com paratively recent origin and does not occur in the ancient rituals of the Latin or the euchologia of the Greek Church.24 Hence it is reasonable to conclude that the second prayer, which is recited by the consecrating bishop alone, embodies the sacramental form of episcopal ordination. This does not derogate from the Tridentine canon which d eclares: If anyone saith that, by sacred ordination, the H oly Ghost is not given, and that vainly therefore do the bishops say, Receive ye the H oly Ghost, . . . let him be anath ema. 25 For to say that the H oly Ghost is given in the rite o f ordination is not tantamount to saying that H e is imparted through this particular set of words. In the sec ond prayer the phrase cornu gratiae sacerdotalis also signifies the power o f the H oly Ghost.
23 Sess. X X I I I , can. s. 24 M artenc, D e A n tiq u is E c c lc s ia e R itib tis, V ol. I I , pp. 2 i, 27. 25 Scss. X X I I I , can. 4: " S i q u is d ix c r it, p er sacram ord in a tio n cm n o n d a ri S p ir itu a l S a n c tu m a c p ro in d e fr u s tr a c p isco p o s d ic c r c : 'A c c i p e S p ir itu a l S a n ctu m . . .; anathem a s i t . " (D cn zin gcr-B an n w art, 11. 964.)

MATTER AND FORM

69

T h e same argument applies to the two other hierarchi cal orders, the priesthood and the diaconate. b) There is, however, some difficulty in regard to the form er, since the rite o f ordination to the priesthood contains no less than three distinct impositions. F irst the bishop silently lays both hands on the head o f the ordinand. The same is done by all the priests who are present. Then bishop and priests together extend their right hands, while the form er prays: O rem its, fra tres
carissim i, D eu m P a trcm om nipotentcm , u t su p er hunc fam ulum suum , q u e m a d p resb y teriim u n itseleg it, caelestia dona m ultiplicet et, quod eiu<s dignatione suscipit, ipsius consequatur a u xilio . P e r C hristu m D om inu m nostrum , A m e n . E x a u d nos, quaesum us, D om in e D eu s noster, et super hunc fam ulum tuum bencdictioncm sancti S piritu s et gratiae saccrdotalis in fu n d e virtu tem . This part of the ceremony is known as manunm extensio or xporona.

A fte r Communion, the bishop imposes his hands upon the candidate for the third time and s a y s : A c c ip e S piritu m S an ctum , quorum rcm iscris pcccata, rcm ittu ntu r eis, et quorum rctinueris, retenta s u n t T his is the im positio m anunm proper, or x aP^e(T^ a' Th e question arises: W hich o f these three rites, with its accompanying prayers, is sacramental ? T h e first laying-on o f hands cannot be essential, because it is accomplished silently. Some theo logians consider it as m erely a part o f the second imposi tion. T h e third and final im positio seems equally non-es sential, because the candidate has already exercised the sacerdotal power by co-consecrating the bread and wine, and for the further reason that this rite is unknown to the Greek Church. H ence the prayer accompanying the last im positio m anuum , or x^poOema, cannot be the form o f the Sacrament, and the conclusion is inevitable that the matter o f the Sacrament consists in the second imposition the

70

HOLY ORDERS

m anum n exten sio, or x^porovia, conceived as a continuation

o f the physical contact embodied in the first.26 I f this rite constitutes the matter, then the accompanying words o f the bishop must constitute the form o f the Sacrament. W e would not, however, entirely reject the opinion of those who hold that all three o f these ceremonies, being intrinsically connected with one another and together constituting one moral act, with their accompanying pray ers (as partial form s) are essential to the validity o f the Sacram ent.27 c) The ordination rite for the diaconate contains only one imposition o f hands, and consequently the sacra mental form must be contained in the prayer " D onlin e sancte P a te r om nipotens, which accompanies this cere mony. It is not likely that the form is in the words
< A c c ip e S p iritu m S an ctu m ad robur et ad rcsistendum ( diabolo, etc., because this phrase, as M artene has shown,

is hardly four hundred years old. 2 8 The ordination rite for the subdiaconate contains no im positio m anuum , but merely a traditio instrum cntorum , and consequently cannot claim to be sacramental.2 This 0 applies a fo r tio r i to the four minor orders.

3. A n g l i c a n O r d e r s . T h e question regard ing the validity o f A nglican O rders gave rise to a long controversy, which was definitively de cided by Leo X I I I in his dogmatic Bull A p o st olicac'cnrae o f Sept. 13, 1896.
20 C fr. G reg I X D c c r c t., ]. I, tit. i6, cap. 3: P r e s b y te r e t d ia c o n u s
quttm o r d h ia n tu r , m an tis im p o sl tion em tactu c orp ora li r e c ip iu n t." 27 C fr. B allcrini, Opus T h e o l. M o r a l., cd. Palm ieri, V o l. V , 3rd cd., 28 On the rite o f ordination for deacons see Gilir, D ie hi. Sakram e n te d e r hath. K ir c h e , V o l. I I , 2nd ed., pp. 319 sqq. 2!) D cnzinRer-Bannwart, n. 153: " S iib d ia c o n tts quum o rd in a tu r, q uia m a n tis im posit\on em n on a ccip it, pa-

pp. 716 sq., P rati 1900.

MATTER AND FORM

71

Th e decision against the validity o f these orders rests, not on the historic fact that W illiam Barlow , who con secrated D r. M atthew Parker, the first Anglican arch bishop o f Canterbury, at Lambeth on Dec. 7, 1559, was not a validly consecrated bishop, but on the dogmatic fact that the Edw ardine rite of ordination, drawn up in 1549, had purposely altered the sacramental form o f H oly O rders so as to exclude the intention o f bestowing the power o f consecration and absolution. T h is perversion, together with the m anifest lack o f a proper intention, de prives the rite of its sacramental effect.30 It is clear, says St. Thom as, that if any substantial part o f the sac ramental form be suppressed, the essential sense o f the words is destroyed, and consequently the Sacrament be comes invalid. 31 This principle explains the custom e x isting long before the Leonine decision (practically since r 554 ) conditionally reordaining converted Anglican clergymen. The orders conferred under the Edwardine O rdinal were declared null and void by Paul V I as early as 1555.32
ten a m d e e p is co p i m antt a ccip ia t vacuam et ca licem v a c u u m ." 30 C fr . Poh le-Preuss, T h e S a c r a m e n ts, V o l. I, pp. 110 sq. 81 S u m m a T h e o l., I l l , qu. 60, art. 8: M a n ife s tu m est a u tem q u o d s i d im in u a tu r a liq u id eo ru m qu a e su n t d e su b sta n tia fo r m a e sa cra m e n ta lis, to llitu r d e b itu s s e n s u s v er b o r u m , et td eo n o n p e r d c itu r sa c r a m e n tu m ." 32 On the question o f A n glican O rd ers see A . Boudinhon, S u r le s O r d in a tio n s A n y lic a n e s , Paris 894; ghcan

O r d e r s, London 1897; I d e m , *n the C a th o lic E n c y c lo p e d ia , V o l. I,

PP- 49-498; S. B ran d i, S. J., D e lle O r d in a z io n i A n g lic a n e , 4th ed., Rome 9o8; (c fr. A m . E c c l. R e v ie w , X V I , >897); V o n H ackelberg-Landau, D ie a n g lik a n isc h c n IV e ih e n u n d ih r e n cu e * te A p o lo g ie , G raz 1897; J. Souben, N o u v e lle T h c o lo g ie D o g m a tiq u e , V o l. V I I I , pp. 77 sqq., P aris 1905. C. Sem ple, S.J., A n g lic a n O rd in a tio n s: T h e o lo g y of Rom e and l ^ 6 '

C fli.icr6.iry in a N u ts h e ll, N ew Y o rk

S. F. Sm ith, S. J., T h e D u ll on A n -

SECTION 3
SA CR A M EN TA L EFFECTS

1. I n c r e a s e of S a n c t i f y i n g G r a c e . Being a Sacram ent o f the living, H oly O rders must be received in the state o f sanctifying grace ( gratia prim a), which it augments ( gratia secunda). The Decretum pro Arm enis says: T he effect [o f this Sacram ent is] an increase o f grace, [given] in order that one m ay be a fit m inister/ 1 The phrase ut quis sit idonens minister points to an additional grace pertaining to the sacerdotal office (gratia sacramcntalis) .
W herein does this special grace consist? It is a claim, based on the possession o f sanctifying grace and the sacramental character, to those actual graces which render the recipient fit to administer his office. Th e Tridentine C o u n cil2 describes this grace as the reception o f the H oly Ghost per moditm sacramcnti.

2. T h e Sacramental C h a r a c t e r . Like Baptism and Confirmation, H oly O rders imprints an indelible mark on the soul of the recipient.
l " E ffe c tu s [f-si]
a u g m en tu m

2 Scss. X X I I I , can. 4. V . in fr a ,

gratiac, ut q u is sit id o n e u s m i n i s t e r N o. 2.

(D enzingcr-lJannw art, n. 701).

72

SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS

73

T his is the so-called sacramental character,3 which renders repetition impossible and bars the subject from returning to the lay state. T he Council o f T ren t expressly defines: I f anyone saith that, by sacred ordination, the H oly Ghost is not given, and that vainly therefore do the bishops say, Receive ye the H oly Ghost/ or that a character is not imprinted by that ordination, or that he who w as once a priest can again become a lay m an; let him be anathem a. 4 a ) T h e second o f these effects is called by Suarez 5 the primus intentus or prim ary object of the Sacrament, because the character is the foun dation o f ecclesiastical jurisdiction. T h a t this is so can be demonstrated from St. P a u ls exhorta tion to Tim othy to revive ( resnscitare, wfrirvpeiv) the grace given him by the imposition o f hands. T h is exhortation presupposes two th in gs: first, the existence o f a form which is permanent and cannot be lost, and, secondly, the possibility o f fo r feitin g a grace connected therewith. T he form is the sacram ental character; the grace, san ctify ing grace. b) F or the argum ent from T radition see PohlePreuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 79 sqq.
3 V . P oh le-P rcuss, The S a cra tn cu ts , V ol. I, pp. 76 sqq. 4 Sess. X X I I I , can. 4: " S i q u is d ix e r it, p er sacrain o r d in a tio n e m non dari S p ir itu m sa n ctio n ac proh id e fr u s tr a e p isco p o s d ic e r e : A c c ip e S p ir itu m sa n c tu m , au t p er earn n o n im p r im i ch a ra ctcrcm v c l eu m q u i sa c e r d o s se m e l fu i t , la icu m r u r su s fie ri p o sse, an a th em a s it .
G C o m m e n t, in S . T h c o l.,

(D en zin gcr-B an nw art, n. 964). I l l , disp. 1 1, sect. 1.

74

HOLY ORDERS

Although the Fathers expressly admit the validity o f ordination when given by heretics, the early history of the Church offers several examples which seem practically to deny what St. Augustine and other Patristic writers positively affirm. Peter Lombard 6 was so perplexed by the many reported cases o f reordination that he declared the validity o f heretical ordinations to be an insoluble question. St. Thom as,7 on the other hand, gave cogent reasons for accepting the ordinations o f heretics as valid, and his view has been adopted by nearly all later theolo gians. U p to the close o f the M iddle A ges this question was an open one and hard to decide on account o f the difficulty o f determining the conditions o f valid ordination and legitimate succession. 8 To-day we are better able to solve the difficulty. There can be no doubt that in ancient times priests ordained by heretical ministers were frequently reordained on the ground that their orders were null and void. It should be noted, however, that these reordinations were often the work of ignorant, vin dictive or jealous bishops. The Roman pontiffs, in con demning heretical ordinations as " irritae, vanae, in anes, or " nullae, in most instances probably meant that they were illicit because given or received in the state o f mortal sin and by men lacking ecclesiastical jurisdiction, who could not authorize the recipient law fu lly to exercise his sacerdotal powers. N ot infrequently when a bishop imposed hands on a priest who had returned to the true fold from some heretical sect, he did not mean to reordain, but simply to receive him back into the fold and grant him permission to exercise the powers received in ordination.0 6S e n t .,
I V , dist. 20.
7 S u m m a T h e o l., S u p p le m e n t., qu. S a k r a m e n te n , p. 694, F reibu rg 1893. 0 C fr. F u lbcrt, E p ., 13 (M igne, P . L . , C X L I , 207); L. Saltet, L e s R io r d in a tio n s , Iaris 1907.

38, art. 2. a 1. Schanz, D ie L c h r e vo n den hi.

SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS

75

c) H ow is the sacramental character o f H oly O rders related to that o f Baptism and Confirma tion? T he answer to this (purely speculative) question m ay be gathered from what we have said in a previous volume o f this treatise,10 when deal ing with the sacramental character in general. T he character imprinted by H o ly O rders is not merely an extension or a development o f the other tw o; it is a new quality communicated to the soul, by virtue o f which the subject receives certain special faculties, the priesthood is estab lished in the Church, and the clergy set apart from the laity.
Needless to say, the character o f H oly O rders presup poses the baptismal character as its necessary foundation. A s fo r the character peculiar to Confirmation, it is re quired as a condition for H oly O rders m erely by ecclesias tical precept. It is somewhat more difficult to determine the mutual relations existing between the characters o f the episcopate, the priesthood, and the diaconate, because these three are really but one, imprinted by one and the same Sac rament. Speaking o f the episcopal and the sacerdotal characters, Vasquez 11 expresses the opinion that the tw o are sub stantially identical, and that the only difference between them is that the form er bestows greater power than the lat ter. T his hardly solves the problem at issue, for the re ception o f episcopal power must be based on some intrinsic
10 P o hle-Preuss, T h e S a c r a m e n ts, 11 C o m m e n t, in S . T h ., I l l , tlisp. V o l. I, p. 87. 240, c. s.

76

HOLY ORDERS

quality o f the soul and consequently postulates a character distinct from that imprinted by the priesthood. Such is, indeed, the common teaching o f theologians. A few (Paludanus, Coninck, Sylvester M aurus) hold that the episcopal character consists in a purely modal extension o f the sacerdotal character. But this is improbable for the reason that the power o f conferring ordination is so great and so clearly distinct from the ordinary powers o f the priesthood that it demands a separate character.12 W hether the episcopal character can be imprinted on a soul that has not yet received the sacerdotal character is open to debate. Bosco, Thom assin, Martene, Schell, and other writers maintain that one need not be a priest to be capable o f receiving episcopal consecration. The more common opinion, however, is that one must have re ceived ordination to the priesthood before he can be con secrated. This last-mentioned opinion must be followed in practice. The historical arguments that have been drawn against it from certain utterances o f Popes Zosimus and Celestine the F irst are unconvincing.13

3. T h e B e s t o w a l o f H i g h e r P o w e r s . A l though the character imprinted by H oly O rders o f itself includes certain higher powers, the latter are more correctly regarded as effects o f the Sac rament, because character and power, while re ciprocal, are by no means synonymous terms.
That is to s a y : while the sacramental character and spiritual power as a rule go hand in hand, they may
12 F o r a more com plete treat13 C fr. D e A ugu stin is, D e R e Sam cnt o f this topic the student is cr a m cn t., V ol. I I , 2nd ed., pp. 541 referred to T c p c , lu s t . T ltc o l., V o l. sqq. I V , pp. 573 sqq., P a ris J896.

SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS

77

exist separately. O ur L ord Jesus Christ undoubtedly e x ercised the plenitude o f spiritual power, though he had not received the sacramental character. On the other hand, bishops and priests retain the character in H eaven, though they no longer have power to consecrate, absolve, or ordain there. T he faculties attached to the sacramental character of H oly O rders vary according to the rank o f the bearer. A bishop has greater powers than a priest, the priests powers exceed those o f the deacon, and so on to the lowest degree. In a sim ilar manner the powers attaching to the lower orders decrease by degrees. Note, however, that in the case o f the subdiaconate and minor orders the power con ferred by the ordination rite does not flow from the sacra mental character because these orders are not Sacraments.

C H A P T E R II
D I V IS IO N O F ORDERS

There are eight different orders: bishop, priest, dea con, subdeacon, acolyte, exorcist, lector, and porter or door-keeper ( ostia riu s ). A ll these are expressly men tioned by the Fourth Council o f Carthage (398). The five lowest are of ecclesiastical institution and therefore not Sacraments. T h e higher three, called hierarchical orders, were insti tuted by our Lord H im self, and therefore at least one of them must be a true Sacrament because ordination is a true Sacrament. W hich one, is a question that remains to be examined.

T he dogmatic teaching o f the Tridentine Coun cil on H oly O rders is as fo llo w s: ( 1 ) Besides the priesthood, there are in the Catholic Church other orders, both greater and smaller, by which, as by certain steps, entry is made into the priesthood. 1 (2 ) In the Catholic Church there is a hier archy, instituted by divine ordination, consisting o f bishops, priests, and m inisters. 2 (3 ) Order, or sacred ordination, is truly and properly a Sacrament instituted by Christ. 3
1 Scss. X X I I I , can. 2. 2 Scss. X X I I I , can. 6.
3 Scss.

X X I I I , can. 3.

78

THE DIFFERENT ORDERS

(4) Bishops are superior to, and have greater power than, priests.4 W e shall, therefore, treat first o f the Episcopate (Sect. 1 ), second, o f the Priesthood (Sect. 2 ), third, o f the Diaconate (Sect. 3 ), and fourth, o f the Subdiaconate and the Four M inor O rders (Sect. 4 ).
4 Sess. X X III, can. 7.

SECTION i
THE E P IS C O P A T E

The Tridentine Council defines ( i ) that bish ops are superior to priests, and (2 ) that they have the power o f confirming and ordaining. T hat episcopal consecration is a true Sacrament follows as a theological conclusion.
T h e s is I : T h e episcopate is, b y divine institution, an order d istin ct from , and superior to, the priesthood.

T his proposition embodies an article o f faith. P roof. T he divine institution o f the episcopate and its superiority to the priesthood were denied by A erius in the fourth century, by M arsilius o f Padua in the fourteenth,1 and by the follow ers of W ic lif and IIus in the fifteenth.2 A gain st these later heretics the Council o f T ren t defined: I f anyone saith that in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy instituted by divine ordination, consisting o f bishops, priests, and ministers, let him be anathema. 3 A n d : I f anyone saith
1 C fr. D enzin gcr-B an m vart, n. 498. 2 Ib id ., n. 675. 3 Sess. X X I I I , can. 6: " S i q u is
d ix c r il, in E c c lc sia ca th olica n o n c ss c h icra rch ia m d ivin a ordinatio n c in stitu ta w , q u a e co n sta t c x cp isc o p is, t'r c sb y tc r is c t m in istris, a n athem a s it." (D enzingcr-Bann-

wart, n. 966).

8 0

THE EPISCOPATE

8r

that bishops are not superior to priests, . . . him be anathem a. 4

let

The Council does not expressly say that the superiority o f the episcopate over the priesthood is divinely instituted, but this proposition is deducible from the nature o f the episcopal faculties, especially that o f giving confirmation and ordination.5

a) T he hierarchic distinction o f the episco pate and its superiority as compared to the priest hood cannot be proved from the name episcopus (e V io x o T r o ? ^ because the terms Iv I < jk o v o s j ttpca/3vTpo<;) and Smkovos are used loosely and oftentim es syn onymously in the N ew Testam ent.6 A convinc ing argum ent fo r the dogm atic teaching o f the Church can, however, be drawn from the func tions attributed to the episcopal office.
Franzelin attempts to show 7 that while the bishops were sometimes called TrpeafivTepoi, simple priests were never called eVto-KOTrot. B ut the argument is not entirely con clusive, as usage varied in the primitive Church.8 Th e functions attributed to bishops are a much better criterion. T h e pastoral letters o f St. Paul show that some of the disciples ordained by the Apostles exercised precisely those prerogatives by which the episcopate is distinguished from the priesthood, i. c. the power o f ordaining priests and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Thus Barnabas ordained
4 Scss. X X I I I , can. 7: " S i q u is 7 D c E c r fc sia C h r is ti, thes. 16, 2nd d ix e r it , ep iseo p o s n o n e ss e p rcsb y te r is su p e r io re s , . . . an ath em a sit- G V . in fr a , T h esis I I .

8 C fr.

II.

cd., Rome 1907. B rud ers, S .J., D ie

c C fr. 1 Cor. I l l , 1 P et. V , 1.

5; 2 John 1;

V e r fa s s u n g dcr K ir e h e bis su m Ja h r e 175 11. C h r is tu s , pp. 360 sqq.,

M aycn cc

1904.

82

HOLY ORDERS

p riests; 0 T itus was left for the same purpose in C r e te ; 10 Tim othy was admonished not to impose hands lightly,11 and so forth. It was the will o f Christ that the power which H e had given to H is Apostles should be transferred by them to their successors; consequently the episcopate is divinely instituted.

b) T he episcopate is clearly marked in ancient Tradition as an independent, superior, and di vinely instituted, monarchical office.
N othing can be deduced in favor o f our thesis from the D ida che, the S h ep h erd o f H ernias, or the letters of Clement o f Rome, because in these sub-Apostolic writings the term maKOTros, which we found in the N ew Testament, has not yet narrowed down to its more specific meaning. But we have an important witness in St. Ignatius of Antioch (-]- 1 1 7 ), who clearly distinguishes three orders in the hierarchy. H e says in his Epistle to the M agnesians: I exhort you : Be zealous to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place o f God, and the presbyters in the place o f the council o f the Apostles, and the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the service of Jesus Christ. 12 H e attributes the superiority o f the episcopal order to the fact that there is but one bishop in each diocese. Be careful, therefore, he says, to use one Eucharist, for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for union with His blood, one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and the deacons. 13 That the episco pate exists by divine ordination is taught in the same writn A cts X I V , 22. 10 T it. I, 5 sqq. 11 i Tim . I l l , i sqq.; V , 22. 12 A d M a g n ., 6. 13 A d P h ila d ., 4.

THE EPISCOPATE

83

ers Epistle to the Ephesians. The bishops, he avers, who have been appointed throughout the world, are by the will o f Jesus Christ. . . . F or every one whom the M aster o f the house sends to do his business, we ought to receive as H im who sent him. T h erefore it is clear that we must regard the bishop as the Lord him self. 14 Th e testimony o f St. Ignatius sufficiently refutes the assertion that the episcopate was but just springing into existence at the beginning o f the second century. Bardenhewer sums up the argument from early Tradition as fo llo w s: Hegesippus,15 and soon a fter him Irenaeus,10 draw up a list o f Rom an bishops, beginning with the Apostles. The existence o f the episcopate about the middle o f the second century is proved by overwhelm ing and explicit testimony. F o r the beginning o f the second century we have the authority o f St. Ignatius, the very text o f whose letters precludes the possibility o f a forgery. W e nowhere hear o f hindrances or difficulties in the w ay o f the episcopate, or o f quarrels or combats between bishops and priests. The episcopate is invariably intro duced as a traditional institution o f acknowledged legiti macy, which needs no p roof. 17 Am ong the many later Patristic testimonies we will mention only the fam ous dictum o f St. Cyprian that T h e bishop is in the Church, and the Church is in the bishop, and if any one is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. 18
14 A d E p h e s ., I l l , 6 . 15 C fr . Eusebius, H is t. I V , 22, 3. 10 A d v . H a e r ., I l l , 3.
17 G e sch . d. a ltk ir c h lic h e n L ite r a tu r , V o l. I, p. 134, F reibu rg 1902. 18 />., 6 6 , 8 : " U n d e sc ir e deb e s, E c c lc s ., ep isco p u m in e c c le sia e ss e et

c c c le sia m in e p isc o p o , e t s i q u is cu m ep isco p o n o n s it, in e c c le sia n o n e s s e ." (C fr . D e A u gu stin is, D e R e S a c ra m e n t., V o l. I I , 2nd ed.,

pp. 440 sqq.)

84

H OLY ORDERS

Thesis I I : T h e superiority of the episcopate over the priesthood is based m ainly upon the power to con firm and ordain.

T his proposition m ay be qualified as asent enfia certa P roof. The Tridentine Council enumerates the follow ing as specifically episcopal functions: Bishops . . . administer the Sacram ent o f Con firmation, ordain the ministers o f the Church, and can perform very many other things, over which functions others o f an inferior order have no pow er. 19 The same holy Synod pronounces anathema against anyone who saith that bishops are not superior to priests, or that they have not the power o f confirming and ordaining, or that the power which they possess is common to them and priests. 2 Consequently, the superiority of 0 the episcopal over the sacerdotal office is based principally upon the power o f confirming and or daining.
Since, however, the power o f confirming can be granted to simple priests by papal dispensation,21 the really distinctive and unique prerogative o f the bishop, so far as
in Scss. X X I I I , cap. 4- " E p itc o p o s sa cra m cn tu m co n firm a tio n is c o n fe r r e , m in istro s E c e le s ia e o rd in a re a tqu e alia p lc r a q n c p era g ere ip so s p osse, quorum fu n c tio n u m potest tcm r c liq u i in fc r io r is o r d in is m tlla m h a b c n t. (D cn zinger-B an m vart, n. 960).
vo Scss. X X I I I , can. 7: " S i q u is d ix e r it, ep isco p o s n o n esse p resbyte r is su p e r io re s v e l n on h a b ere pote s ta to li co n firm a n d i c t o rd in a n d i, v e l cam quam h a b cn t illis e s s e cum p r e s b y te r is co m m u n ein , . . . anathema s i t . " (D cn zin gcr-B an n w art, n.

21 V .

967). Pohle-Prcuss, T h e S a c r a m c n ts, V o l. I, pp. 310 sqq.

THE EPISCOPATE

85

the potestas ordinis is concerned, is his power to ordain priests. From this power spring all other episcopal pre rogatives : the bishops position as the divinely ap pointed head of his diocese 22 and the center o f unity both in faith and discipline; his character as a successor o f the A postles; his capacity o f father of his priests and the faith ful entrusted to their care; his right to represent his diocese at provincial, plenary, and ecumenical councils, etc.2 3

a) T h a t bishops alone have the power to or dain priests is am ply confirmed by Tradition.
A rius o f Sebaste, an A rian priest, whose form er friend and rival Eustathius had been raised to the episcopal dig nity, maintained that bishops and priests were absolutely equal in all things. St. Epiphanius ( + 4 0 3 ) , in his M edicine Chest, commonly called H a e r e s e s refuted this contention as fo llo w s: W hat sense is there in that ? T h e order o f bishops has for its chief purpose to produce new fathers, fo r its business is to propagate fathers in the Church. T h e other [2'. e. the priesthood], unable to engender fathers, in the laver o f regeneration brings forth sons of the Church, but not fathers and teachers. H ow would it be possible for [priests] to make other priests, as they have not the right to lay on hands? 2 4 St. John Chrysostom ( + 407) s a y s : Between bishops and priests there is hardly any difference, . . . by the power o f ordination alone are the form er superior [to the latter], and only this they seem to have more than the presbyters. 2 5
22 C fr. A cts X X , 28: " S p ir it u s
sa n c tu s p o su it c p is c o p o s r c g e r c E cclcsia m D e i . " 33 C fr. B cra rd i, D c Bologn a 1891. 21 D c I la c r c s ., 75, n. 3. 2 H ot)t. in I . T im ., 11. 0 E p is c o p o ,

86

HOLY ORDERS

Ecclesiastical practice agreed with this teaching. H is tory knows o f no case in which the Church acknowledged the validity o f higher orders when conferred by a simple priest. W hen St. Athanasius ( + 3 7 3 ) was accused of sacrilege for having permitted the consecrated chalice to be broken during a mass celebrated by a certain Ischyras, he proved that Ischyras had been invalidly ordained by the pseudo-bishop Colluthos, whereupon his enemies re luctantly dropped the charge, because the hands of Colluthos were without authority. 26 W hence is this presbyter Ischyras ? the Saint asks. W ho ordained him? Colluthos, perhaps? . . . B ut it is known to all, and doubted by none, that Colluthos died as a presbyter, and his hands were without authority, and all ordained by him during the schism were sent back to the lay state. 27 b) A difficulty arises from certain utterances o f St. Jerome ( + 4 2 0 ) , who exalts the priesthood at the e x pense o f the episcopate in such exaggerated terms that the Scotch Presbyterians boldly cite him as a witness to their non-prelatical form o f church government. St. Jerom es attitude must be judged in the light o f his per sonal relations with Bishop John o f Jerusalem and o f the current practice o f exalting the archdeacons at the ex pense o f priests in the administration o f Church a f fairs.2 8 The strangest passage in the Saints writings runs as fol low s: Idem est ergo presbyter qui et episeopits, et antequam diaboli instinetn studia [/. e. faetion es] in religlone fierent et dieeretur in popnlis: E g o sum P au li, ego A p o llo , ego autem Cephae, com inuni presbyterorum
20 C fr. F ohle-Preuss,
The S a cra 28 C fr. Schw anc, D o g m c n g c sc h ic h m cn ts. V oi. II, p. 260. 27 A p o i. c. A r ia n ., n. 12.

I I , 2nd ed., pp. 851 sqq.t F reiburg 1895.

tc , V o i.

THE EPISCOPATE

87

consilio ecclcsiae gubernabantur. . . . S ic u t ergo presbytcri sciun t se e x E eelesia e consuetudine ei, qui sibi praep ositus fu c r it, esse subiectos, ita episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam d isp o sitio n s dom inicae v e n ta te prcsbytcris esse m aiorcs et in com m une debere E cclcsia m regerc, im itantcs M oy sen , q u i quum haberet in potestate solum praeesse populo Isra el, septuaginta elegit, cum quibus populum iudicaret. 29 St. Jerome here has in view

the potestas iurisdiction is rather than the p otestas ordinis o f bishops. H e demands a more democratic adm inistra tion o f church affairs and greater power fo r the priest hood. B ut his chief complaint is directed against the usurpations o f the deacons: A u d io quendam in tantam
em p isse vecordiam , a t diaconos presbyteris, i . e. episcopis a n teferret. A p o sto lu s p erspicue docet eosdem esse presbyteros quos episcopos. . . . Q u o d autem postea units electus est, qui caetcris praeponeretur, in schism atis re m edium factu m est. 30 St. Jerome was undoubtedly ju s

tified in protesting against the arrogance of these deacons ; but he was w rong in belittling the episcopal office in favor o f the priesthood. In spite o f these utterances, however, Catholics have never suspected him o f being a follow er of Arius. F or he unequivocally admits that the bishops alone have the power to ordain,31 and his very assertion that the bishops are superior to priests more through custom than by divine institution shows that at heart he believed in the divine institution of the episcopate.32

Thesis I I I : T h e rite of episcopal consecration is a true Sacrament.

20 I n T it., I, 5.
30 E p . ad E v a n g e l., 146, n. 1. 31 I b id .: " Q u id en im fa c it except o r d in a tio n e e p is c o p u s , q u o d p r e s b y te r n on fa c ia tT " (M ig ne, 32 C fr. T ix ero n t, H is to r y o f D ogm a s, V o l. I I , pp. 325 sq., St. Louis 19 14 ; B illu a rt, D e S a c ra m e n to O r d in ts, diss. 4, art. 1, obj. 2; D e Augustinis, D e R e S a c ra m e n t., V o l. I I ,

P . L . , X X I I , 119 3).

2nd ed., pp. 449 sqq.

88

HOLY ORDERS

T his proposition embodies a theological con clusion. P roof. Scholastic w riters disagree with re gard to the sacramental character o f episcopal consecration. Peter Lombard, A lexander o f Hales, Blessed Albertus M agnus, St. Bonaventure, St. Thom as,3 Duns Scotus, and others de 3 ny, while W illiam o f A u xerre, Durandus, Paludanus, N avarrus, Cardinal Cajetan, and Gabriel Biel affirm it. T he later Schoolmen, with the rsole exception o f Dominicus Soto, defended the affirmative view so vigorously that Peter Soto did not hesitate to say that it w as cert fide tencnda, 34 and Cardinal Bellarmine characterized it as certissima. 35 T o-day our thesis is univer sally accepted by Catholic divines as a conclusio theologica. T h e arguments in its favo r are, in deed, quite convincing. a) T h at there is a Sacram ent o f O rder w as demonstrated a b o v e 3 from St. P a u ls Epistles 0 to Tim othy. N ow , according to the unanimous interpretation o f the Fathers and Doctors o f the Church, the Apostle speaks in that Epistle o f the ordination o f bishops.37 Consequently, the ordination o f bishops, or episcopal consecration, is a true Sacrament.
33 St. R on avcn turc, I n S e n t ., I V , dist. 24, qu. 3; St. Thom as, S u m m a T h c o L , S u p p le m e n t., qu. 40, art. 5. 34 U e I n s iit. S a c e r d ., sect. 4.
85 D e O r d ., c. 5. 30 V . su p ra , Ch. i , Scct. 1. 87 1 Tim . I V , 11 sqq.

THE EPISCOPATE

89

St. John Chrysostom says: [St. P aul] here speaks' not of presbyters, but o f bishops; fo r the presbyters did not ordain the bishop. 38 St. Thom as takes the same view. H e says in his commentary on the second Epistle to T im o th y : W hich is in thee by the imposition o f my hands/ that is to say, by whom he was ordained a bishop, in which imposition of hands the grace o f the H oly Ghost was given him. 39 This argument cannot be shattered by the assertion that St. Paul, in imposing hands on Tim othy, m erely ordained him to the priesthood, and that the episcopal dig nity was added later and is an entirely non-sacramental complement. Tim othy had the power o f ordaining bish -v ops, and this pow er could not have come to him by a mere Apostolic command, but must have been based 011 the episcopal character, which is inseparably bound up with the Sacram ent o f O rders.4 0 I f episcopal consecration were not a true Sacrament and if it did not imprint a character on the soul of the re cipient, the hierarchic distinction between the episcopate and the priesthood could not be o f divine institution. The Church can take away what she herself has given ( e . g. the dignity o f an abbot, ecclesiastical jurisdiction) ; but she cannot take aw ay the power o f conferring H oly O rders. A n excommunicated bishop can ordain validly even against her will, whereas no ordinary priest can ordain even with papal permission. It follow s that episcopal consecration imprints on the soul a sacramental character and is, therefore, a true Sacrament.

b) T he Fathers, whenever they treat o f the

38 I n I . T im ., I V , 14. 3 !) E x p o s, in I I . T im ., cap. I, lect. 3: " ' Q u a e e st in te p er im p o sitio n e m m a n u u m tn earum a q u o s c il. o r d in a tu s erat e p isc o p u s, in qua man u s im p o s itio n c data e st e i g ratia S p ir it u s s a n c ti. 40 K. su p r a , Ch. I , Sect. 3, No. 2.

90

HOLY ORDERS

Sacram ent o f H oly O rders, have in mind prin cipally episcopal consecration, because they re gard the bishop as the priest par excellence.
Cardinal Bellarmine s a y s 41 that to deny the sacramen tality o f episcopal consecration would endanger the P atris tic argument for the existence o f the Sacrament o f H oly Orders, because the Fathers as a rule base their discus sion o f the subject on this rite. N or is there any lack of express testimony in support of our thesis. St. Augustine, for instance, says concerning the re admission o f the Donatistic bishops: The Baptism they give is not theirs, but Christs. T h e invocation made upon their heads when they were consecrated bishops is the invocation o f God, not o f Donatus. I do not receive him as a bishop upon whose head, at ordination, Donatus was invoked. In an erring and deserting soldier the crime is his own, whereas the character is that o f the emperor. 42

c) T h e Tridentine Council proves the existence o f the Sacram ent o f H oly O rders from the conse cration o f Tim othy at the hands o f St. Paul.
The Council s a y s : W hereas, by the testimony of Scripture, . . . it is clear that grace is conferred by sacred ordination, . . . no one ought to doubt that O rder is truly and properly one o f the seven Sacraments o f holy
41 D e O r d ., c. s. 2 Serin. ad C a esar. E c c l. P lc b c m , n. 2 (M igne, P . L ., X L I I I , 69 ): " R a p tism u s n on cst ip so r u m , se d C h r isti. I n v o c o tio n o m in is su p e r capu t ip so ru m , q uan do o r d in a n tu r cp isc o p i, in i'o c a tio ilia D e i c st, n o n D o n a ti. N o n cum su sc ip io c p is c o p u m , s i q uan do c st o rd in a tu s, su p e r capu t e iu s D o n a tu s est in v o c a tu s . I n er ra n te et d e s e r c n tc m ilitc crim en c st d c s e r to r is, ch a ra cter a utcm n on c st d c s e r to ris, se d im p c r a to r is . "

O ther testim onies quoted by Bellarm ine, D c O r d ., c. 3 and 5.

THE EPISCOPATE

91

C h u rch ; fo r the Apostle s a y s : 41 admonish thee that thou stir up the grace o f God, which is in thee by the imposition o f m y hands. 43 Im m ediately afterw ard the holy Synod declares that bishops . . . principally belong to this hierarchical order, and that they are superior to priests. 44 W hence we m ay a rg u e : A s ordination to the priesthood is a Sacram ent,45 consecration to the epis copate must be a Sacram ent a fo rtio ri. T h is argument derives force from the fact that the Council pronounces anathema against those who maintain that vainly do the bishops say [at ordination] : 4 Receive ye the H oly Ghost. 4 0

d) T h e objections o f certain Scholastics can be easily refuted, nay, to some extent turned against their own position.
T h eir principal argument may be stated thus: A ll orders are directed tow ards the H oly Eucharist as their goal and exist fo r its sake. N ow , since the bishops power over the Body o f Christ does not exceed that of the priest, he receives no new character with regard to the Eucharist, and therefore episcopal consecration is not a Sacram ent.47
43 Sess. X X I I I , cap. 3: " Q u u m S c r ip tu r o e te s tim o n io . . . persp icu u m sit, p er saeram o r d in a tio n a n . . . g ratiam c o n fe r r i, d u b ita r e n em o d e b e t. o r d in e m e ss e v e r e c t p ro p r ie uttum e x sep tem saeram en t is ; in q u it en im A p o s to lu s : A d m o n e o te, ut r e s u s c ite s gra tia m , etc. od h u n c h ier a r ch icu m ord in em p ra ec ip u e p e r tin e r e . . . e o sq u e p re s b y te r is su p er io r e s e s s e . (D enzinger-B ann-

45 V . su p ra , Sect. 2. 40 Sess. X X I I I , can. 4. C fr. E. F u rtn er, D a s V e r h ltn is d e r B i sc h o fs z v e ih e su m hl. S a k r a m e n t des O r d o , M unich 1861. 47 C fr. St. Thom as, S u m m a T h e o l., S u p p l., qu. 40, art. 5: " O r d o p o t e s t a c c ip i d u p lie ite r . U n o m odo,
se c u n d u m q u o d e st sa c r o m e n iu m , c t s ic o r d in a tu r o m n is ordo ad E u clia ristia e sa cr o m e n tu m . U n d e quu m e p is c o p u s non h abeat p o testa tem s u p eriorem sa c e r d o te , q ua n tu m ad h oc e p is c o p a tu s n on erit o r d o .

(D cn zin ger-B an nw art, n. 959). 44 I b id ., cap. 4: " C p isc o p o s

w at, n. 960).

92

HOLY ORDERS

Anszver. T h e premise upon which this argument rests is open to dispute. But even if it were sound, we could retort that the bishop actually has greater power with re gard to the Eucharist than the priest, because he can com m unicate the pozver o f consecration to others.

Another objection o f the early Schoolmen was this: N o order can be truly sacramental that is so dependent upon another that the omission o f one renders the other invalid. I f episcopal consecration imprinted the sacra mental character, a deacon could be raised to the episco pate without having first been ordained to the priesthood. But such proceeding would be invalid. H ence the episco pal consecration is not a Sacrament. Anszver. W hether a deacon could be validly conse crated without being first ordained, is a point in dispute. Setting this aside, let us regard the logic of the argu ment. W ould it not be equally consistent to argue thus: I f Confirmation imprints a character, an unbaptized per son, who lacks the baptismal character, could be validly confirmed ; this, however, is im possible; consequently Con firmation is not a Sacrament. There is confusion here between an indispensable prerequisite and the essence of the thing. The baptismal character is an indispensable prerequisite for Confirmation. In the same w ay the character o f the priesthood is an indispensable prerequisite for episcopal consecration. Neither postulate affects the essence of the respective Sacrament. Again, it is inconsistent to admit the sacramental char acter of the diaconate, nay to ascribe a character to the four minor orders, and to deny it to episcopal conse cration. Does not the administration o f Confirmation and H oly Orders, which is reserved to bishops, require greater power than the administration o f Baptism, preaching, and serving Mass, which belong to the lower orders? It is objected, finally: Th e Church knows but seven

THE EPISCOPATE

93

orders, and seven sacramental ordinations corresponding to them, via.: the four minor orders, the subdiaconate, the diaconate, and the priesthood. I f the episcopate were a separate sacramental order, the title " D e S ep tem O rd in ibus over Session X X I I I , cap. 2, o f the Decrees o f T ren t would be wrong. A n siver. That there are seven orders is by no means so certain as that there are seven Sacraments. M any canonists and theologians do not hesitate to speak o f eight orders. The title " D e S ep tem O rdinibits was not com*posed by the Fathers o f the Tridentine Council, but added later. N or would it decide the question at issue even if it were authentic. T h e chapter thus inscribed treats the episcopate as a separate and distinct order. T h is fact does not necessarily render the title D e S ep tem O rd in ib u s false. F o r the priesthood can be conceived as a genus with two species, v iz.: the sacerdotium m ains or prim i ordinis, i. e. the episcopate, and the sacerdotium m inus or secu n d i ordinis, i. e. the priesthood proper. The bishop is essentially a priest, but he is at the same time the highest priest ( sum m us sa cerd os ) in the diocese. Nevertheless there are, theologically speaking, not seven or eight Sacraments o f H oly O rders, but only one.48 The lower orders are simply so many stages leading up to the priesthood, which, in turn, culminates in the episcopate.4 0 O ther questions pertaining to the episcopate, especially as regards the power o f jurisdiction, belong to Funda mental Theology and Canon Law .
S C o n e. T r id e n t., Sess. X X I I I , c.
2: " tinum e x se p te m se c u n d u m co m p leta m ra tio n cm est in u n o , in a liis autem est aliq ud partic ip a tio n e ip s iu s ." C fr. De A ugustinis, D e R e S a c r a m e n t., V o l. I I , 2nd ed., pp. 422 sqq.; Ialm ieri, D e R o m a n o P o n tific e , 2nd cd ., pp. 84 s a c r a m e n tis ." Thom as, Sum m a

to C fr.

St.

T h e o l., S u p p l., qu. 37, art. i, ad 2: D iv is io o r d in is n o n est to tin s in tc g r a lis in su a s p a rtes n e q u c to tiu s u n iv e r sa lis , se d to tiu s p o te sta tiv i, c u iu s h a e c est n a tu ra , q u o d to tu m

sqq., Rom e 1897.

SECTION 2
TH E P R IE S T H O O D

T he priesthood, like the episcopate, is a distinct order, superior to the diaconate and instituted by C h rist; and the rite o f ordination to the priest hood is a true Sacrament.
T h esis I : T h e priesthood is a distin ct order, d ivin ely institu ted, and superior to the diaconate b y the pow er o f consecration and absolution.

T his proposition is de fide. P roof. T h e Council o f T ren t defines: I f anyone saith that in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy, instituted by divine ordination, consisting o f bishops, priests, and ministers, let him be anathem a. 1 A n d again: I f anyone saith that there is not in the N ew Testam ent a visible and external priesthood, or that there is not any power o f consecrating and offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord and o f fo rg iv ing and retaining sins, . . . let him be anath ema. 2
1 Sess. X X I I I , can. 4. 2 Sess. X X I I I , can. 1: " S i guts d ix e r it , non e sse in A'0 -0 T esta tn en to sacerdotxum i-isib ilc ct e x te r . num v e l n on e ss e p o testa tem allquam c o n se c r a n d i et o ffe r e n d i z e r u m co r p u s et sa n g u in em D o m in i et peccata r e m itte n J i et r e iin e n d i, . . .

04

THE PRIESTHOOD

95

The distinction between the priesthood and the episco pate, and the superiority of the form er over the diaconate, follow s from what has been said o f the prerogatives of bishops.3 That there is a priesthood distinct from the episcopate is attested by St. Ignatius o f Antioch, as w e have seen.4 T h at this distinction does not appear in the earlier P a tristic writings is owing to the fact that irpeo-^vrepos was used interchangeably with e-iWo-os.5 In view of the law o f historic continuity it is safe to assume, however, that an institution which w as fu lly developed at the beginning of the second century, in principle existed already in the first. Consequently, the priesthood dates from the first cen tury o f the Christian era, and because of the powers with which it is endowed, can have been instituted by none other than our Divine Lord H im self. IIpe<7/?i'7epos as a technical term to designate the inter m ediary stage between bishop and deacon, had passed through a process o f development already at the time o f St. Ignatius. T h e stages o f this process were probably as fo llo w s: In itself the name ^peo^i'repoi designated the presiding officers in g en era l; but long before this signification became generally accepted, popular usage had coined the name SiAko101 for the lowest class o f church officials. F or these the faithful first required a clear designation because they were in close contact with them even- day. Thus, after this new name had become current, the z-peor^urepot w ere divided into B u L k o v o i and nonS u ik o v o i. The latter were then called - I c t k o - o t or -oi/ieres. W hen at the close o f the Apostolic age ( 6 7 -1 1 0 ), this terminology proved inadequate, the word
anatlicm a s it." (D enzinger-B annw art. n. 9 6 1). S V . su p ra , Sect. 1. 4 I , su p ra , pp. 82 sq. 5 C fr. S c h a n z .D iY L c h r e von d en h i. S a k r a m c n te n , pp. 663 sqq., Frei-

burg 1893.

96

HOLY ORDERS

which, in contradistinction to Trpccr/Swrcpoi, was gener ally employed in the singular number, became the tech nical term for the chief shepherd o f a d iocese; the middle class continued to be called 7roi/AeVes or TrpevfivTepoi. T he circumstance that 7 rpecr(3vTepot was a technical term among Jews and pagans, helped to give this word the preference over others still in use for the aforesaid middle class o f officials and thus to m ake it the term inus tcchnicus for this class. 0

Thesis I I : Sacrament.

Ordination to the priesthood is a true

T his also is de fide. Proof. T he sacram entality o f sacerdotal ordi nation, though never expressly defined as an arti cle o f faith, is guaranteed by the ordinary teach ing office o f the Church. a) The M essianic priesthood prefigured in the Old T esta m e n t7 is realized in the New. Christ commissioned H is Apostles and their successors to offer the E ucharistic sacrifice and to forgive sins. From the beginning of the Christian era to the present day, priests as well as bishops have been ordained fo r both these functions (consecra tion and absolution). It follow s that ordina tion to the priesthood possesses a character which can be imprinted only by a true Sacrament. b) Ecclesiastical T radition up to St. Cyprian,
o II. Hrudcrs, S.J., D ie V e r fa s s u n g
d c r K ir c h e bis 175 11. C h r ., pp. 384 sq., M aycncc 904; cfr. I esch, P r a c l e d . D o g m a t., V o l. I, 4th cd., pp. 7 C fr.

194 sqq., F reibu rg 1909. Isaias L X V I , 2 1; M ai. I, 11; I I I , 3.

THE PRIESTHOOD

97

Tertullian, and St. Ignatius o f Antioch confirms the existence o f priests as a class distinct from and superior to the deacons.
Some o f the later Fathers, notably St. G regory o f Nyssa, St. Chrysostom, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine, expressly designate the ordination rite for priests as a Sacrament and put it on a level with Baptism .8 M ore over, with the sole exception of the Protestants, all Chris tian sects regard ordination to the priesthood as a Sacra ment. T h ey cannot have invented this b elief; it must have come to them from the Catholic Church, to which they all at one time belonged.

c) T h e two argum ents just given from Scrip ture and T radition m ay be strengthened by a third, drawn from the teaching of Trent. T he Council defines that O rder, or sacred ordination, is truly and properly a Sacram ent instituted by C hrist. 9 N ow , one m ay without heresy (though not without error) doubt the sacramental character o f the ordination rite fo r bishops and deacons. I f the ordination rite fo r priests were not a true Sacram ent, there would be no certainty o f faith that a Sacram ent o f H oly O rders exists.
H ence, concludes Benedict X I V ,10 all theologians infer that it must be received as o f divine faith that at
8 V. supra, pp. 59 sq. 0 Sess. X X I I I , can. 3. 10 D e Synodo D ioeces., V I I I , 9, s'. H inc om nes theologi infcrun t fidc divina tenendum , saltern ordinationem saeerdotum esse verum et proprium sacramentum. A d reritatern enint pracdictae defm itionis universalis ncccsse cst, ut ea ad m ini mum compleetatur ordinem pracstantissimum, quale est saeerdotiuin. '

98

HOLY ORDERS

least ordination to the priesthood is truly and properly a Sacrament. F or in order that the aforesaid universal definition [o f Trent] be true, it must necessarily include at least the forem ost order, i. c. the priesthood. Furtherm ore, the ordination rite for priests, according to all existing form ularies, communicates the H oly Ghost. N ow the Council o f Trent pronounces anathema against those who deny that the H oly Ghost is given in sacred ordination when the bishop says, Receive ye the H oly Ghost. 11 T h is means that the invisible rite is accom panied by and produces invisible grace.12 Consequently, ordination to the priesthood is a true Sacrament. Finally, the Council solemnly defines that a character is imprinted by that ordination, and that he who has once been a priest cannot again become a laym an. 13 Th e imprinting o f a character is a specifically sacramental effect. H ence ordination to the priesthood must be a true Sacrament. Th e Church acts upon this belief in praxi when she refuses to deprive excommunicated or suspended priests of the power o f consecration. Neither can she deprive any priest o f that other sacerdotal power o f fo r giving sins, though she can and often does make its exercise invalid by withdrawing the necessary jurisdiction.
11 Scss. X X I I I , can. 4: . . . per sacram ordinationcm dari Spiritum sanctum ac proindc episcopos non frustra d icc rc: A ccip e Spiritum sanctum . 12 V. supra, pp. 72 sqq. . . . per cam [ordinationcm ] imprimi charactcrcm ct cum, qui scm cl saccrdas fu it, laicum rursus fieri non posse.
13 Sess. X X I I I , can. 4:

SECT IO N 3
T H E D IA C O N A T E

Deacons ( diaconi, SiaWoi), in the technical sense o f the term, are men who minister to bishops and priests in the discharge o f their official duties.1 T heir functions, according to the Roman Ritual, are to serve at the altar, to baptize, and to preach. 2 T he Catholic teaching on the diaconate may be set forth in two theses, as follow s :
Thesis I : T h e diaconate is a distinct order insti tuted by Christ, and the low est among the three hier archical orders.

Both propositions are o f faith. Proof. In inculcating the divine institution of a hierarchy consisting o f bishops, priests, and m inisters, 3 the Tridentine Council by the latter term undoubtedly meant to include deacons. T h a t the diaconate is subordinate' to the episco pate and the priesthood follow s from the fact that
l C fr. Phil. I, i ; i Tim . I l l , 8 sqq. O n the name " diaconus " and its history see II. B rud ers, S .J., D ie V crfassung der K irche bis 175 n. Chr., pp. 351 sqq. 2 " M inistrare ad altare, baptisare ct praedicarc." 8 Scss. X X I I I , can, 6: . . quae constat e x cpiscopis, presbytcris ct m inistris.

99

100

HOLY ORDERS

the deacons minister to the priesthood by virtue o f their office. 4 a) The origin o f the diaconate is described as follow s in the A cts o f the Apostles: In those days, the number o f disciples increasing, there arose a m urm uring o f the Greeks against the H e brews, for that their widows were neglected in the daily ministrations. Then the tw elve calling together the multitude o f the disciples, sa id : It is not reason that we should leave the word o f God, and serve tables. W herefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men o f good reputation, full o f the H oly Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. . . . A n d they chose Stephen, . . . and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parm enas, and Nicolas. . . . These they set before the Apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them. 5 The table service in ancient times was intim ately con nected with the service o f the altar.0 M oreover, we see these seven deacons, especially Stephen and Philip, preaching the Gospel,7 baptizing,8 and min istering at divine worship.0 But does not the passage quoted prove that the diaconate is an Apostolic rather than a divine in stitution ? T his question can best be answered by
4 C o n e. T r id e n t., S c ss . X X I I I , cap . 2: " . . . q u i sa c cr d o tio e x o fficio d c s c r v ir c n t. A c t s V I , 1 sqq. >

o C fr . i C o r . X I , 21.
7 A c t s V I , 8 sq q .; V I I I , 5.

8 A c t s V I I I , 1 2, 38. 0 1 T im . I I I . 8 sqq.

THE DIACONATE

IOI

saying that an office that is alw ays mentioned as organically connected with the priesthood,10 and conferred by the imposition o f hands,11 must be o f divine institution. b) T he Scriptural argum ent is strengthened by Tradition. T he diaconate has alw ays been sharply distinguished from the priesthood, more sharply, in fact, than the episcopate.
St. Clement o f Rome, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, which was composed A . D. 96, when St. John the E van gelist was still alive, s a y s : T h e Apostles have re ceived the message which they gave us from the Lord Jesus C h rist; Jesus Christ w as sent by G od: hence Christ by God, and the Apostles by Christ, these things are well ordained according to the w ill o f God. . . . Th e Apostles ordained the first among their converts after exam ining their spirit, to be bishops and deacons.12 N or is this anything new. F o r Sacred Scripture s a y s : I will constitute their bishops in justice and their deacons in faith. W e need not wonder that those to whom this office has been entrusted by God in Christ, have ordained those aforem entioned. 13 St. Ignatius o f Antioch (-f- 1 1 7 ), speaking o f the divine constitution o f the Church, says that it cannot exist with out deacons. Likew ise let all respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, and also the bishop, who is the type o f the Father, and the presbyters as the council o f God and
10 1 Tim . I l l , 2 sqq.; P h il. I, i . 11 A cts V I , 6. 12 e/s wktk S ttovs Kal StaKSvovs. 13 Clem . Rom ., Ep. ad Cor., e. 42, 1 sq. T h e Scrip tural passage quotcd is Isaias L X , 17. On the meanin g o f etrlffKOiroi in the abovcquoted text o f St. Clem ent see liardenhew er, Geschichte dcr altkirchlichen Literatur, V o l. I , p. 106, l'reibu rg 1902.

102

HOLY ORDERS

the college o f the Apostles. W ithout these [three] the name o f Church ' is not given. 14 St. Polycarp ( + 1 6 6 ) says: The deacons must be blameless before H is righteousness, as the servants of God and Christ, and not o f man. 15 Bishops, priests, and deacons form as it were an insep arable triad also in later Patristic documents. Thus Clem ent o f A lexan dria ( + 2 1 7 ) says o f the ecclesiastical h ierarch y: In the Church there is a gradation of bishops, priests, and deacons, which is, I believe, an imita tion o f the glory o f the angels. 16 O rigen (-f- 254), who was a simple priest, says o f h im self: M ore is demanded o f me than o f the deacon; more o f the deacon than of the laym an ; but he who occupies the citadel o f the whole Church [ i . e. the bishop] must give an account o f the whole Church. 17 A m on g Latin writers Tertullian 18 and St. Optatus of M ileve expressed themselves in sim ilar words. Optatus (-f- after 384), deploring the defection o f so many Chris tians during the persecution o f Diocletian, distinctly mentions deacons, priests, and bishops among the apos tates.10 T h esis I I : Sacram ent. T h e ordination to the diaconate is a true
quid diconos in tertio, quid presbytcros in secundo saccrdotio constitu to sf Ipsi apices et principes omnium, aliqui episcopi illis tem poribus . . . instrum enta divinac le gis impie tradiderunt. C fr. De Sm edt, " L'O rganisation des glises Chrtiennes ju sq u au M ilieu du 11 1 c S i cle , in the R eport of the Intern. Scientific C ongress for 1888, V ol. I I , pp. 297 sqq.

14 A d Trail., 3. O th er sim ilar texts from the w ritings o f St. I g natius apud T ep c, In st. Th eol., V ol. I V , p. 579, P aris 1896. 15 Ep. ad P h il., c. s. id Stromata, V I , 13. 17 Horn, in le re m ., 11, n. 3. 19 D e Praescr., c. 41. in D e Schism . D onat., I, 13: " Q uid commcmorcm laicos, qui tunc in Ecclcsia nulla fuerun t dignitate su ffu ltit quid minist ros plurimosT

THE DIACONATE

103

T his proposition, which is upheld by all Catholic theologians with the exception o f D u ra n d u s2 0 and Cajetan, is regarded as an article o f faith by V asquez.21 Cardinal Bellarm ine contents him self w ith calling it vcilde probcibilis. 2 W e 2 prefer to characterize it as sententia certa with a firm basis in Scripture and Tradition. a) Sacred Scripture, in speaking o f the laying on o f hands in the case o f St. Stephen and his as sociates,23 does not say that the rite bestowed grace. H ow ever, in view o f the high moral de mands made by St. Paul upon the newly created deacons,24 it is safe to assume that the ceremony w as accompanied by sacramental effects.
T h is probability becomes a certainty in the light o f Tradition, which regards the ordination o f the seven as the first ordination of deacons and a true Sacrament. Behold, the sacred writer does not speak superfluously/ says St. Chrysostom, for he does not say in what man ner, but simply that they were ordained by the impo sition o f hands and by prayer.25 F o r this is ordination.2 0 T h e hand o f a man is imposed, but God effects the whole, and H is hand it is which touches the head of the candidate to be ordained. 27
20 Com m ent, in S e n t., I V , dist. 24, qu. 2. 21 Comment, in S . T h eo l., I l l , disp. 238, c. 2. 22 D e O rd., I, 6. 23 A cts V I , 6. 21 1 Tim . I l l , 8 sqq.
25 Srt ex^porovqO rjaav dia irpos-

20

to vto

yap

evxr/s^ x elP0T0,'^ ta r lv . a

27 Horn, in A ct. A p o sl., 14, 11. 3

M any other P atristic texts o f sim ilar tenor will be found in D e A ugustinis, D e R e Sacram ent., V ol. I I , 2nd ed., pp. 463 sqq.

104

HOLY ORDERS

b) A ccording to all extant rituals the H oly Ghost is communicated when the bishop lays his hands upon a candidate to make him a deacon.
T he Pseudo-Apostolic Constitutions direct the bishop, when ordaining a deacon, to p r a y : A lm ighty God, . . . turn T h y face towards this T h y servant, chosen to serve in the ministry o f the diaconate, and fill him with the H oly Spirit and with power, as Thou didst fill Stephen. 2 8 According to the Sacram entary o f Pope St. Gregory the Great the bishop s a y s : Send down upon him, we be seech Thee, O Lord, the H oly Ghost, that he may thereby be strengthened in the faithful discharge o f the w ork of T h y ministry, through the bestowal o f T h y sevenfold grace. 2 0 In the Greek Church the bishop p r a y s : O Lord, our God, . . . pour out the grace which Thou didst grant to Stephen, T h y protomartyr, the first called by Thee for the discharge of this ministry. . . . Fill this T h y servant, whom Thou wishest to undertake the office o f deacon, by the communication o f T h y holy and life-giving Spirit, with all faith, charity, and holiness. 8 0 M any similar texts have been collected by M artene 31 and Denzinger.32 A ll without exception connect the grace
28 C o n slitu l. A p ost., V I I I , 17: 30 G oar, Eucholog., p. 250: " D o " D cu s om nipotent, . . . ostende fam ine, D eu s noster, . . . gratiam Stcciem tuam super servum tuum hunc phono prolom arlyri luo in opus miniclectum tibi in diaconahis tninisle sterii huiits a le primum vocato rium, et imple cum Sp iritu sancto et concessam largire. . . . Ipse, Dovirtute, siciit im ptcsli S t c p h a n u m m i n e , servum tuum hunc, quem dia(M ig nc, P . G., I, 11 i s ) . coni tninistcrium subire roluisti, 20 " E m ilte in cum, D om ine, quaesancti et vivifici Spirittts tui adrentu sumus, Spiritum sanctum , quo in om ni fide et caritate et sanctificatione opus m inisterii fidehtcr exequendi adim ple. 31 D e A ntiqu is Ecclcs. Ritibus, scptiform is gratiae tuae vxunere rabo retu r." (M ignc, P . L ., L X X V I IT , V o l. I I , pp. 35 sqr,. 222). 32 Rit. O rient., V ol. I I , pp. 8, 69, 133, etc.

THE DIACONATE

105

o f the H oly Ghost with the imposition o f hands in the ordination fo r the diaconate. N ow the Council o f Trent declares 33 that a rite in which the bishop says, R eceive the H oly Ghost, cannot be in vain. Consequently, the ordination rite for the diaconate communicates the H oly Ghost, and is a true Sacram ent.34 Let it not be objected that the delivery o f the book o f Gospels is the matter of the diaconate, and that no such book existed at the time o f the Apostles.35 I f this objection proves anything, it proves that the m atter o f ordination cannot consist in the traditio libri evangeliorum . W e do not assert that it does, but hold with the m ajority o f theologians that the m atter o f the Sacram ent consists in the im positio m anuum . A nother objection has been drawn from the fact that an ancient rite for the administration o f minor orders and the blessing o f deaconesses, as found in some rituals, contains an invocation o f the H oly Ghost.3 H ow ever, this rite was never in general use, is o f post-Apostolic origin, and was abrogated in course o f time. H ence it must have been o f purely ecclesiastical institution. T h e Church, as we have learnt, can neither institute nor abrogate Sacra ments.
33 Sess. X X I I I , can. 4.
31 C fr. Benedict X I V , D c Synodo

D ioeces., V I I I , g, 2. On the form o f the ordination rite for the diaconatc see Ch. I, Sect. 2. No. 2, p. 70 supra.

85 C fr. A c ts V I , 6 . 30 C fr. Const. A post., V I I I , 20: I pse nunc rcspice Itanc ancillam electam ad m inisterium ct da ci Spiritum sanctum .

SECTION 4
TH E SUBDIACONATE AND T H E FOUR MINOR ORDERS

T hat the subdiaconate and the four so-called ordines minorcs are ecclesiastical orders has never been denied. The only question is whether they are sacramental and directly instituted by Christ. The Church not having defined any thing on this point, theologians are free to debate it pro and con. In matter o f fact there is a long-standing controversy, which cannot, how ever, be decided on dogmatic grounds but must be fought out in the arena o f history.
i. O
r d o .

he

S u b d ia c o n a t e N

ot a

Sacram ental

A s the name itself indicates, a subdeacon (subdiaconits, woSia/covo*) is one who ministers to a deacon.
T h e functions o f a subdeacon according to the P ontiR calc Rom anian are: to prepare water for the ministry o f the altar; to assist the deacon; to wash the altar cloths and corporals, and to present to him [the deacon] the chalice and paten fo r the use o f the sacrifice. 1 That the subdiaconate is not a Sacrament was main1 " . . . aquam ad ministcrium alcaliccm cl palenam in usum sacrificii tan's pracparare, diaeono m inistrarc, cidem affcrrc. (Pontific. Ram an.) pallas altaris ct corparalia abtucre,

106

THE SUBDIACONATE

107

tained by H ugh o f St. V ictor, P eter Lom bard, Durandus, and Cajetan. O ther Scholastic writers regarded the subdiaconate as well as the four minor orders as sacramental. O f later authors, Vasquez 2 held that the subdiaconate is a Sacrament, whereas minor orders are not. H ow ever, since M orinus, Benedict X I V , and St. Alphonsus, the common opinion among Catholic theologians is that prob ably no order below deaconship is a true Sacram ent.3 Th is opinion rests on weighty arguments.

a) T h e subdiaconate w as unknown before the third century, and consequently must owe its origin to the Church. A s the Church cannot institute Sacram ents, the subdiaconate is not a Sacram ent.
a ) T h e m inor premise o f this syllogism requires no proof. A ll the Sacram ents, both in regard to matter and to form, have been directly instituted by Christ H im self.4 A n y rite instituted by human authority is at most a mere sacramental. T h is argument is not disproved by the contention6 that the subdiaconate and the fou r minor orders have developed from, and must therefore have been virtually contained in, the diaconate. T his fact, as A tzberger observes, does not suffice to make them Sacra m ents; fo r if it was the Church that developed these orders from the diaconate, the rite o f their adm inistra tion cannot be sacramental, because all Sacraments owe their institution immediately to Christ. 0 2 Comment, in S . T h eo l., I l l , disp. 288, c. 2. 3 A m on g the few who hold th at th e orders below dcaconship a rc a saeram cnt, are G lossner, D e A ugustinis, B illo t, Sasse, and E gger. 4 V. P ohle-Preuss, Th e Sacram ents, V o l. I, pp. 97 sqq. 6 C fr. Thom assin, D e B e n ef., P . I, 1. 2, c. 30; Lieberm ann, D e Sucrant. O rd., c. 1, 3; D alponte, Compendium , p. 721, T re n t 1890. 0 Sh eeben-A tzberger, Dogm alik, I V , 3, 70.

io 8

HOLY ORDERS

3) T h e m ajor premise can be demonstrated historically. N o extant document prior to the third century speaks of the subdiaconate. M ost likely this order was instituted by Pope Fabian (236-250).7 " F a b i a n u s says the L ib e r P ontificalis, natione Rom anics, . . . regiones [urbis R om a e] d ivisit diaconibus et fe c it septem snbdiaconos, qui septem notariis im m incrent, nt gesta m artyrum in in tegrum colligerent. 8 T his fact had not been entirely

forgotten in the M iddle A ges, fo r at the Council o f Bene vento (10 9 1) Pope U rban II declared that while in e x ceptional cases subdeacons m ight be elected to the episco pate, the only sacred orders recognized by the primitive Church were the diaconate and the priesthood.9 T he D ecretu m Gratiani (115 0 ) expressly says: W e read that levites [i. e. deacons] were ordained by the Apostles, chief among them being St. S tep h en ; the subdeacons and acolytes were in course o f time appointed by the Church. 10 T his theory was adopted by Peter Lom bard,11 and St. Thom as, seemingly forgetfu l o f his own teaching, says in his 0 pusculum against W illiam of SaintA m our that . . . there were in the primitive Church only two sacred orders, the priesthood and the diaconate, but
7 Euseb., H ist. E ccl., V I , 29. 8 L iber Pontificalis, ed. D uchesne, I , 4g 0 Can. 1: " N u llu s deinceps in episcopum eligatur nisi qui in sacris ordinibus religiose vivens inventus est. Sacros outem ordines dicimus diaconatum et presbytcratum ; hos siquidem solos primitiva legitur Ecclesia habuisse, super his solum praeceptum habemns A postoli. S u b diaconos vero, quia et ipsi altaribus deserviunt, opportunitate exigente conccdim us, scd rarissime. (H ardouin, Concil., V o l. V I , p. 1695). 10 Deer. Grat., dist. 2 1: " L e v ita s autem [ diconos] ab A postolis ordinatos legimus, quorum tnaximus fu it beatus Stcp ha n us: snbdiaconos et acolythos procedente tempore Ecclesia con stitu it." (E d . F ried berg, col. 67). 11 S en t., I V , dist. 24, n. 9. " E cce de septem E cclesiae gradibus breviter elocuti, quid ad quemquam pertineat, insinuavim us. Quum que omnes s p ir itu a ls sint et sacri, excelenter tamen cnones duos tantum sacros ordines appellari censent, diaconatus scil. et presbyteratus [ maior et m inor], quia hos solos primitiva Ecclesia legitur habuisse. . . . Subdiconos vero et acolythos procedente tempore E cclesia sibi constitu it.

THE SUBDIACONATE

109

the Church later on instituted for herself minor orders. 12 H ow are we to explain the fact that the subdiaconate, despite its purely human institution, is classed among the greater orders by the Fathers and sacred councils ? 13 T h e answer is that the subdiaconate, like the hypodiaconate among the Greeks, was alw ays regarded as. a minor order in the ancient Latin Church, and that its ele vation to the rank o f a m ajor order, with the obligation of celibacy, is the w ork o f the Church in later times.14 It is possible approxim ately to determine the time when this change occurred. P eter Cantor, w riting about 1197, says that the subdiaconate had lately been made a sacred order. 15 E arly in the thirteenth century, Pope Innocent III, recalling the above-mentioned decree o f U rban II, authoritatively declared that the subdiaconate must be counted among the m ajor orders, and that a subdeacon m ay be elected to the episcopacy without a dispensation.16

b) T he ordination rite fo r the subdiaconate lacks both matter and form , and therefore can not be a Sacrament.
Th e essence o f the Sacram ent o f H oly O rders consists in the imposition o f hands as the m atter, and the invocation o f the H oly Ghost as the fo rm . Th e rite o f ordaining a subdeacon contains neither o f these two ceremonies, and
12 Contra Im pugn. D e i Cultum , c. 4, concl. 6: . . . sicut etiam in primitiva E cclesia fu eru n t duo soli ordines sacri, scil. presbytcri ct diaconi; et tomen postea Ecclcsia minores sib i ordines instituit. T h e term m inor o r d e r s in this connection evid en tly ineludes the subdiaconate. 13 Cone. Trident., Scss. X X I I I , c. 2: " Subdiaconatus ad maiores ordines a patribus et sacris conciliis rcfertu r. 14 V. supra, Ch. I I , Sect. 2. 10 D e Verbo M irifico, c. 57: Pritna autem manus impositio debetur diaeonibus ordinandis, de novo ciiim institutum est subdiaeonatum esse sacrum ordinem ." (M igne, P . L ., L X X V I I I , 482). 10 D ecret. Greg., 1. I, tit. 14, c. 9:

no

HOLY ORDERS
T he words

consequently lacks both matter and form.

A c c ip e S p iritu m sanctum , upon which the Tridentine

C o u n cil17 lays such stress, are entirely wanting in the ordination rite o f the subdiaconate.18 Cardinal Bellarm ine holds that the subdiaconate is a Sacrament because it cannot be repeated. B ut his rea soning is not conclusive. N o blessing is strictly speaking capable o f repetition. T hus the benediction o f a church, or o f an altar, or of an abbot, cannot be repeated, though none o f them are sacramental.19 From the fact that a Sacrament imprints a character we may legitimately infer that it can be received but o n ce; 2 but it w ill not do to 0 reverse the argument. M oreover, the subdeaconship may, with papal dispensa tion, be conferred by an ordinary priest, whereas the three m ajor orders can be conferred only by a bishop.21

2. T h e F o u r M i n o r O r d e r s . T here are in the W estern Church four minor orders: that o f porter, lector, exorcist, and acolyte. T he Eastern Church has only tw o : hypodeacon and lector.
" I n quibus verbis innuitur, quod Urbanus ad statum prim itivac Ecclcsiae se rcferens, in quo subdiaconatus ordo sacer tninime dicebatur, instituit, ut de subdiacono, nisi utilitatis causa . . . non posset electio celcbrari. Verum quum hodie subdiaconatus inter sacros ordines computetur. . . . statuim ns, ut subdiaconus in cpiscopum valeat libere eligi, stcut diaconus ct sacerdos. (E d . F ricd berg, col. 28). 17 Scss. X X I I , can. 4. 18 T h e cogcncy o f this conclusion is not weakened by the fact that the Greeks since time immemorial ad m inister the hypodiaconate by the im position of hands and invocation of the H oly Ghost, fo r they expressly rank the subdiaconate with the lectorate as a m ere m inor order. (G oar, Eucholog., p. 427). 19 C fr. St. Thom as, Comm ent, in S en t., I V , dist. 24, qu. 1, art. 1. 20 C fr. Cone. Trident., Scss. V I I , can. 9. 21 V. infra, Ch. I I , pp. 120 sqq. On the ordination rite for the sub diaconate sec G ilir, D ie hi. Sakrainente, V o l. I I , 2nd ed., pp. 304 sqq., F re ib u rg 1903.

MINOR ORDERS

in

M inor orders are conferred by the delivery to the candidate o f the appropriate instruments, in accordance with the ritual given in the Statuta E cclesia e A n tiq u a , a document which originated in Gaul about the year 500.2 2 L acking historical knowledge, Blessed A lbertus M agnus, St. Thom as, St. Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, Paludanus, and other Scholastics maintained the sacramentality of minor orders. T h ey were follow ed by Bellarmine, Estius, Gonet, Billuart, Gotti, and several modern authors, notably Glossner, D e Augustinis, Billot, Sasse, and Egger. A gainst these writers H ugh o f St. V ictor, Peter Lom bard, Durandus, Cajetan, Vasquez, M orinus, St. Alphonsus, and the m ajority o f present-day theologians contend that the four minor orders are not sacramental. T h is position seems to us the only tenable one, fo r two reasons.

a) T he four minor orders did not exist in the Apostolic age, but were instituted one by one, as the need fo r them arose, in the course o f the third century, and hence are o f purely ecclesiasti cal origin.
Tertullian,2 it is true, incidentally speaks o f a lector, 3 but not as belonging to the clergy. W here he enumerates the different ecclesiastical orders, he mentions but three, via.: the episcopate, the priesthood, and the diaconate.24 Th e first mention o f the complete series o f orders is found in a letter of Pope Cornelius (2 5 1-2 5 3 ) to Fabius o f Antioch. T h e Pontiff states that there are among
22 C fr. Boudinhon, Cath. Encyclopedia, V o l. X , pp. 332 sq.; G ihr, op. cit., pp. 297 sqq. 23 D e Pracscript., c. 4 1: " Ordinationes eorum [i. e. haerctieorum'] temerariae, eves, inconstantcs. . . . A liu s hodic episeopus, eras alius; hodic diaconus, qui eras lector; hodic presbyter, qui eras la ieu s." 2-t D e Bapt., 17; D e Fuga, 1 1 ; Da M onog., 11.

ii2

HOLY ORDERS

'

the Roman clergy forty-tw o priests, seven deacons, seven subdeacons, forty-tw o acolytes, and fifty-tw o exor cists, lectors, and porters.25 W hile it is not likely that Cornelius him self had instituted the four minor orders mentioned in his letter, they are nowhere enumerated fu lly and in proper sequence before his time. St. Cyprian ( + 2 5 8 ) speaks o f exorcists, lectors, and acolytes, but makes no mention of porters. N ote that in the early Church the number o f minor orders was not fixed and that occasionally ecclesiastical offices are mentioned which are not orders at all, e. g.,
custos m artyrum , notaries, d efen sor, psalm ista, fossa riu s,

etc.2 6 De Augustinis attributes great importance to the canons o f the Fourth Council of Carthage, holding that the rites which they describe 27 reflect the discipline o f the latter part o f the fourth century. In matter o f fact, however, these canons are spurious and were composed in or near the city o f A rles towards the beginning o f the sixth cen tury.2 8 In the ninth century, Am alarius, Archbishop o f Treves, recognized the priesthood (w ith its two degrees) and the diaconate as divinely instituted hierarchical orders, and s a id : The other orders were added to these. The grow th o f the Church entailed an increase in ecclesiastical offices; that the multitude might be properly served, low er officials were appointed to assist the higher ones. 2 0
25 Eusebius, H ist. E ccles., V I , 43, j 1: " llle ergo E vangelii vin dex [ scil. N ovatianus] ignorabat, nntim episcopum esse oporiere in Ecclesia catholicat h i quo non ei latebat (quom odo enim illud nescire pointss e l f ) presbyteros quidem esse 42, septem autcm diaconos tolidcm que subdiaconos, acoluthos 42, cxorcistas ct lectores cum ostiariis 52." (M igne, P . G., X X , 622). 20 C fr. Palm ier:, D e Rom. Pontifice, 2nd ed., pp. 98 sq., Koine 1897. 27 C fr. D enzinger-B annw art, n. 150 sqq. 28 C fr. F . M aassen, G eschichte der Q uellen uttd der Literatur des canonischen Rechts, V o l. I, p. 382 sqq. G ratz 1870. 20 D e D iv. Ofltc., I I , 6: " Ceteri

MINOR ORDERS

113

W h at the Church has introduced she can abolish. The Greek Church in course o f time did abolish all her minor orders 30 except the hypodiaconate and the lectorate. W e do not find that the Latin Church ever protested against this change, which she would surely have done had it involved a mutilation of the Sacram ent o f H oly O rders or the suppression o f any essential part thereof. These and other considerations led M orinus to regard the proposition that the subdiaconate and the four minor orders are not Sacraments as so certain and self-evident that no one can deny it who has given due consideration to the testimony o f the Fathers. 31

b) The weakness o f the objections urged against our thesis is another argum ent in its fa vor.
Th e D ecretiim pro A r m en is proves nothing because Pope Eugene I V did not intend to issue an ex-cathedra definition on the subject o f the sacramentality o f the four minor orders.32 M oreover, the teaching embod ied in that Decree would not lose its value even if the sacramental character o f the subdiaconate and the four minor orders were denied. T h e Sacrament o f H oly O rders is sufficiently safeguarded by insisting on the
ordincs his adiccti stm t; crescente E cclesia crcvit ofUcium ccclesasticum : ut m u ltitiidini Ecclcsia e sitbventri posset, adiiciuntur infcriores in adiutorio praeposilorum . (M ign c, P . L ., C V , 1082). 30 C ouncil o f A ntioch , 34 1; C oun cil o f Laodicea, 362. 31 D e Sacram. O rd., F . I l l , exorcit. 11, c. 1: " Propositioncm , qua asscritur et subdiaconatum et quattuor m inores ordincs 11011 esse sacramenta ittdico tam cssc certain ct evidentem , ut qui ea [ testimonia patrum ] consideravit, ire contra viv queat." On the history o f the d if ferent orders the student m ay profit ab ly consult F r. W ielan d , D ie gen e tische E ntw icklung der sog. O rdincs M inores in den ersten drei Jahrhun derten, F reib u rg 1879. 32 V. supra, p. 65.

114

HOLY ORDERS

sacramentality o f its three highest grades.33 T h e con trary attitude o f St. Antoninus,34 who is supposed to have been an intimate friend of Eugene IV , throws no light on our question, for he nowhere refers to the Council of Florence, at which the D ecretu m pro A r m en is was passed, as a decisive authority. I f it had been the intention of the Council to decide this question, how are we to explain the fact that the contrary opinion, as embodied in our thesis, obtained all but universal acceptance afterw ards? N or can anything be proved against our thesis from the de crees o f T rent (15 6 2 ). E ven our opponents a d m it35 that the Tridentine Council purposely omitted to give a de cision on the subject. It matters not what the private opinions o f the assembled theologians were.36 It is not the private opinions o f theologians but the official decisions o f the Church by which w e must be guided. Th e Coun cil expressly teaches that all those ordinations (and con sequently those alone) in which the bishop pronounces the words, Receive the H oly Ghost, bestow grace and imprint the sacramental character.37 These words are used only in the ordination rites for the episcopate, the priesthood, and the diaconate, and consequently, according to the mind o f the Tridentine Council, these three orders alone are sacramental. 3. T h e T o n s u r e . The tonsure ( prinia ton sura), so called from the ceremony o f cutting the hair, is neither an ordo nor a Sacrament, but m erely a ceremony o f initiation into the clerical state.
33 V. supra, Scct. 1-3.

3 Summa M aior, P. I l l , tit. 14, c. 16, 1 and 3. 35 C fr. Do A ugustin is, D e R e Sacram ent., V o l. I I , p. 480.

so C fr. A u g. T h cin er, A cta, V o l. I I , pp. 13s sqq. 87 Cone. Trident., Sess. X X I I I , can. 4.

TONSURE

115

N o n est ord o," says St. Thom as, sed praeam bulum ad ordinem . 38 O riginally the tonsure formed part o f the

rite by which the first o f the greater orders was conferred. Since about A . D. 700 it is given separately. Th e tonsure m ay be traced on mosaic portraits o f the saints as far back as the middle o f the fifth century. Th e custom o f cutting the hair as a m ark o f initiation into the derical state seems to have arisen towards the end of the fourth or the beginning o f the fifth century, in im ita tion o f an ancient monastic practice. In the early part o f the sixth century the tonsure was not yet generally pre scribed. Th e Council o f A gde (506) simply forbade cler ics to w ear their hair long ( com am n u tr ir e ). Clerical tonsure became obligatory in the M iddle A ges, and the Canon L aw o f the Church contains a number o f severe penalties for those who refuse to wear it. Th e Council o f Trent presupposes tonsure as a condition for the re ception o f the lesser as well as the greater orders.39 By the act o f receiving the surplice and having his hair cut a man becomes a cleric and is endowed with all the privi leges pertaining to the clerical state, but he is not author ized to exercise any ordo.40
38 Sum m a Th eoL , Su p p lem en t., qu. 40, art. 2. 80 Sess. X X I I I , cap. 2: . . . tit gui iam clericali tonsura insigniti cssen t, per m inores ad maiores [ordin i j ] a scenderent," 40 On the tonsure see E. Taunton, T h e Law o f the Church, London 1906, pp. 619 sq., Cath. Encyclopedia, V o l. X I V , p. 779; Ziegler, D e Tonsura Clericali, W itten b erg 1718.

C H A P T E R III
TH E M IN IS T E R

T he bishop is the ordinary minister o f all, especially the three sacramental orders, but the subdiaconate and the four minor orders can, with papal permission, be administered by an ordinary priest. W e shall demonstrate this in the form o f two theses.
Thesis I : The bishop is the ordinary minister of all, especially of the holy or greater, orders.

T his thesis embodies an article o f faith. Proof. T he Decrctum pro A n n en is (1439) sa y s : The ordinary minister o f this Sacrament is the bishop. 1 The Council o f T ren t defines: Bishops . . . ordain the ministers o f the Church, and they can perform very many other functions over which those o f an inferior order have no power. 2 a) A s the N ew Testam ent speaks neither of the subdiaconate nor o f minor orders, we must
1 " Ordinarius M inister Itttius sacramenti est cpiscopus.'' (D enzingerBan n w art, n. 70 1). 2 Scss. X X I I I , cap. 4: " IIpiscopos . . . m inistros E cclcsiac ordinare I l6 atqua alia plcraquc pcragcrc ipsos posse, quorum functionum potcstaten 1 reliqui inferioris ordinis null am habciit. (C fr. can. 7).

TH E M INISTER

117

limit the Scriptural argum ent fo r our thesis to the three sacram ental orders the episcopate, the priesthood, and the diaconate. T he Bible, wherever it records an ordination to the priesthood, names either an A p o s tle 3 or one o f the disciples as minister.4 These, in admin istering the Sacram ent, were guided by well-de fined rules and regulations.5 T h e fa ct that the power o f ordaining is attributed exclusively to bishops shows that it belongs to them by divine institution. C fr. T it. I, 5: F or this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou . . . shouldst ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee. 8
But w hat does the Apostle mean when he says that Tim othy was ordained cum im positione m am m m presbyterii (/era eViflecrews rwv x lP&v Tv irpccr^urcpou) ? T hat St. Paul him self was the consecrator appears from 2 Tim . I, 6. W h at are we to understand by the p re sb y te r iu m ? T h e term may mean either the abstract dignity o f a pres byter, i. e. bishop, which Tim othy received by his conse cration, or the consecrating bishops.7 In either case we have a confirmation o f the doctrine that the conferring of H oly O rders is an episcopal prerogative.

b) A n argum ent from T radition may be con strued from the data given supra, Ch. II, Sect. 1, Thesis II.8
3 A cts V I , 6; X I I I , 13; 2 Tim . I, 6.
4 i Tim . V , 22; T it. I, 5.

G C fr. 1 Tim . I l l , 1 sqq.; T it. I, s

Bqq.

6 T it.

I,

5:

" Ilu iu s

rei

gratia

reliqui te Cretae, ut . . . constituus per civitates presbyteros, sicut et ego disposui tib i." 7 T h e last-m entioned opinion was held by St. Chrysostom . 8 Supra, pp. 84 sqq.

ii8

HOLY ORDERS

A careful distinction must be drawn between the elec tion ( cle ctio ) and the ordination ( ordinatio ) of higher clerics. The former may by custom or ecclesiastical su f ferance be exercised by priests, nay even laymen. A ccord ing to St. Jerome,9 the presbyters of Alexandria, from St. M ark the Evangelist to H eraclas ( + about 246) and Dionysius ( + 256), enjoyed the privilege o f choosing one from their midst for the episcopal see. Another example in point is that of St. Am brose, who was proclaimed bishop o f M ilan by clergy and people. In Sw itzer land even to-day congregations choose their own pas tors, who subsequently receive the m issio canonica from the bishop. Ordination to the priesthood, on the other hand, belongs exclusively to the bishops, and they are not bound, in exer cising it, to act with the consent o f the people or the sec ular power. I f anyone saith, declares the Council of Trent, that . . . orders conferred by them [the bish ops], without the consent or vocation o f the people or o f secular power, are invalid, . . . let him be anath ema. 10

c) In order to be licit, ordination must be con ferred by the recipients own bishop. The rite of episcopal consecration requires the assistance o f two other bishops besides the consecrator.
a ) The Tridentine Council merely confirmed an ancient rule 11 when it prescribed, under penalty, that E very one should be ordained by his own bishop. 12 U nder this rule 0 E p . ad E v a n g e l., 146. 10 Scss. X X I I I , can. 7; " S i q u is
d ix e r it, . . . o r d in c s ab ip sis [ep isc o p is ] c o lla to s sin e p o p u li siv c potc s ta tis sa e cu la r is co n sc n su a ut voc a tio n e s it . ir r ito s esse , . . . anathem a

11 C fr. c. 16 o f the F irst N iccn c Council. 1 2 Scss. X X I I I , cap. 8, D e R e

THE M INISTER

119

no bishop m ay ordain the subject o f another, except on the strength o f a dimissorial letter. T h is does not, how ever, apply to the Pope, who, having primacy o f ju ris diction over the whole Church, can ordain whom ever he pleases and give power to ordain to any bishop regard less o f the claims o f others. T h e juridical relation o f a secular ordinand to his bishop is based upon a fou rfold title, origo, dom icilium , beneficium , and fam iliaritas. Regulars are subject to the bishop in whose diocese their convent is located. But these details belong to Canon L aw rather than to Dogm atic Theology. /?) T h ree bishops are required for an episcopal con secration. T h is is an ancient custom,13 but being o f purely ecclesiastical institution, does not affect the validity, but m erely the licitness o f the rite.14 In case o f urgent necessity, the Pseudo-Apostolic Constitutions ordain that a bishop m ay be ordained by one [other bishop]. 15 Church history affords m any examples o f papal dis pensation from this rule. Thus Pope G regory the Great permitted St. Augustine o f Canterbury to consecrate an other bishop without assistants because he was the only bishop in England.16 It follows from this and similar cases that an episcopal consecration perform ed with papal dispensation by one bishop alone is undoubtedly valid. But what if the papal dispensation be lacking? V a s
fo rm .: " Unusqitisque . . . a proprio episcopo ordinetur." 13 C fr. Cone. N icaenum I , c. 4: Episcopus convenit mxime quidem ab om nibus, qui sunt in provincia, episcopis ordinari. S i autem d ifficile fu erit, . . . tribus tamen omnitnodis in idipsum convenientibus, . . . celebratio ordinetur." 14 M orinus, Gonet, and T o u rn ely hold that it affects both valid ity and licitncss. i s Const. A post., V I I I , 27: " Cogente necessitate episcopus ab uno ordinari p o test." 10 E p ., I X , 64: " E t quidcm in A nglorum ecclesia, in qua adhuc solus tu episcopus inveniris, ordinare episcopum non aliter nisi sine episcopis p o tes." (M igne, P . L ., L X X , 119 1)- O th er exam ples are cited by B illu a rt, D e Sacram. O rd., diss. 4, art. 3. 17 Com m ent, in S . T h eol., I l l , disp. 243, c. 5, n. 63.

120

HOLY ORDERS

quez 17 holds that such a consecration would be invalid, just as Confirmation would be invalid if administered by an ordinary priest without special permission from the Pope. Benedict X I V 18 takes the contrary view, which is shared by many theologians and appears to be the only tenable one. According to the rite of consecration only one o f the three bishops present actually consecrates, the other two merely assist. It follows that the consecrating bishop alone administers the Sacrament, especially since he alone pronounces the prayer P rop itiare, D o m i n e etc. M oreover, though Pope G regory the Great, in his above quoted letter to St. Augustine, expressly states that the presence of some other bishops is useful, he does not inti mate that it is essential to the validity o f the Sacrament. Finally, we know o f several cases where the Church, in condemning an episcopal consecration performed by one bishop as illicit, expressly admitted its validity.19

Thesis I I : A n ordinary priest can, w ith papal dis pensation, confer the subdiaconate and the four minor orders, but not the three m ajor or sacramental orders.

T his thesis comprises two distinct propositions, each o f which m ay be qualified as communis. Proof. T he expression m inister ordinarias Jiuius sacramenti employed by Pope Eugene I V in his Decretum pro Arm enis, implies the possi bility o f a minister extraordinarias. A s in Con firmation, this extraordinary minister is the priest, not the deacon.
18 D e S y n o J o D io c c e s ., X I I I , 13,
4-

in Exam ples in point arc the consccration of S yd criu s (see Synesius,

E p . 67 ad T h e o p h il.) , E vagriu s (cfr. T hcodorot, H is t. F .cclcs., V , 23), and A rm cn tarius (cfr. illuart, D e Sacram . O r d .. diss. 4, art. 3).

THE M INISTER

121

T h e Tridentine Council contents itself with the general statement that the episcopal power o f confirming and or daining is not shared by priests. It does not define which orders m ay be conferred by a priest when authorized to act as extraordinary m inister.2 H ence the question is 0 open to dispute. A s the prerogative o f conferring the subdiaconate and minor orders is an altogether extraor dinary one for a priest, its valid exercise depends on the permission o f his superiors. It is contended that in form er times bishops possessed the privilege o f em power ing ordinary priests to confer certain orders.21 W h ile this m ay be true, there can be no doubt that to-day this privilege is reserved to the Pope.22

a) A ll theologians agree that the Supreme Pontiff can authorize any priest to confer the subdiaconate and the four minor orders.
W hatever doubts m ay have form erly existed among theologians with regard to the subdiaconate,23 have been dispelled by the conviction that this particular order is not a sacrament, but m erely a sacramental.24 T h e Church herself has constantly acted on this conviction. T h e Sec ond Nicene Council (787) acknowledged the right o f ab bots to confer the lectorate upon their subjects, and long before that time Pope Gelasius (-f- 496) warned priests not to confer the subdeaconship or the order o f acolyte without papal permission,25 thereby clearly indicating that they could validly perform these acts with pontifical au20 Sess. X X I I I , cap. 4; can. 7. 21 C fr. Ila llic r, D c Sacr. E lect, ct O rdinat., P. I I , sect. 5, c. 1, art. 2. 22 C fr. D ccret. Gregor., 1. I l l , tit. 40, c. 9. 23 C fr. T a n n er, T h eol. Scholast., disp. 7, qu. 3, dub. 2.
24 V. supra, Ch. I I , Sect. 4. 25 Ep. 9 ad Episc. L uca n., c. 6 : " N cc sibi m em inerit ulla ratione conced sine summo pontfice subdiaconum out acolythum ius habere fa cien d i. (T h iel, I, 365).

122

HOLY ORDERS

thorization. B efore the Tridentine Council certain Cis tercian and Benedictine abbots are said to have exercised the privilege of conferring subdeaconship upon their sub jects.2 To-day the subdiaconate ranks among the m ajor 8 orders 27 and its administration is reserved exclusively to bishops. A ccording to the Tridentine law, therefore, ab bots may give only the tonsure and minor orders to their subjects.2 8

b) The question whether ordinary priests can, w ith proper authorization, confer m ajor orders, has been answered differently by theologians at various periods in the Churchs history.
T h a t a priest can under no circumstances validly ordain a bishop is conceded by all. B u t can he be empowered to confer the priesthood ? Aureolus,29 M orinus,30 and others answered this question in the affirmative. T h ey based their opinion on a passage in St. L eo s letter to Bishop Rusticus o f Narbonne,31 in which the m ajor orders con ferred by certain pseudo bishops are declared under certain conditions to be valid.32 Th e passage in question is rather obscure. The pseudo bishops to whom the Pope refers were probably priests or deacons who had received episcopal consecration uncanonically,33 though validly. M orinus attaches great importance to the fact that the priesthood was often conferred by so-called chorcpiscopi, who, it is claimed, were not true bishops, but mere coun20 C fr. N avarrus, Const!.. 1. V , de P r ir il. Const!., 14. 27 V. su p ra , p. 109. 28 Scss. X X I I I . c. 10, D e Refo rm .: Abbatibus . . . non liceot in posterutn . . . cuiquam, qui regu laris subditas sibi non sit, tonsurom 1 'el minores ordines co n ferre." I V , dist. 25, art. 1. SO D e S a c r . O r d in ., P. I l l , cxcrc. 4, c. 3 sqq. 31 Ep., 167, 1. 32 C fr. Schanz, D ie Leh re von den hi. Sakram enten, p. 692. 33 C fr. the above-quoted letter of 20 Comment, in S en t.,

THE M INISTER

123

try bishops after the manner o f rural deans or arch priests. But we know from the proceedings o f a council held at Antioch, in 341, that at least some o f these digni taries were real bishops, resembling in rank and func tions our auxiliary bishops.34 Can a priest with papal dispensation validly confer the diaconate? T his question is more difficult to answer. T h e fact that the diaconate is a true Sacrament does not prove that it cannot be administered by a priest. Con firmation is a Sacrament, and yet a priest can admin ister it with proper authorization from the Supreme P ontiff. W ith this analogy in mind H uguccio ( + 1210) argued that a priest can confer the priesthood, a deacon the diaconate and minor orders, a subdeacon the subdiaconate, etc.35 The scn tcn tia com m unis since St. Thom as and Duns Scotus is that a priest cannot validly ordain a deacon. Though some abbots were occasionally per mitted to confer minor, not holy orders, says the Roman Catechism, no one doubts that this is the proper office o f the bishop, fo r whom, and for whom alone, it is law ful to initiate [candidates] into the other orders called greater and holy. 30 Th e most ancient documents agree in lim iting the power o f conferring the diaconate to bishops, and make no distinction between tlie ordinary and the extra ordinary minister. From this fact it seems to folL co the G reat, Ep. 167, 1: " N u l la ratio sinit. ut inter episcopos habeantur, qui nec a clericis sunt electi nec a plebibus expetiti nec a provind a lib u s episcopis cum m etropolitani iudicio consecrati. 31 C fr. Labbe, Concil., V o l. I I , p. 577. 3 5 " Nam ordinem, quem non habet, nullu s potest conferrc, sed qucm habct, potest." O n this false principle see K a tholik, 1909, I, 319. 30 Cat. Rom., 1 . I I , cap. 7, qu. 25: Quamvis n onnullis abbotibus permissum sit, ut minores et non sacros ordincs interdum administrent, tamen hoc proprium episcopi munus esse nemo dubitat, cui uni ex omnibus. praeterca ncm ini, licet reliquis ordinibus, qui maiorcs ct sacri di cuntur, in itia te." (E d . 4a Katisbon., p. 267).

124

HOLY ORDERS

low that the existing practice is of divine right, in which case even the Pope could not dispense from it. Y e t the matter is not entirely clear. Eugene I V seems to admit that there is a m inister cxtraordinarius huius sacram enti, and Innocent V I I I in his Bull " E x p o sc it 37 is said to have conferred the privilege of ordaining deacons upon all abbots of the Cistercian order, who made use of it in good faith as late as 1663.38 But the authenticity o f this Bull is doubtful. Its earliest witness is Caramuel (1640), and the text is contained in none o f the official collections. Panholzels defense o f the B u ll39 is unconvincing. Cardi nal Gasparri found a copy in the Vatican archives, but it contained no mention o f the privilege o f conferring the diaconate.4 B ut even if Innocent V I I I had actually con 0 ferred such an extraordinary privilege on the Cistercian abbots, this fact would not settle the dogmatic problem with which we are concerned, for, as Father Pesch justly observes, one pontifical act does not make a law or dogma. 41 Pius V , Clement V I I I , and several other popes confirmed the privilege o f the Cistercian abbots to confer the subdiaconate, but make no mention of the diaconate. H ence A tzberger concludes, It may safely be assumed that the practice o f the Cistercian abbots was based upon an error. 4 2
Comment, in S . T h co l., I l l , disp. 243, e. 4, n. 39; B erti, D e Th co l. D iscip l., 1. 36, c. 13, 4. 3D In Studicn und M ittcilung en aus dem B cncdiktincr- und Cistcrcienscrorden, 1884, V o l. I, pp. 441 sqq. 40 C fr. G asparri, D e Sacr. O rd., I I , n. 798, P aris 1893. 41 " Unum factum pontificium non fo cit legem neque dogm a." ( Prac le d . Dogm ot., V o l. I, p. 296).
37 A . D. 1489. 38 See V asquez, 42 Scheeben-A tzberger, Dogm atik, V o l. I V , 2, p. 767, F reibu rg 1903. O n the pow er o f ordination the student m ay consult B illu art, D e Sacr. O rd., diss. 3, art. 1; Souben, N ouvclle Tltcologie Dogm atique, V ol. V I I I , pp. 72 sqq., P aris 1905. On two reeently discovered B u lls of B on iface I X to the A bbot of St. O syth, see the English H ist. Review, V ol. X X V I , pp. 125-12 7 ; the Catholic Fortnightly Review (S t. L o u is), V o l. X X I V , No. 4 and 7.

C H A P T E R IV
THE R E C IP IE N T

A s regards the conditions required fo r the valid reception o f H oly Orders, D ogm atic T heology is concerned solely with the fitness o f the candidate; the question o f his worthiness belongs to a d if ferent theological discipline. S E C T IO N i
C O N D IT IO N S O F V A L ID R E C E P T IO N

T o receive the Sacram ent o f H oly O rders va l idly, a person must be ( i ) o f the male sex and (2) baptized.
1. T h e R e c ip ie n t M ust B e o f th e M a le S e x . Like the Jewish Synagogue, the Catholic Church has alw ays maintained that men alone arc qualified for the service o f the altar. O ur Lord called men to be H is Apostles and these, in turn, selected men to succeed them. St. Paul ex pressly excludes the fem ale sex from participa tion in liturgical and ecclesiastical functions.1 Let women keep silence in the churches. . . .
1 1 Cor. X I V , 34 sqq. ; I Tim . I I , n sq.

125

126

HOLY ORDERS

F or it is a shame fo r a woman to speak in the church. 2 T o this principle the Church has faith fu lly adhered. I f there ever w as a woman who deserved the honors o f the priesthood, it most assuredly w as the Blessed V irg in M ary. But our D ivine Lord H im self debarred her from the altar.3 T h e female priests o f the Montanists and Collyridians were an abomination in the eyes o f the Church. O ur modern women evangelists excite derision rather than anger.
The Apostolic institution o f deaconesses proves nothing against our thesis.4 W e cannot be sure, says Father H erbert Thurston, S J .,5 that any form al recognition o f deaconesses as an institution of consecrated women aiding the clergy is to be found in the N ew Testam ent. Their duty was to guard the doors and maintain order among those o f their own sex in church, to instruct them privately in the faith, to discharge those charitable offices which were perform ed for men by the deacons, to accompany women when visiting a bishop or deacon, and to attend fem ale converts during the administration of Baptism, which in the early days took piace by immer sion. The pseudo-Apostolic Constitutions, after enumer ating these functions, distinctly say : The deaconess gives no blessing, she fulfils no function o f priest or dcacon . . . 0 That the deaconesses were blessed according
2 I Cor. X I V , 34 sqi].: " M ulicrcs in ccclcsiis toccaiit; . . . turpe est cnim m ulicri loqui in ecclesia." 3 C fr. St. Epiphanius, H acr., 79, 2. 4 C fr. Rom. X V I , i ; 1 Tim . V , 9 sqq. Catholic E ncydopcdia, V o l. IV , p. 651. 0 Const. A post., V I I I , 28: Diacovissa non bcncdicit ncque facit aliquid corum, quae presb iteri aut diaeoni facinnt, n isi quod ianuas cu5 In the

THE RECIPIENT

127

to a prescribed rite does not prove that they received an order. St. Epiphanius expressly says that their functions are in no wise sacerdotal.7 Th e age limit prescribed by St. P a u l8 (sixty years) was reduced to forty by the Coun cil o f Chalcedon (4 5 1). The institute o f deaconesses be came extinct in the eighth century. H istory shows that the Church as a whole repudiated the idea that women could in any proper sense be recipients o f the Sacrament o f O rd er. 9 W h at we have said about deaconesses applies also to abbesses. The benediction o f an abbess does not make her a member o f the clergy, nor does it give her ecclesi astical jurisdiction over her subjects. Such titles as episcopa, prcsbyterissa, -rrpto-vTis, which occur in ancient documents, apply either to deaconesses 10 or to the living wives o f married men ordained to the episcopate or the priesthood.11
2. T h e R e c ip ie n t o f H o ly O rd e rs M u s t B e

B a p tiz e d .

Baptism is an indispensable condition fo r the valid reception o f all the Sacram ents.12 A n unbaptized man cannot be ordained to the priesthood, and if the rite were perform ed over
Sanctorum o f the Bollandists, Sept., V ol. I, 5. 10 C fr. Epiphanius, H acr., 79. 41 D eer. Grat., d. 32, c. 19. n C fr. D u Cange, s. v. Presbytera; K . II. Sch fer, K anonissen und D iakonissen, die kanonische A b tissin , F reib u rg 1910. On the fabio o f the fem ale Pope see D ollin ger, Papstfabeln des M ittclalters, Munich 1863; Th urston , Pope Joan, London 1915. 12 V . Poh lc-P reuss, The Sacratnents, V o l. I.

stodit et prcsbyteris m inistrat, quum m idieres baptisantur, idque propter decorem el honcstatem . 7 H aer., 79, 3: Quamquam dia conissarum in ecclesia ordo est, non tamen ad sacerdotii fun ction em aut ullam huiusm odi administrationcm institutus est, sed ut m uliebris sexu s honestati con sulatur." 8 1 Tim . V , 9. 0 Th u rston in the Cath. Encyclopedia, I V , 652. O n the institute o f deaconesses see P in iu s, D e E c clesiae Diaconissis, in the A cta

128

HOLY ORDERS

him before he received Baptism, he would have to be unconditionally reordained. Reordination was expressly prescribed for the follow ers o f Paul o f Sam osata by the F irst Nicene Council

(325)-1 3
Can baptized infants be validly ordained? Durandus and Tournely answered this question in the negative, but the common opinion is that H oly Orders, in this respect, is on a line with Baptism and Confirmation, and can be validly administered to infants. Th e S upplem entum to the Sum m a T heologica o f St. Thom as, which, though not written by the Angelic Doctor, undoubtedly expresses his views, says that children and others who lack the use of reason can receive any Sacrament that does not require as a necessary requisite an act on the part o f the recipient, but by divine institution confers some spiritual power. 14 Needless to say, the ordination of infants, as practiced in ancient times, and to some extent in the Middle A ges, was an abuse, which the Church combatted and finally succeeded in abolishing. The validity of such ordi nations can no longer be doubted since Benedict X I V de cided, M ay 4, 1745, that if a bishop, having legitimate au thority, should confer holy orders upon an infant, it is the unanimous sense of theologians and canonists that such an ordination would have to be regarded as valid, though illicit. 15 The Pontiff adds that a boy thus ordained
13 C fr. D eer. Gregor., 1. I l l , tit. 43, c. 3. U Summa T h eol., Suppl., qu. 39, art. 2: " Omnia sacramcuta, in quibus non rcquiritur actus suscipicntis dc ncccssitatc sacramcnti, scd poicstos alt qua spiritualis divinitus datur, possim t pucri suscipcre, et alii q ui usu rationis ca rcn t." 15 In ter Sollicitas, 20: " S i fortasse contingcrct ab cpiscopo Icgitima aucloriiatc suffulto non soturn tiiiorcs, scd ciiam sacros ordines infanti confcrri, concordi theologorum et canonistarum suffragio definition cst. validam scd illicitam ccn seri hanc ordinationcm .

THE RECIPIENT

129

should be allowed, upon reaching manhood, to decide for him self whether he w ill lead a celibate life or not. In case he chooses to m arry, he must abstain forever from the exercise of the functions attaching to his order.16
18 C fr. B allerini-Palm ieri, Op. Theol. M or., 3rd ed., V o i. V , p. 712, P ra ti 1900.

SECTION 2
C L E R IC A L C E L IB A C Y

i. O b l i g a t i o n . T he obligation of celibacy in the Latin Church binds bishops, priests, deacons, and subdeacons. H oly Orders is a diriment im pediment to m arriage.1 T he Tridentine Council defines: I f anyone saith that clerics constituted in sacred orders . . . are able to contract m ar riage, and that being contracted, it is valid, not withstanding the ecclesiastical law, . . . let him be anathema. 2
a) The law m aking sacred orders a diriment impedi ment to marriage, is not as old as the obligation of celi bacy. It can, however, be traced to the Second Council of the Lateran (1 1 3 9 ).3 The heroic battle waged by Pope G regory V I I (1073-1085) fo r the independence and purity of the priesthood stands out prominently from the pages o f history. But the celibacy o f the clergy was a binding ecclesiastical precept long before G regorys time. The Council o f E lvira (about 300) imposed celibacy upon the
1 T h is topic is treated in Canon thema s it." (D cn zin gcr-B an n w art, Law . n. 979). 2 Cone. Triden t., Scss. X X I V , 8 Canon 7: Statuiinxis, quotecan. 9: " S i quis dixcrit, clcricos n us episcopi, prcsbyteri, diaconi in sacris ordinibus c o n s t itu t o s ...................... qui uxores sibi copularc praeposse motrimoniunx contrahcrc consunxpserint, scpareixtur; Ixuxusnxodi troctumque validum esse non obnamque copula'ioixenx, matrimoiiium stante lege ecclesiastics, . . . ananon esse censem us."

130

C L E R IC A L C E L IB A C Y three higher orders, bishops, priests, and deacons, commanding those who were m arried to abstain from intercourse with their w ives under pain o f de position.4 Pope Siricius, in 385, extended this law to the whole Latin Church.5 A s regards subdeacons, the prac tice varied in different countries and at different periods. In Rome the subdeacons were bound by the law o f celi bacy under Leo the Great (-( - 4 6 1 ) .6 Pelagius II ( + 5 9 ) applied this rule to Sicily, but his successor, G regory the Great ( - f 604), permitted the deacons o f that country to continue their relations with their wives, though under penalty o f being excluded from higher orders. Subsequent popes, especially U rban II (1089), enforced stricter measures, until finally, with the adoption o f the subdiaconate into the category o f m ajor orders, in the tw elfth and thirteenth centuries, the obligation o f celibacy fo r this order became universal.

b) In the Greek Church celibacy was generally observed by the clergy but not enforced as a canonical precept.
Justinian I (527-565) imposed celibacy upon bishops. U nder his Code of Civil L aw no one who had a living w ife or children could be raised to the episcopate. Th e present discipline o f the Greek Church is not based on
4 Canon 33: " P la cu it in totum prohibcri episcopis, prcsbyteris et diaconis vcl om nibus clcricis positis in m inistcrio abstincre se a coniugibus suis ct non gcncrare iilios; quicunquc vcro fc cc rit. ab honorc clericatus e xtcn n iu e tu r . 5 C fr. his Kpistle to ITim erius, c. 7: " Q uilibct episcopus, presbyter atque diaconus . . . iam nunc sibi omncm per nos indulgentiac aditum

intclligat obscratttm. quia fcrro ticcesse est cxcidantur vulncra, quae fom entonim non senscrint mcdicinam 0 C fr. this P o pes Ep. ad Anastas, Thessol., 84, c. 4: " N e c subdiaconis quidem connttbittm carnale conccditur, ut et qui liabcnt uxorcs, sint tamquam non habcntcs, et qui non habent, permaneant singularcs."

132

HOLY ORDERS

Justinians legislation, but follows the Council o f Trullo (692), which, while requiring bishops and monks to lead a celibate life, permitted presbyters, deacons, and subdea cons to continue to cohabit with their wives. But they are not allowed to remarry after ordination. Bene dict X I V , in his Constitution E ts i pastoralis, o f M ay 26, 1742, declared that the Rom an Church does not forbid this practice among the U niate Greeks.7

2. O r i g i n . T h at the celibacy o f the clergy is not a divine law but merely an ecclesiastical pre cept, is the unanimous teaching o f theologians. But there is a difference o f opinion regarding the origin o f the practice. G regory o f Valentia, Vasquez, Bellarmine, Zaccaria, Phillips, Bickell, and others hold that clerical celibacy is an A p o s tolic institution, whereas N atalis Alexander, T il lemont, Tournely, H efele, Probst, and Funk main tain that it originated later. The problem is purely historical, and the evidence seems to show that celibacy, as a precept, is o f post-Apostolic origin.
W e say, as a prccept, not as a voluntary practice. Bickells argument for the Apostolic origin o f celibacy docs not take due account o f this distinction.8 A n important incident in the history o f clcrical celi7 On clcrical cclibacy the student m ay consult: L a u rin , D er Zlibat der G eistlichen nach kanonischem R echt, V ienn a 1800; L . G augusch, D as Ehehindernis der hheren IVeilte, V ien na 1902; N. M ilas, Das Kirchcn rccht der morgenlndischen

K irch e, Zara 1897; A . de Roscovany, Coclibatus ct Breviarium , 13 vols., V ien n a 1861-1890. % Z eitsch rift f r kath. Theologie, In nsbruck, 1879, pp. 26 sqq., 792 sqq.

CLERICAL CELIBACY

133

bacy is the stand taken by St. Paphnutius, an Egyptian bishop, at the F irst Nicene Council. S o cra te s9 and Sozom e n 10 relate the incident substantially as fo llo w s: W hen in the course o f the conciliary proceedings, it was moved that bishops, priests, and deacons should in future abstain from carnal intercourse with their wives, Paphnu tius, an aged and venerable bishop, protested against the heavy burden to be thus imposed upon the clergy, quoting St. P au ls well-known declaration (H eb. X I I I , 4) respect ing the purity o f the m arriage bed. H e said it would be sufficient if bishops, priests, and deacons, in accordance with tradition, were forbidden to m arry after ordination. T h e Council adopted his suggestion and the project was abandoned. St. Paphnutius was justified in appealing to tradi tion, for before 325, clerics in m ajor orders were fre quently permitted to m arry. The A postolic Constitu tions 11 commanded bishops, priests, and deacons to be satisfied with one w ife and forbade them to m arry after ordination. The decree o f the Council o f A n cyra (3 14 ) allowing deacons to m arry after ordination, is exceptional. U nder the existing discipline a deacon was merely per mitted to retain his w ife in case he had been married be fore ordination. Clement o f A lexan dria ( - f- 2 1 7 ) , after expressing veneration for a celibate life, says: Al l the same, the Church fully receives the husband of one w ife,12 whether he be a priest, deacon, or layman, pro vided only he uses his m arriage blam elessly; and such a one shall be saved in the begetting o f children. 13 On the other hand there is Patristic testimony to prove that celibacy was voluntarily practised by the higher clergy
0 H ist. E ccles., I, 11. 10 H ist. E ccles., I, 23. 11 Const. A post., V I , 17.
12 T bi> t t j s / la s y v v a i K d s & v p a . 13 f f w O r i a e r a i S t 8 i a r i j s T t n v o y o v ia * .

(Strom ., I l l , 12).

134

HOLY ORDERS

long before it was enjoined by law. Thus St. Epiphanius ( + 4 0 6 ) says: T h e priesthood is recruited mainly from the ranks of celibates, or otherwise o f the m onks; but if suitable persons for the administration of that office cannot be found among the monks, the priests are usually chosen from among those who abstain from conju gal intercourse with their wives or are widowed after one m arriage. 14 In another treatise St. Epiphanius com plains that in some places priests, deacons, and sub deacons continue to have children, and he argues against the practice as opposed to the very notion o f the priesthood. 15 Vigilantius cynical advice that the bishops should ondain none but married men, was met by St. Jerome (-f-420 ) with the declaration that celibacy was all but universally observed by the clergy.16 In general we may say 17 that while celibacy in the first three centuries was not yet a strict obligation imposed upon the clergy, it was quite generally observed. 18

3. C o n g r u i t y . Clerical celibacy recommcnds itself for its many intrinsic and extrinsic advan tages.
a) V irginity and m arriage are both holy, but virginity is superior to marriage, and hence more befitting those who are set apart for the sacred ministry. The Tridentine
14 Expos. F id ci Catli., 21. 15 H acr., 59, 4. On this passage 17 Gihr, D ie hi. Sakraincntc, V o l. I I , 2nd cd., p. 476. 18 C fr. F . A . Zaceara, Storia Pocmica del Celibato Sacro, lim e 1774; Jos. M ller, D ie Kcuschheitsidee in Hirer gescliichtlichen Entw icklung mid praktischen Bedeutung, M aycn cc 1897; IT. Koch, " Terlullian und der Zblibat, in the Thcologische Quartalschrift o f Tubin gen, 1906, pp. 406 sqq.

see F un k, K irchen geschichtlichc A bhandlungen \tnd U ntcrsuchungcn, V ol. I, pp. 132 sqq., F ad crborn 1897. 10 Contra Vigilant., c. 1: " Q u i d faciunt orientis ceclcsiae, quid A egypti et Sed is apastolicae, quae out virgincs elen cos accipiunt aut continentes, aut si uxores habucrint, mariti esse dcsistun t?

CLERICAL CELIBACY

135

Council pronounces anathema against all who say " th a t the married state is to be placed above the state o f v ir ginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity or in celibacy than to be united in matrimony. 10 It is conditions, not persons, that are con trasted here, and hence it would be w rong to say that the preference given to celibacy implies disrespect for the m ar ried state. No doubt a good mother who raises her chil dren in the fear o f God leads a more m eritorious life than an indifferent nun. On the other hand w e must remem ber that our D ivine Lord H im self extolled virginity as a precious g ift,2 and St. Paul describes it as the 0 higher call.21 The Fathers develop this teaching. Thus St. Chrysostom s a y s : T h e state o f virginity is good, I a g re e ; indeed, it is better than the married state, I con fess. A nd if you ask, B y how much better? I an sw er: B y as much as heaven is better than earth, or angels are better than men. 22 St. Augustine calls the virginal life the portion o f the angels. 2 N othing re 3 flects greater honor upon a priest than the virtue o f chas tity. In temptations he is strengthened by the example o f the Divine H igh Priest Jesus Christ and H is Apostles. P rayer and the H oly Sacrifice supply him with inexhaust ible graces to preserve the innocence o f his exalted state.2 He who has voluntarily devoted him self to 4
10 Scss. X X I V , can. 10: " S i qttis dixerit, statitm coniugalem anteponendum esse statui virginitatis v el coelibatus et non esse m elius ac beatius manere in virginitate aut coelibatu qttam iungi matrim onlo, anathema sit. (D enzinger-B annw art, n. 981). 20 C fr. M atth. X I X , 11 sq. 21 1 Cor. V I I , 38, 40. 22 D e V irginitate, c. 10. 23 D e Virginitate, c. 12: " Virginalis intcgritas et per piam continentiam ab om ni concubitu i>nm unitas angelica portio est. 21 C fr. St. Jerom e, Up. 68 ad Pammach., c. 20: Christus virgo, virgo Maria utrique scx n i virginitatis dcdicavere principia. A postoli v el virgines, v el post nuptias continentes, Episcopi, presbyteri, diaconi aut virgines eliguntur aut vidui aut certe post sacerdotium in acternum pudici.

136

HOLY ORDERS

the service o f God and consecrated his life to the ad ministration o f the Sacraments, must serve God with an undivided heart.25 b) The celibacy o f the clergy is, moreover, blessed with great advantages ( i ) for the Church, (2 ) fo r the clergy, and (3 ) fo r the faithful. ( 1 ) F o r the Church. T h e Catholic Church is the spouse o f Christ and must be free from all undue influence on the part o f the secular power. T his freedom she can enjoy only with a celibate priesthood. M arried clergymen would have neither the power nor the will to oppose the civil authorities if they attempted to enslave the Church, nor to combat successfully the allurements o f nepotism. (2) F or the clergy. Celibacy permits the members of the clergy to devote themselves to their high calling with energy and concentration and to gain great honor and influence among the people. A priest has troubles enough without being burdened with the cares of a fam ily. F r. Thurston, in his paper to which we have referred, quotes the testimony o f Dr. M ahaffy, a distinguished married clergyman and professor of T rin ity College, Dub lin : From the point o f view o f preaching there can be little doubt that married life creates great difficulties and hindrances. The distractions caused by sickness and other human m isfortunes increase necessarily in propor tion to the number o f the household; and as the clergy in all countries are likely to have large families, the time which might be spent in meditation on their discourses is stolen from them by other duties and other cares. The Catholic priest, when his daily round o f outdoor duties is over, comes home to a quiet study, where there is noth ing to disturb his thoughts. The fam ily man is met at the door by troops o f children welcoming his return and
25
C fr. 1 Cor. V I I , 5 -

CLERICAL CELIBACY

137

claiming his interest in all their little affairs. O r else the disagreements o f the household demand him as an umpire, and his mind is disturbed by no mere speculative contemplation o f the faults and follies o f mankind, but by their actual invasion o f his home. 26 T h e Catholic priest, on the contrary, can devote his undivided care to his parishioners. (3 ) Th e celibacy o f the clergy, thirdly, is fraught with great advantages to the faithful. T h ey are the priests children, to whom he should devote all his thought and attention. T h e chastity of his state o f life is apt to in spire them with respect and admiration. It is with con fidence that they confess their sins to him.27 It is with ardor and enthusiasm that they learn from him the ideals o f the Christian religion. Against these important advantages the occasional lapses o f individual priests, which have furnished such w riters as L ea and the Theiners with material for their chronique scandaleuse, weigh but lightly in the balance, especially if w e consider that m arriage is by no means an infallible safeguard against incontinency. W e do not abolish Christian m arriage, aptly observes Father Thurston, be cause so large a proportion o f mankind are not faithful to the restraints which it imposes on human concupiscence. N o one in his heart believes that civilized nations would be cleaner or purer if polygam y were substituted for monogamy. Neither is there any reason to suppose that scandals would be few er and the clcrgy more respected if Catholic priests were permitted to m arry. 28
20 MahafTy, T h e D ecay o f M odern Preaching, London 1882, p. 42; T h u rston in the C atholic Encyclopedia, V ol. I l l , p. 482. 27 T h u rston , I. c. 2S Idem ibid., p. 483. On clcrical celibacy and its im portance fo r the Church and the salvation o f souls sec D . B. Zim m erm ann, D er Pricstersolibat wnd seine Bedeutung fiir K irch e und Gesellschaft, Einsiedeln 1898; N . G ihr, D ie hi. Sakram ente, V o l. I I , 2nd cd., 72; I. Souben, N ouvelle Theologie Dogm atique, V ol. V I I I , pp. 84 sqq., P a ris 1905; Jos. A n to n clli, M edicina P astorolis, V o l. I, 3rd ed., pp. 419 sq Rome 190C.

133

HOLY ORDERS

R ea d in g s: Besides the general works listed in the first volume of this treatise ( T h e Sacram ents, Vol. I, pp. 3 and 4) the student will do well to consult the Supplem entum to the Sum m a T h cologica of St. Thomas, qu. 34 sqq., and the commentators, espe cially Billuart, D e Sacram ento O rdin is (ed. Lequette, Vol. V II, PP- 3 r3 sqq.) ; Vasquez, C om m ent, in S . T hcol., III, disp. 235 sqq. Likewise, Peter Soto, D e Institn tion e Sacerdotum , Dillingen 1568. *Fr. Hallier, D e S a cris E lection ibu s et Ordinationibus ex A n tiqu o et N o v o h ir e (in M ignes T hcol. Cnrs. Com plet., Vol. X X I V ) . *J. Morinus, C om m cnlarius de S a cris E cclcsi O rdina tionibus, Antwerp 1695. C. Oberndorfer, D e Sacram cnto Ordinis, 1759. *P. Gasparri, T ractatus C a n o n ists de Sacra Ordinatione, Paris 1893. Cardinal G. M. van Rossum, C.SS. R., D e Essentia Sacram enti O rdinis, Freiburg 1914. On the different orders see E. Furtner, D as V erhltnis der B i sc h o fsw eihe zum hl. Sakram ente d es O rdo, Munich 1861. A. Kurz, D er Episkopat der hchste vom Prcsbytcrat verschiedene O rdo, Vienna 1877. Schulte-Plassmann, D e r Episkopat ein vom Presbyterat verschiedener, selbstndiger und sakram entaler Ordo oder die B ishofszveihe ein Sakram ent, Paderborn 1883. O. Zar detti, D ie B ischofszveihe, Einsiedeln 1889. *L. Soblowsky, E p is kopat und Presbyterat in den ersten christlichen Jahrhunderten, W rzburg 1893. L. Gobet, L O rigine D iv in e de lpiscopat, F ri bourg 1898. *St. von Dunin-Borkowski, D ie neueren F orschungen ber die A n f n g e des Episkopates, Freiburg 1900. *A . Michiels, L Origine de lpiscopat, Louvain 1900. G. Pcries, piscopat et Presbyterat, Paris 1908. A rthur Knig, D e r katholische P riester vor f n f sehn hundert Jahren: P riester und P riestertum nach H ieronym us, Breslau 1890. J. N. Seidl, D er D iakonat in der katholischen K irc h e, dessen hieratische W rde und geschichtliche Entw icklung, Ratisbon 1884. II. Reuter, D as Subdiakonat, dessen historische E n tw icklun g und liturgisch-kanonistische B edeutung, Augsburg 1890. *F. Wieland, D ie genetische E ntzvicklung der sogen. O rdin es M in ores in den ersten drei Jahr hunderten, Freiburg 1897. *A. Bruders, S.J., D ie V erfassun g der K irch e von den ersten Jahrhunderten der apostolischen W irksam keit an bis cum Jahre 175 n. Chr., Maycnce 1904. II. C. L eas H istorical S k etc h o f Sacerdotal Celibacy, Phila delphia 1867, is biased and unreliable; cfr. Aug. Vassal, L e Clibat Ecclsiastique au P rem ier S icle de l g lise, Paris 1896,

C L E R IC A L C E L IB A C Y
and in general on L ea s methods as a historian, P. M. Baumgarten, D ie W erk e von H en ry C h arles L ea und, verw andte B ch er, Mnster 1908 (E n glish tr., H en ry C harles L e a s H istorica l W ritin g s; A C ritical Inquiry into T h e ir M eth od and M erit, N ew Y o rk 1909).

PART III MATRIMONY

IN T R O D U C T IO N

i. D e f i n i t i o n . M atrim ony (m arriage) may be taken to denote the action, contract, or form al ity by which the conjugal union is form ed ( matrimonium in fieri) or the union itself as an enduring condition ( matrimonium in facto esse). T he contract is the basis o f the married state, as ordination is the basis o f the priesthood. U nlike the five other Sacram ents, H oly Orders and M atrim ony were instituted fo r the preserva tion o f the race (in the supernatural and the physical sense), rather than fo r the sanctification o f the individual. a) A s the Sacram ent o f H oly O rders consists in ordination, so the M atrim ony consists in the contract which effects the m arital bond. The lat ter m ay be regarded both as res and sacramentum. M atrim ony is defined by the Roman Catechism as the conjugal union o f man and woman be tween legitimate persons, which is to last during life .1
l " V iri et m ulieris maritalis use D onovans translation. ( Cateconiuuctio inter legitimas personas, chism o f the Council o f Trent, p. individual vitae consuetudinein ic292, D ublin 1908). tin en s." (P . I I , c. 8, qu. 3). W e

I4O

INTRODUCTION

141

This definition comprises three essential elem ents: a) M arriage is a legitimate contract. Persons who have no right to m arry cannot enter into such a contract. Then, again, even between parties who are free to m arry each other, not every contract is legitimate. A m ong bap tized Christians the sacramentality o f the m arriage con tract alw ays depends on its legitimacy, and hence the validity o f the one is conditioned by the validity o f the other. /?) E ve ry true m arriage is essentially a m aritalis coniunctio, i. e. a union o f a man and a woman, entered into prim arily for the purpose of begetting and rearing chil dren. T his object differentiates m arriage from every other kind o f union between human beings. y) M arriage takes place between rational beings, and hence the conjugal union is crowned and ennobled by a spiritual companionship { individua vitae c o n s u ctu d o ) which connotes the two essential properties of M atri mony, i. e. unity and indissolubility.

b) The objects o f M atrim ony may be deduced from its nature. T h ey are three, to w i t : ( 1 ) The begetting and rearing o f offspring in compliance with the divine command to increase and multiply. 2 (2 ) M utual help and assistance, both bodily and spiritual, fo r God said in creating Eve, It is not good fo r man to be alo n e: let us make him a help like unto him self. 3 T o these two objects has been added since the Fall of our first parents a third, namely,
2 Gen. I, 28: tiplicam ini." " Cresclte et mul3 Gen. I I , 18: " Faciam us ei adiutorium sim ile sib i."

142

MATRIMONY

(3 ) T he regulation o f the sexual instinct in accordance with the dictates o f reason. T o r fear o f fornication, let every man have his own w ife, and let every woman have her own hus band. 4 T he two last-mentioned objects are, however, entirely secondary and subordinate to the first and prim ary end o f m arriage.
From what we have said it does not follow that a m ar riage between tw o persons who have resolved to live continently would not be a true m arriage. Th e Blessed V irgin M ary, though living continently with St. Joseph, was nevertheless his true spouse.5 Granted that the third o f the objects mentioned above does not appertain to the essence o f marriage, and that the second is attainable without conjugal intercourse, the question rem ains: H ow can a marriage which excludes the prim ary purpose o f M atrim ony, i. e. the begetting of children, be a true m arriag e?0 There is a clear-cut distinction between a right (in s) and the use o f it (u su s iu r is ). The right to conjugal intercourse is essential for the validity o f m arriage; not so, however, the use o f it. A man may become the owner o f a house without being obliged to occupy it. Sim i larly, two persons may acquire the right to conjugal intercourse without being obliged to make use o f it. It
4 1 Cor. V I I , 2: " P r o p te r {ornicationc1 nut cm unusquisque stiam uxorem habeat, et unaquacque suum vtrum habeat." 0 C fr. Pohle-Preuss, Mariology,

2nd ed., St. L o u is 1916, pp. 87 sqq. 0 J. F reisen ( Geschichte des kanonisehcn E herechtes bis turn Verfa ll der Glossenliteratur, Paderborn 1888) m aintains that it eannot.

INTRODUCTION

143

is not the destruction o f virginity that constitutes M atri mony, says St. Am brose, but the marital contract. 7

2. T h e B le s s in g s o f M a r r i a g e . T o the three objects o f Christian m arriage correspond three distinct blessings. B y the blessings o f m arriage we mean those things which make it a source o f goodness, thereby rendering it pleas ing to God and useful to men. T he three blessings o f M atrim ony are: ( 1 ) O ffspring brought up and educated fo r God ( bonum prolis) ; (2) Faith or fidelity o f husband and w ife to each other ( bonum dei) ; (3 ) T h e Sacram ent, that is, the indissolubility o f the m arriage tie, which symbolizes the indi visible union o f Christ with H is Church ( bonum sacramenti) .
T h e bonum prolis involves three obligations: (a ) the procreation o f children; (b) their physical care; (c) their mental and religious training. A gainst these obli gations they sin who ( 1 ) prevent conception by unlaw ful means, such as contraceptives or abortion; (2 ) who disown or neglect their children; and (3 ) who fail to have them baptized and instructed in the Catholic re ligion. T h e obligations o f the married as regards fidelity ( bo 7 D e Inst. Virg., c. 6, n. 4: " N on enim defloratio virginitatis facit coniugium , sed pactio coniugalis." Fo r a d ifferent explanation see Benediet X I V , D e Syn . D iocccs., X I I I , 22, 13; cfr. St. Thom as, Stimma T h eo l.,

Suppl., qu. 48, art. 1. F rciscn partially retractcd his error in the A rch iv fiir kalholischcs K irchcn rccht, 1892, pp. 369 sqq. l i e is refu ted by Pcsch, Praclcct. Dogm at., V ol. V I I , 3rd cd ., pp. 365 sqq.

144

MATRIMONY

w an fid c i ) are to render conjugal rights to each other and to avoid all sins against the sixth and ninth command ments. The blessings o f m arriage as a Sacrament are peculiar to C hristian Matrimony, which supernaturally ennobles and perfects both the procreation o f children and their bringing up, as also the mutual fidelity o f husband and w ife, and imparts all graces necessary for the pre vention o f incontinency. A t the same time the bonum sacram enti imprints upon the m atrimonial contract the supernatural stamp of C hrists mystic union with H is Church, and thereby elevates the tw o properties o f every ideal m arriage i. e. unity and indissolubility to the supernatural sphere.8 The existence o f these blessings proves that m arriage is m orally licit. This conclusion is confirmed by another consideration. M arriage, being based on the divinely crcated difference o f sex, is a law of nature. It was con firmed by God H im self,9 and hallowed by our Lord Jesus Christ when H e participated in the wedding feast at Cana in Galilee. The Catholic Church has an additional reason for re garding marriage as sacred and supernaturally m eritori ous : in her eyes every true m arriage between Christians is a Sacrament.10 St. Augustine and a few other Patristic writers spoke o f m arriage as though it involved uncleanness and im
8 C fr. St. A ugustin e, D e G cn csi ad L iter., I X , n. 3; D ccrctum pro Arm cttis, in D en zin gers Enchiridion Sym bolorum ct D cfinitionum , iotli edition revised by O. B ann w art, S. J., F reibu rg 1908, n. 702. 9 Gen. I, 27 sq. 10 C fr. the Caput " F irm itcr of the Fourth Latcran Council: " N o n solum autcm virgincs et coiitincntcs, verum ctiam coniugati per rectam fidcm ct opcrationcm bonam placcntes D eo ad actcrnam m crentur bcatitudincm pcrvcnire. (D cnzinger-Bannw art, n. 430).

INTRODUCTION

145

m orality. But these authors did not mean to deny that Christian m arriage is pleasing in the eyes o f God. T h ey m erely wished to censure inordinate concupiscence, which is an effect o f original sin.

3. D iv is io n o f th is T r e a t i s e . Christian m arriage is a natural, a moral, and a juridical union, and hence belongs to three separate and distinct theological disciplines, namely, D o g matic Theology, M oral Theology, and Canon L aw . W e deal w ith it here in its dogm atic as pects only.
Besides the Church the State is interested in m ar riage and has the right to regulate its effects so fa r as they come within the secular sphere. H ence m arriage is to a certain extent subject to civil authority, provided the pre cepts o f God and H is Church are duly complied with. M oral Theology considers m arriage in its ethical rela tions, showing what is permitted and what is forbidden in regard to matrimonial engagements, the reception of the Sacram ent, and the married state. Present-day moralists ought to lay greater stress on the advantages o f marriage as a nursery o f virtue, an aspect which has, unfortu nately, been somewhat neglccted. Canon L aw is concerned with M atrim ony in as far as it falls under the discipline o f the Church.

D ogm atic T heology deals with M atrim ony as an object o f faith. The dogmatic teaching o f the Church on M at rimony is summarized by the Council o f T r e n t 11
11 Scss. X X I V , Can. 1-12.

146

MATRIMONY

in those o f its decrees which relate to the sacra mental character o f Christian m arriage, its prop erties, the power o f the Church to set up diriment impediments, and the superiority o f virginity over the m arried state.12 O ther important doctrinal questions regarding the minister o f the Sacra ment and the precise nature o f its matter and form , have been left open to debate.
G e n e r a l R e a d i n g s : Peter Lombard, Sent., IV , dist. 26 sq q. St. Thomas, Sum m a T h eo l., Suppl., q u . 41-68. Beilarmine, D e Sancto M atrim on ii Sacram ento . P. Ledesma, D e M agno M atri m onii Sacram ento, Salamanca 1592. Th. Sanchez, D c Sancto M atrim onii Sacram ento, Genoa 1602. B. Pontius, D e Sacram ento M atrim onii, 1624. Chr. Schardt, D e M atrim onio, 1734. Tournely, D e Sacram ento M atrim onii. H. Klee, D ie E h e ; eine dogm ntisch-archologische A bhan dlu n g, 2nd ed., Mayence 1835. J. Carrire, P raelect. T h eo l. de M atrim onio, Paris 1837. Perrone, D e M atrim onio C hristiano, 3 vols., Rome 1861. M. Heiss, D e M atrim onio, 5th ed., Rome 1861. B. Rive, S.J., D ie E h e in dogm atischer, m oralischer und socialer B ezieh u ng, Ratisbon 1876. Palmieri, D e M atrim onio C hristiano, Prati 1897. M. Rosset, D e Sacram ento M atrim on ii Tractatus D ogm aticus, M oralis, C anonicus, Litu rg icu s et Iudicialis, 6 vols., Fribourg 1896. A. Devine, C.P., T h e Sacram ents E xpla in ed, 3rd ed., pp. 431- 515, London 1905. W . Humphrey, S.J., T h e O ne M edia tor, or Sacrifice and Sacram cnts, pp. 223-237, London 1890. S. J. Hunter, S.J., O u tlin es o f D ogm atic T heology, Vol. I ll , pp. 403-423. Wilhelm-Scannell, A M anual o f Catholic T h e ology, Vol. II, 2nd ed., pp. 510-532, London 1901. A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., art. Marriage, Sacrament o f in Vol. IX o f the Catholic

Encyclopedia.
12 On ihc latter point see celibacy, su p ra , pp. 130 sqq.

CHAPTER I
M A R R IA G E B E T W E E N C H R IS T IA N S A

TRUE SACRAM EN T

S E C T IO N i
NATU RE OF THE SACRAM EN T IN S T IT U T IO N AND IT S D IV IN E

O ur chief task in this section w ill be to show from D ivine Revelation ( i ) that m arriage be tween Christians is a Sacram ent and (2 ) that the Sacram ent is inseparable from the contract.
Thesis I : The act or form ality b y w hich the con jugal union is established among baptized persons is a true Sacrament of the N ew L aw .

T his is an article o f faith. P roof. Certain ancient and medieval sects (E ncratites, Manichseans, Priscillianists, A lbigenses) regarded M atrim ony as immoral. T he Protestant R eform ers, notably Luther, denied its sacramental character and called it a w orldly thing. A g ain st these heretics the Council o f Tren t defined: I f anyone saith that M atrim ony is not truly and properly one o f the seven Sacra147

14B

MATRIMONY

ments o f the evangelic law, instituted by Christ the Lord, but that it has been invented by men in the Church, and that it does not confer grace, let him be anathema. 1 The Council finds this doctrine intimated in St. P a u ls Epistle to the Ephesians,2 but bases its main argum ent on Tradition. a) In Eph. V , 25-32 the Apostle admonishes husbands: L ove your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered him self up for it, that he m ight sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver o f w ater in the word o f life. . . . So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. . . . F or this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his w ife, and they shall be two in one flesh. T his is a great m ystery, but I speak in Christ and the Church. 3 T he Apostle here attributes to M atrim ony the three essential notes o f a Sacrament, to w it: ( 1 ) an external sign, (2 ) internal grace, (3) institution by Jesus Christ. Hence Christian m arriage is a true Sacrament.
1 Sess. X X I V , can. i : " S i quis d ixcrit, motrimonium non esse vere et proprie union ex sep ta n legis cvangelicae sacram entis a Christo D om ino institution, sed ab hominibus in Ecclesia invention neque gratiam conferre, anathema s it." (D enzinner-Bannwart, n. 971).

2 C fr. Sess. X X I V , Prooem ium : Panins apostolus innuit . . . 3 " Viri, diligite uxores vestras,

sicut et Christus d ilcxit Ecclcsiam , et seipsum tradidit pro ea, ut illam sanctificaret, mundans lovacro aquae in verbo vitae. . . . Ita et viri de bent diligere uxores suas u t corpora sua. . . . P ropter hoc relinquet homo patron et m atron siiam, et adhaerebit u xori suae, et erunt duo in ca m e iota. [Gen. I I , 24]. S a cram attum hoc magnum est, ego autem dico in Christo et in E cclesia."

DIVINE INSTITUTION

149

T he external sign is the matrimonial contract, which is represented by St. Paul as a symbol o f the union between Christ and H is Church. T his m ystic union, inasmuch as it sanctifies and cleanses the Church and all her members, is essentially supernatural and productive o f grace, and hence Christian m arriage, too, must be super natural and a means o f sanctification fo r those who receive it.
On no other hypothesis can the phrase, This is a great m ystery/ 4 be interpreted intelligently. H ow could the conjugal union between a man and a woman be a great m ystery if it did not communicate grace? H ow could it symbolize the mystic union between Christ and H is Church, had not the Lord H im self raised it to the super natural sphere, in other words, made it a true Sacrament ? T hus understood, the term sacram entum regains its primi tive meaning. T h e argument from Eph. V , 25-32 may be briefly fo r mulated th u s : A sacred sign which produces internal grace is a true Sacrament. N ow Christian m arriage is a sacred sign which produces internal grace, because St. Paul calls it a great m ystery and a symbol o f C hrists union with H is Church. Consequently, Christian m ar riage is a true Sacrament. A s we have seen in a previous volume o f this series,5 the Sacraments of the N ew L aw , unlike the symbols o f the Ancient Covenant, not merely signify and pre figure grace, but actually cause or produce it c x opcre opcrato. Hence, if M atrim ony is a true symbol of the
< T i fiv a r r tp io v t o v t o (.'.tya t f f r l v 3 P ohle-Prcuss, Th e Sacram cnts, V ol. I,
nil ed., >9 ' 7 . PP- 121

MATRIMONY
m ystic union between Christ and H is Church, it must cause or produce grace in the souls o f those who receive it. A ccordin g to Luther and Calvin, St. Paul, in speak ing o f a great m ystery, meant the m ystic union o f Christ and H is Church, not the matrimonial contract adumbrated in the quotation from Gen. II, 24. But the context excludes this interpretation. T h e Apostle says: " propter hoc rclinqu ct hom o patrem et m atrem saam ct
adhaercbit u x o r i suae et erim t duo in ca m e una: sacram entum hoc [i. e. coniunctio m aritalis] m agnum cst, ego autem dico in C hristo et in E cclcsia [ets Xpiarov k c u eh t^v KKXrjmav, that is, in relation to Christ and the C h u rch ].

E very legitimate m arriage, therefore, is a symbol o f the mystic union between Christ and H is Church, and hence a great m ystery. Adam cannot have meant his own m arriage with Eve, as he had neither father nor mother, but evidently spoke with an eye to his future descen dants. Estius objects that if m arriage as such symbolized the mystic union o f Christ with the Church, it must have been a Sacrament among the pre-Christian Jews and gentiles, or else the Pauline text does not prove it to be a Sacra ment at all. W e answ er: Though every legitimate m arriage is a symbol o f C hrists mystic union with H is Church, Chris tian m arriage alone is a p er fe ct symbol of that union, because it alone produces the grace which it signifies, whereas m arriage in Paradise and among the O ld T esta ment Jews and the gentiles of the pre-Christian era was merely an inefficacious symbol.8 W hen did our Lord institute the Sacrament o f M atri6 C fr. T cp c, I n s lit u lio n c s T h e o lo g ic a c , V o l. I V , pp. 612 sqq., P a ris 1896.

DIVINE INSTITUTION

151

m ony? T his question is answered differently by different authors. Some say, at the m arriage feast o f Cana in G a lilee; others, after the R esu rrection ; 7 a third group o f theologians believes that m arriage did not become a Sacrament until our L ord restored its pristine indissolu bility, as recorded in M atth. X I X , 8 sqq.8

b) T he main argum ent fo r the sacram entality o f Christian m arriage is derived by the T rid en tine Council from the teaching o f the F athers and early councils, and from the universal belief and practice o f the Church. < T he argum ent from prescription is con *) tained in the analogous argum ent fo r the septen ary number o f the Sacram ents, as developed in Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, V ol. I, pp. 33 sqq. In particular the follow ing facts should be n o ted :
N o one denies that, since the Protestant Reform ation, M atrim ony has been regarded as a Sacram ent through out the Catholic world. Going back another century, we come upon the statement of the Council o f Florence (A . D. 1439), that the seventh o f the Sacraments is M atrim ony, which is a symbol o f the union o f Christ with the Church. 0 H ow M atrim ony was regarded at the beginning o f the tw elfth century is evident from the fact that it was included in the list o f Sacraments drawn up at that time.10
7 C fr. A cts I, 3. E c c le s i a e ." (D en zin ger-B an n w art, 8 C fr. B illuart, D e M a tr im o n io , n. 702). diss. i, art. 3. 10 C fr. the profession o f faith sub0 D c c r . pro A r m e n is : " S e p tim u m m itted by M ichacl Palacologus to the c st sa cra m en tu m m a trim on ii, q u o d Council o f L yon s, A . D. 1274 (D e n est sig n u m c o n iu n c tio n is C h r is ti et zinger-B anm vart, n. 465).

152

MATRIMONY

T h e Scholastics unanimously adopted this list.11 A few glossators and canonists (G aufridus, H enry of Ostia, Bernard of P av ia) appear to deny the sacramental char acter o f M atrim on y; but in reality they merely assert that M atrim ony fails to produce sacramental grace if a pecuni ary fee is paid to the officiating priest, because in their opinion this involves simony. T h ey do not mean to deny that m arriage is a true Sacrament. The objection they raised was solved by the Angelic D octor as fo llo w s: M atrim ony is both a Sacrament and an office o f n a tu re; to give money fo r it as an office o f nature is perm issible; not so, however, as a Sacram ent.12 A s the schismatic Greeks, Russians, and Bulgarians all acknowledge the sacramentality o f m arriage, this dogma must antedate the great schism o f the ninth century. B y the same token it can be traced back to the fifth century, because the ancient sects o f the Nestorians, Copts, and Arm enians, which broke loose from the mother Church as early as 431,13 retain belief in the Sacrament o f M atrim ony. T his belief is confirmed by the ancient rituals, e. g. the Sacram entary o f Pope Gelasius, who died in 497,14 A s fo r the first fou r centuries o f the Christian era, they show no trace o f a surreptitious introduction o f the doctrine. On the contrary, certain representations found in the catacombs prove that in the second century, Christian m arriage was not m erely a civil function, but
11 C fr. Pesch, P r a e lc c tio n e s D o g m a tica e, V o l. V I I , 3rd ed., pp. 354 ofHcium, lic itu m est; in q u a n tu m v e r o E c c le s ia e sa cra m en tu m , illicitu r n ." 13 C fr. Schclstrate, A c ta O r ie n t. E c c le s ., V o l. I, pp. 126, 156, 388

eqq.
12 S u m m a T h e o l., 2a 2ae, qu. 100, art. 2, ad 6: " D ic c n d u m e st q u o d tn a trim o n iu m n on so lu m est E c c le s ia e sa cra m en tu m , se d etia m n a tu ra e o fficiu m . E t id e o dare p ecu n ia m pro m a trim on io, in q u a n tu m e st n a tu ra e

sqq.
14 On the teaching o f the O riental sects, see D en zin ger, R itu s O r ie n t.,

V o l. I, pp. 150 sqq., W u rzb u rg 1865.

DIVINE INSTITUTION

153

w as already regarded as a Sacrament, to be entered upon before the Church, to be united to the offering of the H oly Sacrifice, and the reception o f H oly Communion, and finally to be sealed by the benediction o f the' priest. 15 On some of the early monuments our Lord is depicted as standing between the bride and the groom, blessing them or crow ning them with a wreath.10 H ence belief in the sacramental character o f M atri mony is as old as the Church, which is m erely another w ay o f saying that it comes to us through the Apostles from our Lord H im self.17

) W ith the exception o f St. Augustine, the early Fathers intimate rather than express their belief in the sacram entality o f m arriage. B ut all without exception insist on its sanctity, and hence it is contrary to P atristic teaching to say, as Luther did, that M atrim ony is a worldly thing. 18
St. A ugustine expressly calls Christian m arriage a Sac rament and ranks it with Baptism and H oly Orders. It is certainly not fecundity only, he says, the fruit of which consists o f offspring, nor chastity only, whose bond is fidelity, but also a certain Sacrament which is recom mended to believers in wedlock, w herefor the Apostle says, Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church. O f this Sacram ent the substance un doubtedly is this, that the man and the woman who are
15 A . in th e London 10 F.

S. Rarnes, T h e E a r ly C h u r c h
L ig h t of th e M o n u m e n ts ,

1913, p. 141. X . K raus, R e a le n s y k lo p d ie d er c h r is tl. A lte r t m e r , V ol. I, pp. 283 sqq., F reiburg 1879. 17 C fr. ^Nicole and A rn auld , P e r -

p e tu it d e la F o i, V o l. V , 1. 6, c. i (011 this work see Pohle-Prouss, T h e S a c ra m e n ts, V ol. I I , p. 55, n. 3 ); C. M . K aufm ann, H a n d b u c h d e r c h r is tl. A r c h o lo g ie , pp. 442 sq., Paderborn i95i s I on E h e s a c h e n , 1530.

154

MATRIMONY

joined together in wedlock should remain inseparable as long as they live, and that it should be unlawful, except fo r the cause o f fornication, for one consort to be parted from the other. F or this [principle] is faith fully ob served in Christ and the Church, that living together they be not separated by a divorce. A nd so complete is the observance o f this Sacram ent in the city o f our God, on H is holy mountain, that is to say, in the Church o f Christ, by all m arried believers, who are undoubtedly members of Christ, that although women m arry and men take wives for the purpose o f begetting children, it is never permitted to put aw ay even an unfru itful w ife fo r the sake o f having another to bear children. . . . Thus between the conjugal pair, as long as they live, the nuptial bond 19 remains, which can be cancelled neither by separation nor by union with another. B ut this fact tends only to aggravate the crime, not to strengthen the covenant, as the soul of an apostate, which re nounces as it were its m arriage union with Christ, does not, even though it has cast aw ay its faith, lose the S a c rament o f faith [Baptism] which it received in the Iaver o f regeneration. 2 0
19 " Q u id d a m co n iu g a le (. quasi ch aracter; v. in fr a , Sect. 3, no. 3 ). 20 D e N u p t. et C o n c u p ., I , 10, 1 1 : " Q u o n ia m sa n e n o n ta n tu m fo e c u n ditas, c u iu s fr u c tu s in p ro le e st, n e c ta n tu m p u d icitia , c u iu s v in c u lu m e st fid es, v e r u n i etiam quod d a m sa cra m en ta n n u p tia ru in c o m m e n d a tu r fid e lib u s co n iu g a tis, u n d e d ic it A p o s to lu s : V ir i, d ilig ite u x o r e s ve stra s, s ic u t e t C h r is tu s d ile x it E c c le sia m . H u iu s p r o c u l d u b io sa c r a m e n ti r e s e st, u t m as e t fe m in a c o n n u b io cop illa ti, qua m d iu v iv u n t, in sep a ra b ilite r p e r s e v e r e n t, n e c lic e a t, e x e e p t causa fo r n ica tio n is , a c o n iu g e c a n i gem d iriin i. H o c en im c u s to d itu r in C h r isto e t E c c le s ia , u t v iv c n s cum v iv e n te n u llo d iv a rtio scp a rctu r. C u iu s sa cr a m e n ti tanta o b se r v a tio est in c iv ita te D e i n o stri, in m a n te san cto e iu s , h o c e s t in E c c le s ia C h r isti, q u ib u s q u e fid e lib u s c o n iu g a tis, q u i sin e du b io m em bra s u n t C h r isti, u t q u u m filio ru m p ro crea n d o ru m causa v e l n u b a n t fe m in a e v e l d u ca n tu r u x o r e s , n e c s te r ile m co n iu g em fa s sit r e lin q u e r e , u t alia fo e c u n d a d u ca tu r.

. . . Ita m a n et in te r v iv e n te s quiddam c o n iu g a le , q u o d n e c separatia n e c cum a ltero c o p u la d o p o ssit o u fe r r e . M a n e t a u te m ad n oxa m c r i m in is, n on ad v in c u lu m fo e d e r is , s ic u t a p ostatae anim a v e lu t d e con-

DIVINE INSTITUTION

155

In another passage the same holy D octor compares M atrim ony with H oly O rders : " The good that is se cured by m arriage . . . consists in the . . . chastity o f the m arried fidelity, but in the case o f G ods people [the Christians] it consists m oreover in the holiness o f the Sacrament, by which it is forbidden, even after a separa tion has taken place, to m arry another as long as the first partner lives, . . . just as priests are ordained to draw together a Christian community, and even though no such community be form ed, the Sacrament o f O rders still abides in those ordained, or as the Sacram ent o f the Lord, once it is conferred, abides even in one who is dismissed from his office on account o f guilt, although in such a one it abides unto judgm ent. 21 O ther Fathers, while not so explicit in their pronounce ments regarding the sacramental character o f M atrim ony, emphasize its sanctity. Thus St. Am brose declares that m arriage was hallowed by Christ, but its sanctifying power is lost by those who dishonor it. W e know, he says, that God is as it w ere the head and protector of m arriage, who does not permit that anothers m arriage bed be defiled; and further that one guilty o f such a crime sins against God, whose law he violates and whose bond of grace he loosens. T herefore, since he sins against God, he loses his participation in the heavenly Sacram ent. 22
iu g io C h r is ti r e c e d e tti ctiam fid e p erdit sa cra m en tu m fid e i [ b a p tism a ] n o n a m ittit, q u o d la v a cro re g e n e ra tio n is a c c e p it. 21 D e B o n o C o ttiu g ., c. 24, n. 32: " B o n tn n ig itu r n u p tia ru m . . . est in fide ca stita tis, qttod a u tein a d p o p u lu m D e i p e r tin e t, etiam in sa n e tita te sa cra m e n ti, p er quam n e fa s e s t etiam re p u d io d isc e d e n te m a lte r i n ub e r e, du m v ir e iu s v iv it, . . . quernadm odu m s i fiat ord in a tio c le r i ad p le b c m c o n g r cg a n d a m , c tia m si p le b is cor.g rega tio n o n su b se q tia tu r , m a u ct tam en in illis o r d in a tis sa cra m en tu m o r d in a tio n is et, s i aliq u culp qttisquam ab officio r e m o v c a tu r , sacram e n to D o m in i s e m e l im p o sito non ca reb it, q u a m v is ad iu d icittin pcrm an c n te . " C fr. P. Sclianz, D ie L e h r e v o n den hi. S a k r a m e n tc n , i>p. 7 - 9 sq q ., F reibu rg 1893. 22 D e A b ra h a m , I, 7, 59: " C og n o sc im u s v e h tt p ra e su lcm ciistod em -

156

MATRIMONY

Origen says: God H im self has fused the two into one, so that they are no longer two after the man has m arried the woman. Inasmuch, however, as God is the author o f this union, grace resides in those who are united by God. W ell aware o f this, St. Paul declares that M atrim ony, according to the word o f God, is a grace, just as a chaste unmarried life is a grace. 2 3 T h at m arriage was sanctified in a particular manner by our Lord at Cana, is a thought expressed by many of the Fathers. Thus St. Cyril o f A lexan dria says: [Christ] was present, not to feast, but to w ork a miracle and thereby to sanctify the very foundation o f human pro creation, in so far, namely, as the flesh is concerned. 2 4 T he most ancient Patristic writers treat Christian m ar riage as a sacred thing. Tertullian writes to his w ife : H ow shall we describe the happiness o f those m ar riages which the Church ratifies, the sacrifice strengthens, the blessing seals, the angels publish, the H eavenly Father propitiously beholds. 25 St. Ignatius o f A ntioch (d. about 117 ) says: Speak to my sisters that they love the Lord, and be content with their husbands in flesh and in spirit. In the same w ay enjoin on my brothers, in the name of Jesus Christ, to love their wives as the Lord loved H is Church. . . . It is right for men and women who m arry to be united with the consent o f the bishop (uer yv/xrj<; tov ttlokottov), that the m arriage may be according to the Lord, and not according to lust. 2 0
q u e c o n iu g ii ess e D e u m , q u i n o n patia tu r a lien u m torum p o llu i, e t s i q u is fe c e r it, p ecca re in D e u m , c u iu s le g e m v io le t, g ra tia m so lv a t. E t id e o , quia in D e u m p ec c a t, sacratn e n ti c o e le s tis a m ittit c o n so r tiu m . (A lign e, P . L ., X I V , 465). 28 I n M a tth ., tom. 14, n. 16 (M ignc, P. G ., X I I I , 1230). 24 I n I o a ., c. 2, 2, 1 sq. (M ig n e, P . G ., L X X I I I , 223). Ad U x o r e m , I I , 9: U n d e sufTiciamus ad cn a rran da m fe lic ita tem e iu s m a trim o n ii, q u o d E c c le sia c o n c ili t et con firm t o b la tio e t obsig n t b e n e d ic tio , a n g e li r e n u n tia n t, P a te r rato h a b e t. (M ig nc, P . L .,
25

I, 1302). 20 E p . ad P o ly c a r p u m , c. 5, n. 1 and 2, ed. F un k, I, 251; Kirsopp

DIVINE INSTITUTION

157

Thesis I I : Among Christians every legitimately contracted marriage is eo ipso a Sacrament, and, vice versa, whenever the Sacrament of Matrimony is re ceived, there is a legitimate nuptial contract.

T his proposition may be qualified as communis et certci. P roof. A m ong the O ld Testam ent Jews and the gentiles o f the pre-Christian epoch, m arriage w as not a Sacrament, but merely a contract, as it still is between non-baptized persons to-day. Betw een Christians, however, M atrim ony is al w ays a Sacrament. H ow does the contract become a Sacram ent? Is the sacramental sign added to the contract by the blessing o f the priest, or is the contract itself intrinsically raised to the rank o f a graceproducing sign ? Christ was free to choose either o f these two m ethods; which one H e did adopt can be determined only from Revelation. I f the m arriage contract became a Sacram ent by the addition o f some external sign, it would be possible for baptized Christians to make a marital contract without receiving the S acra ment o f M atrim ony.
Lake, T h e A p o s to lic F a th e r s, V ol. I, p. 273. On the Patristic argum ent for the sacram entality o f M a tri' m ony, see J. M iillen d orf in the
Y .c its c h r ift f iir k a th o lis c h e T h c o lo g ie ,

Innsbruck, 1878, pp. 633 sqq.; Ialmieri, D e M a tr im o m o C h ristia n o , tlies. 7, P rati 1897.

158

MATRIMONY

T h at this is possible was form erly held by three groups o f theologians. ( 1 ) Th e so-called court theologians o f the Gallican and Josephinist school (Antonio de Dom inis,27 Launoy,2 8 J. N . N uytz, J. A . Petzek, M. M. Tabaraud, J. A . Theiner, and Th. Ziegler) held that the Sacrament is constituted by the blessing o f the priest and that the contract is merely a necessary requisite. This theory was avowedly con trived for the purpose o f w ithdraw ing matrimonial causes from the jurisdiction o f the Church and handing them over to the State. (2 ) Cano,29 Sylvius, Estius, and Tournely regarded the contract as the matter and the sacerdotal blessing as the form o f the Sacrament.30 T h e contract itself, if legit imately concluded, is valid, they said; but it is not a Sacrament until completed by the nuptial blessing o f the priest. (3 ) V asquez,31 H urtado, Platel, Billuart, Gonet, H oltzclau (o f the W irceburgenses) and other writers de nied that the priestly blessing constitutes the sacramental form o f M atrimony. T hey held that the sacramentality of the m arriage contract depends on the presence or ab sence, in the souls o f the contracting parties, o f the inten tion o f doing what the Church does. According to this school it is optional w ith the contracting parties whether, in giving the matrimonial consent, they receive a Sacra ment or not. A ll these theories are untenable because a m arriage con tract between baptized persons is eo ipso a Sacrament.

a) T his truth is demonstrable from Revelation.

27 D e R e l ub l. E c c lc s ., I, 3, c. 2. 28 D e R e g ia in M a trim . P o te s t., 30 V . in fr a , Ch. I I , Sect. 1. s i D e S a cra m . in G e n ., disp. 138,

V ol. I, p. 2, c. 4. 20 D e L o e is T h e o l., 1. V I I I , c. 5.

c. 5.

DIVINE INSTITUTION

159

A ccordin g to St. Paul, it is alw ays a great m ys tery (i. e. a Sacram ent) 32 among Christians when a man leaves father and mother and cleaves to his w ife . 33 A s this happens in every legitimate m arriage, it follow s that every legitim ate m ar riage between Christians is a true Sacrament.
Though the Fathers did not treat this question e x pressly, they taught that m arriage between baptized per sons is a sacred thing, a great m ystery, the most perfect symbol o f the m ystic union o f Christ with H is Church, and therefore indissoluble and m onogam ic; and in so teaching they im plicitly inculcated the inseparability o f the contract from the Sacrament. T h eir teaching was scientifically developed by the Schoolmen. T h e words in which the matrimonial consent is expressed, says e. g. St. Thom as, constitute the form o f this Sacram ent; not the sacer dotal blessing, which is a sort o f sacramental. 34 M elchior Cano ( + 1560) was the first Catholic the ologian to assert that the contract is merely the matter o f the Sacrament, whereas the sacerdotal blessing consti tutes its form. H e admitted that his assertion w as con trary to the teaching of all his predecessors. In matter o f fact it is not only singular, but wrong, as can be shown from the official utterances o f popes and councils before and after Canos time, utterances which, though not ex-cathedra decisions, unmistakably indicate the mind o f the Church.

b) Thus the Council o f Florence (1439) de32 V . su p ra , T h esis I. 33 Gen. I I , 24. 84 S u m m a T h e o l., S u p p l., qu. 42,

[i. c. c o n tr a c tu s ], s u n t fo r m a httius sa c r a m c n ti, n on a u tem b c n e d ic tio sac e r d o ta lis, q u a e e s t q u o d d a m sacram e n ta le ."

art

1, ad 1:

sen su s

" V e r b a , q u ib u s con c x p r im itu r m atrim on ialis

MATRIMONY

d a r e s : T he seventh Sacram ent is that of Matrim ony. T he efficient cause o f M atrim ony [i. e. as a Sacram ent] invariably is the mutual con sent expressed by words in the present tense. 35 From this definition we argue: The mutual consent o f the contracting parties admittedly constitutes the m arriage contract. I f this same consent is the efficient cause o f the Sacrament, contract and Sacram ent must be identical.
T his teaching is at least indirectly confirmed by the Council o f T rent when, speaking o f Christian marriage, it s a y s : I f anyone saith that M atrim ony is not truly and properly one of the seven Sacraments of the evangelic law, . . . let him be anathema. 36 E very m arriage be tween Christians is a true Sacram ent; consequently con tract and Sacrament coincide. W e find this conclusion expressly drawn in a letter of Pope Pius V I . It is an article of faith, he says, that M atrim ony, which before the advent o f Christ was noth ing but a sort of indissoluble contract, after H is coming became one o f the seven Sacraments o f the N ew Law , instituted by Christ our Lord, as . . . the Council of Trent has defined under pain o f excom munication. 37 Pius IX resolutely defended the proposition that
85 D e e r , p ro A r m e n is : S e p tim um cst sa cra m en tu m m a trim on ii. C ausa efficicn s m a trim o n ii r e g u la r ite r est m u tu u s co n se n su s p e r verb a de p ra e s e n ti e x p r c s s u s . (D cn zingcr87 E p is t. ad E p is c . M o tu lc n s c m :

D og m a fid e i e st, ut m a trim on iu m .

q u o d a n te a d v e n tu m C h r is ti n ih il a liu d erat n isi in d is s o lu b ilis qttidam co n tr a c tu s, illu d p ost C h r is ti a d icnturn eva serit unttm e x scp tcm N o v a e L c g is sa cra n ien tis a C h risto D o m in o in stitu tn m , q u cm a d m od u m . . . T r id c n tin u m su b a n a th em a tis p oena dcfi~ n i v it ."

Ban n w art, n. 702). 80 Scss. X X I V , can. 1 :

"S i d ix e r it, m atrin ion ium n o n esse ct p rop rie u n u m e x scp tcm e v a n g clica e sa cra n ien tis, . . . them a s i t ."

q tiis vcre le g is an a -

DIVINE INSTITUTION

i6i

among Christians there can be no m arriage which is not at the same time a Sacrament, . . . and conse quently the Sacrament can never be separated from the m arital contract. 38 Th e contrary teaching o f P rofessor N u ytz of Turin was condemned in the Syllabus.3 9 Leo X III, in his Encyclical letter A rcan u m divinae sapientiae o f Feb. 10, 1880, declares that in Chris tian m arriage the contract is inseparable from the Sacra ment, and therefore the contract cannot be true and legitimate without being a Sacrament as w ell. H e a d d s: F or Christ our Lord added to m arriage the dignity o f a Sacram en t; but m arriage is the contract itself, whenever that contract is law fu lly concluded. . . . H ence it is clear that among Christians every true m arriage is, in itself and by itself, a Sacrament, and that nothing can be farther from the truth than to say that the Sacrament is a certain added ornament or outward endowment which can be separated and torn aw ay from the contract at the caprice o f man. 4 0 In the light o f these authoritative utterances it is plain that the separability o f the contract from the Sacrament may no longer be maintained by Catholics.
38 A llocution o f Sept. 27, 1852: I n t e r fid e lc s m a tr im o n iu m dari n on p o sse, q u in u n o e o d em q ite tem p o re sit sa cra m en tu m . . . ac proin d e a con ittg a li fo e d e r e sacram en tun i sep a ra ri n u n q u a m p o s s e . 30 Prop. 73: " V i c o n tr a ctu s m e re c ii-ilis p otest in te r C h r istia n o s consta re veri n o m in is m a trim o n iu m , fa lsu m q u c c st, ant co n tr a c tio n m atriv io n ii in te r C h r istia n o s se m p e r esse sa cra m en tu m n ut n u llu m e sse con tra ctu m , s i sa cra m cn tu m e x c lu d a tu r . n o n e ss e d isso c ia b ilcm a tq u e id e o non p o sse c o n tr a c tu a l v e r u m et le g itim u m c o n sistc r e , q u in s it eo ipso sa cra m en tu m . N a m C h r is tu s D o m i * d ig n ita tc sa c r a m c n ti a u x it m atrim o n iu in ; m atrim on iu m a utem est ipse c o n tr a c tu s , s i m odo sit fa c tu s iu r e .

. . . Ita q u e apparct o m n e in te r C h ristia n o s iiistu m co n iu g iu m in s e ct per s e e ss e sa cr a m cn tu m n ih ilq u e m agis a b h o r rc r c a v e r ita tc quoin e ss e sacran ien tu m d e c u s qu od d a m a d iu n c tu m o u t p ro p rieta tcm allapsam e x tr in se cu s , qua e a c o n tr a c tu d is iu n g i ac
separari ho m inum arbitratu q u c a t ."

(D en zin ger-B an n w art, n. 1773). E x p lo r a tio n es t i n m a t r i m o n i o 1 0

C h r is t i a n a contraction a sacram cnto

(D e n zin g c rB a n n w a rt, n. 1854).

MATRIMONY

c) T hough the main question is thus decided, theological controversies regarding exceptional cases continue.
a) One o f the questions most hotly debated among theo logians is whether the m arriage of an unbaptized couple becomes a Sacrament when both husband and w ife em brace the Christian faith. Vasquez, M astrius, Simmonet, and a number of Thomist theologians answer this question negatively on the ground that only the original contract can be raised to the dig nity o f a Sacrament, not its subsequent approbation. Capreolus, Henriquez, and Bellarmine, on the other hand, hold that in such a case the original contract be comes a Sacrament by a renewal o f consent on the part o f the contracting parties, and that this act assumes the functions o f the sacramental sign and constitutes a renewal o f the contract on a Christian basis. Sanchez, Tanner, and the m ajority teach that the recep tion o f Baptism suffices to elevate what was originally a mere m arriage o f nature to the dignity o f a Sacrament. T his theory is fa r more plausible than the other two, for if it were necessary to renew the consent, the omission of this form ality would result in a m arriage which was not a Sacrament, a conclusion inadmissible in the light of the Patristic, conciliary, and papal teaching set forth above. Hence the reception o f Baptism is sufficient to reconsti tute the bond o f pagan wcdlock and impress upon it the Christian stamp, and such converts receive the sac ramental graces o f M atrim ony together with those o f Baptism. (i) The case is more complicated when only one of the two contracting parties embraces Christianity, or when

DIVINE INSTITUTION

163

an unbaptized marries a baptized person presuming, of course, that the diriment impediment o f disparitas cnltu s has been removed by a dispensation. Does the baptized party in that case receive the Sacram ent? Dominicus Soto, Perrone, Palm ieri, Pesch, and others hold that such a m arriage is a true Sacrament, fo r two reasons: first, because the Church claims jurisdiction over it, and secondly, because at least one o f the contracting parties is capable o f receiving the sacramental grace of M atrimony. Sanchez, Tanner, H urter, Tepe, A tzberger, and others deny the cogency of this argument and assert that the matrimonial tie binds both contracting parties in pre cisely the same way. T his seems to us the more accept able view. ( M atrim onium non debet c la u d ica re ) 41 y ) Another debated question is whether m arriage con tracted by proxy or by letter is a true Sacrament. A m ar riage contracted in either one o f these two ways is un doubtedly valid as a contract, and since the contract among Christians is inseparable from the Sacrament, such a m arriage is a true Sacram cnt, and Cano and Cajetan erred in asserting that it requires an oral ratifica tion by the contracting parties to raise it to sacramental dignity. M arriage by proxy has alw ays been regarded as valid under the Canon L aw , and the Tridentine Coun cil merely added a new condition when it ordained that the representatives o f both parties must sign the m arriage contract in prescncc o f the pastor and the required witnesses.
41 C fr. De A u gu stin is, D e R e S a c ra m e n ta r ia , V o l. I I , 2nd ed., pp. 633 sqq.

SECTION 2
MATTER AND FORM

i. F a l s e T h e o r i e s . From what was said in the preceding Section it follows that we must reject all those theories which seek the matter and form o f the Sacram ent o f M atrim ony elsewhere than in the mutual consent of the contracting parties. a) Thus M elchior Cano teaches that the mu tual consent of the contracting parties, whether m anifested by words or signs, constitutes merely the matter o f the Sacrament, its form being the benediction pronounced by the priest.
That this view is false follows from the reflection that, if the sacerdotal blessing were for some reason omitted, there would, in Canos hypothesis, be a valid matrimonial contract but no Sacrament. M oreover, the Council o f Trent recognized the validity o f clandestine m arriages contracted in places where the T cim ctsi had not been promulgated. B y a clandestine m arriage we un derstand one contracted secretly without the coopera tion o f the pastor and the required witnesses. Th e Coun cil says that all such marriages, when freely conlractcd where the T a m c ts i" is not published, are rata ct
164

MATTER AND FORM

165

vera, unless form ally nullified by the Church.1 Note that, according to Tridentine as well as present-day usage, a legitimate m arriage among Christians is alw ays a Sacra ment, whether blessed by a priest or not. B ut even in places where clandestine m arriages are invalid the words pronounced by the priest, E g o vos in m atrim onium coniungo, contribute nothing to the validity o f the Sacra ment. This form ula occurs in none o f the ancient rituals,2 and is omitted whenever a m arriage is contracted with the m erely passive assistance o f the pastor. The object o f this form ula, therefore, is m erely to acknowledge the m ar riage as publicly and solemnly contracted in fa c ie E cclcsiae 3 and to declare its sacramental nature.4

b) V asquez does not go quite so fa r astray as Cano when he teaches that the matter o f the Sacram ent is constituted by the bodies o f the con tracting parties, in so fa r as they are m utually surrendered fo r the sacred purposes o f wedlock. W hile it is quite true that both the contract and the Sacram ent have the bodies o f the contracting parties fo r their object, V asquez is mistaken in
1 Sess. X X I V , cap. 1, D e R e fo r m . M a tr im .: T a m e ts i d u b ita n d u m non e st, cla n d c s tin a m a trim on ia lib e r o c o n tr a h e n tiu m c o n se n su fa c ta rata c t v era e sse m a trim on ia , quam d in E c c le s ia ea irrita n o n fe c i t , e t p ro in d e iu r e d a m n a n d i stin t ilJi, tit e o s S . S y n o d u s an a th em a te d a m n a t, q u i v era ac rata e ss e n eg a n t, . . . n illilo> tlillus,, ' e tc. M artne, D e A n tiq . E c c lc s . R it., 1. I, c. 9, art. 3. 3 H ence the term, so le m n is a tio m atrim o n ii.
4

m e n t, in S e n t ., I V , dist. 28, qu. 5: " A d e sse m a tr im o n ii ista d u o su ffic iu n t, sciJ. le g itim ita s in p cr s o n is ct u n ita s in c o n sc n su . A d so le m n ita tcm v e r o et d e co re m et h o n e sta tcm r e q u ir itu r et p a ren tu m tr a d itio c t sac e r d o tu m b e n e d ic t io ; lia cc ta m cn ita s u n t ad d e co re m sa c r a m c n ti, u t tam en s in t d e n e c e ssita te p ra e c c p ti .

2 C fr.

C fr.

St.

B onaventure,

C om -

M erely as a cu riosity we w ill mention C ath arinu s view (D e M a trim o n io , qu. 1) that the form o f the Sacram ent is contained in the virtu a lly persisting w ords o f Adam , recorded in Gen. I I , 24.

166

MATRIMONY

regarding these as the proxim ate matter o f the Sacrament. In reality the proxim ate matter ( materia proxima sive ex qua) is the matrimonial contract itself. T he bodies o f the contracting parties are merely the remote m atter ( materia re mot a sive circa quam).
It needs no special argument to prove that the sacra mental form, too, must be contained somewhere in the matrimonial contract. Th e question is, w here? The form might conceivably be sought (though I do not believe any theologian has ever looked for it there) in the formal signification o f the words embodying the matrimonial con sent, assuming the matter to be contained in the material sound. T his assumption would be analogous to that of the Scotists regarding Penance, and equally unconvinc ing. T h e same must be said o f N avarru s view that the m atter o f M atrim ony is to be found in the internal consent and the form in the external assent o f the con tracting parties.5 Th e external assent is merely the out ward expression of the internal consent. M oreover, the matter (as well as the form ) of a Sacrament must be per ceptible by the senses. 2. T h e T r u e T h e o r y . T he only tenable theory is that o f Bcllarmine, Suarez, Sanchez, and other authors, that both the matter and the form o f the Sacram ent are contained in the m atri monial contract itself, being the words o f con sent spoken by the contracting parties, or the signs used instead. These words or signs constitute
G N avarrus, M a n u a ls, c. 22, n. 20.

MATTER AND FORM

167

the matter o f the Sacram ent in so fa r as they sig n ify the mutual surrender o f the bodies ( traditio ), and its form in so fa r as they sig n ify the ac ceptance ( acceptatio) o f the same.
It is easy to see the mutual relation o f these tw o fu n c tions. Th e traditio is something undetermined and re ceives its determination from the acceptatio. These tw o, says Suarez, namely, traditio and acceptatio, so concur in the m atrimonial contract that the traditio un derlies and form s the basis o f the acceptatio, which, in its turn, completes the contract. Thus it happens that the mutual consent o f the contracting parties . . . has the nature o f m atter in as fa r as it contains the m utual traditio, and the nature o f form in as fa r as it effects the mutual acceptatio. 0 Though the words, I take you fo r my law ful husband (w ife ) directly signify and effect the marital union ( n exu s m arita lis), they indirectly signify and effect sanctifying grace, because every m ar riage between Christians, by virtue o f the divine institu tion o f M atrim ony, is necessarily a symbol o f the m ysti cal union of Christ with H is Church.7
0 Su arez, D e S a cra m . in G c ite r e , disp. 2, sect. 1, n. 4: " H a e c d u o ,
sc il. tra d itio et a c ce p ta tio , ita in co n tr a ctu c o n c u r r u n t, u t tr a d itio su p p o n a tu r a c c c p ta tio n i et in ilia in c h o e tur, p er h a n c v e ro c o n su m m e tu r c o n tr a c tu s. A t q u e liin c fit, u t c o n s e n s u s u tr iu s q u e c o n iu g is, . . . quaterm s m utua m tr a d itio n e m c o n tin e n t, h a b ca n t ra tio n cm m a teria e, q u a ten u s v ero efficiu n t m utua m a c c e p ta tio n c in , ha b ea n t r a tio n em fo r m a e . 7 V . Sect. 1, supra,

SECTION 3
SACRAM EN TAL EFFECTS

i. Increase of S a n c t if yin g G r a c e . The first effect o f Christian m arriage is an increase o f sanctifying grace.
I f anyone saith, defines the Tridentine Council, that M atrim ony . . . does not confer grace, let him be anathema. 1 W henever the Council speaks of grace conferred by a Sacrament, it means sanctifyin g grace. M atrim ony, being a symbol of C hrists union with H is mystic spouse, neces sarily presupposes the state o f sanctifying grace, and hence its first and principal effect can be none other than to augment that grace. It follows that M atrim ony is, by its very concept, a Sacrament of the living. I f it is received in the state of mortal sin, there are two possibilities: Either the unworthy recipient is conscious o f the state of his soul, or he is unconscious thereof. In the former case he commits a sacrilege by receiving the Sacrament in fo n n e or ficte, as it were under false pre tences, and thereby deprives him self o f its graces, at least so long as the obstacle (o b ex gratiae ) is not removed by an act of perfect contrition or the worthy reception o f Penance. In the latter case he is unconscious o f being in the state of mortal sin, and hence acts in good faith
l Sess. X X IV , can. i : " S i q u is d ix c r it, m atrim on ium . . . . gratia! c o n fc r r e , a n athem a s it .
neque

1(38

SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS

169

and may, if he has im perfect contrition, receive san ctify ing grace per accidens.
2. T
h e

a cr am en ta l

race of

a t r im o n y

Besides increasing sanctifying grace, m atri mony confers certain special graces. T his is evi dent a priori from a consideration o f the great im portance o f this Sacram ent for fam ily, State, and Church, as well as the onerous nature o f the duties and burdens which it imposes.
Th e sacramental grace o f M atrim ony probably con sists in a claim based upon and confirmed by sanctifying grace, which claim entitles the recipient to the actual graces ( gratiae actuales ) necessary for faith fu lly per form ing the duties o f the married state. T h e Tridentine Council s a y s : The grace which might perfect that nat ural love [of husband and w ife for each other] and con firm that indissoluble union and sanctify the married, Christ H im self . . . merited for us by H is P assion; as the Apostle Paul intimates, saying: Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church. . . . Impious men o f this age, in their foolish rage, have not only har bored false notions touching this venerable Sacrament, but, introducing . . . a carnal liberty, etc.2 A n analysis of this teaching enables us to distinguish a tw ofold class o f graces conferred by M atrim ony: some impart strength for the faithful perform ance o f the duties o f the married state, others serve as
2 Sess. X X I V , P r o o e m .: " Gratiam v er o , qu a e n a tu ra lem am orctn p cr fic e r c t, et in d isso lu b ile m u n io n e m c o n firm a ret c o n iu g e sq u e sanetificar c t, ip se C h r is tu s . . . sitd n o b is p a ssio n e p ro m eru it. Quod P a u la s A p o s to lu s in n u it d ic e n s : V ir i, dilig itc v x o r c s v c s tra s , s ic u t C h r is tu s d ilc x it E c c le sia m . . . h n p i i h o m in e s h u iu s s a c c u li in s a n ie n te s n o n soh im pcrp era m d e h o c v e n c r a b ili sac r a m e n to se n s e r u n t, se d . . . lib ertatrm ca rn is in tr o d iic c n te s , e tc.

(D enzinger-B ann w art, n. 969).

MATRIMONY
a medicine against the temptations o f the flesh. T o the form er class belong the perfection of the natural love which husband and w ife have fo r each other, after the pattern o f Christs love for H is m ystical spouse; con scientiousness in the begetting and rearing o f children; prudence in daily intercourse; patience and trust in G o d ; mutual forbearance, etc. The latter class comprises those actual graces that counteract the threefold concupiscence to which human flesh is heir since the F all.3
3. T
h e

u a si-

h aracter

of

a t r im o n y

Another effect peculiar to M atrim ony is the m ar riage bond ( vinculum matrimoniale), which sym bolizes the one and indissoluble union o f Christ w ith H is mystic spouse, the Church. T his effect strongly resembles the sacramental character im printed by Baptism, Confirmation, and H oly O r ders,4 and hence is often called quasi-character.
Bellarm ine 5 and Sanchez 0 regard the marriage bond as a sort o f permanent Sacrament. But this view is
3 C fr. St. B onaventure, C . in S e n t ., dist. 26, art. 2, qu. 2: " E x hue gratia fit rcm cd iu m con tra triplir cem in o rd in a tia n em c o n c u p is c e n tia c c t n a scitu r tr ip le x b on u m m a trim on ii. C o n cu p isc e n tia citim in clin a t ad it/tas, quia lu x u r io s u s n o n est un a [m u lic r e ] c o n tc n tu s ; ct m a trim on io d a tu r gratia h om itii, u t s o li u x o r i v e lit co n iu n g i ct ita p ro n ita s ad m illtas c x c lu d itu r p e r co p ulam sin g u la rem . C o n cu p isc cn tia etiam in c lin a t ad d c lcc ta tio n c m , n on ad u tilita te m , quia lu x u r io s u s n o n q u a crit n is i satisfa c lio n e m a p p c litiv a c sc u a p p etitn s s e n s it iv i: d a tu r ergo gratia in m atri m an io, u t n on co g n o sca t u x o r c m n isi

IV ,

p ro p te r p ro lc m , ct ita e x c lu d itn r dele c ta tio p e r cop ula m u tilc m . I te m con cupi-sccn tia fa s tid iu m g c n c ra t p ost im p le tio n e m , u n d e lu x u r io s u s , postquam c o g n o i'it u u a m , illa m r esp u it ct va dit ad a lia m ; in m a trim on io v c r o da tu r gratia, u t se m p e r v e lit esse cum un a ct ita e x c lu d itn r va rioru m c o n c u p is c e n tia p er cop ula m inscparab ile m ." N eedless to add, all these

graces become efficacious only if husband and w ife faith fu lly cooperate with them. 4 C fr. Pohle-Preuss, T h e Sacram c n ts, V ol. I, p. 95. t> D c M a trim o n io , I, 6. 0 D c M a tr im o n io , 1. I I , disp. 5.

SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS

171

untenable. T h e Sacram ent proper ( sacram entum tantnm ) in M atrim ony is the transient act by which the con jugal contract is formed, just as the Sacram ent o f Bap tism is the transient act o f ablution. But the bond o f wedlock is a permanent effect, bearing a striking resem blance to the character imprinted by Baptism, Confirm a tion, and H oly O rders, and hence must be regarded as res et sacram entum , and m ay justly be styled quasi character, especially in view of the fact that it renders the Sacrament incapable o f repetition during the lifetim e o f both contracting parties. It would be wrong, however, to ascribe to M atrim ony a sacramental character in the strict sense. T h e m ark imprinted on the soul by this Sacrament, unlike the character imparted by the other three Sacraments mentioned, is not physical, but purely moral. From the quasi-character o f M atrim ony flow the tw o properties of Christian m arriage, v is.: unity ( u n itas) and indissolubility (in d issolu b ilita s ) .

CHAPTER II
THE PR O PER TIES OF C H R I S T I A N M ARRIAGE

S E C T IO N i
U N IT Y

The unity o f m arriage ( unitas matrimonii) consists in this, that a man has only one w ife and a woman only one husband. T his ideal state is called monogamy. Opposed to monogamy is polygamy. P o lyg amy m ay mean: ( i ) a plurality o f wives or husbands in succession; (2 ) a plurality o f hus bands at the same time, more properly called poly andry; (3 ) a plurality o f wives at the same time, which is polygam y in the strict sense o f the term. Successive polygam y, i. e. repeated m arriage, is not destructive of the unity o f wedlock. The same cannot be said o f polyandry, nor o f polyg amy proper, though here, too, it is necessary to make a distinction. Polyandry ( polyandria simultanca) is directly contrary to the law o f na ture, whereas polygam y ( polygamia simultanea) is forbidden by a positive divine law, but not by the law o f nature, at least not absolutely. The
172

UNITY

173

Catholic teaching on these points can best be ex plained in the form o f two theses.
Thesis I : Polyandry, i. e. a plurality of husbands at the same time, is no true marriage, but a crime against the law of nature.

T his m ay be technically qualified as propositio certa. P roof. T h at polyandry is opposed to the law o f nature is so evident that the Church takes the illicitness and invalidity o f such m arriages fo r granted.1
T h e profession o f faith made by the Em peror M ichael Palaeologus at the Council o f Lyons, A . D. 1274, contains this passage: W ith regard to M atrim ony [the Church] holds that a man m ay not have several w ives at the same time, and that a woman is not permitted to have several husbands. 2 Polyandry, i. e. a plurality o f husbands at the same time, is forbidden because it frustrates the prim ary object o f m arriage, i. e. the begetting o f chil dren, and thus destroys the bonum prolis. A woman who habitually has carnal intercourse with several men will rarely conceive.3 W ere such a relation permitted, the hu man race would soon become extinct. I f (as sometimes happens) children are born o f a polyandrous m arriage, their parentage is often uncertain and it is generally speak ing impossible to provide properly for their bodily and spiritual training. F or these reasons polyandry is held in
v er o te n e t [E e c le s ia ] , q u o d n e c u n n s v ir p lu r e s uxores sim u l n e c uita m u lie r p e r m it titu r h a b e re p lu r e s v ir o s ." (D en-

1 C fr. Rom. V I I , 3. 2 " De M a tr im o n io

zinger-B an nw art, n. 465). 3 C fr. St. A ugustin e, D e B o n o C o n in g ., c. 17, n. 20: " P lu r e s cn im

fe m in a e ab u n o znro fo e ta r i p o ssu n t, ifia v e r o a p lu r ib iis n o n p o te s t."

174

MATRIMONY

abhorrence by civilized nations, and even by the ma jority o f uncivilized tribes.

Thesis I I : Polygamy proper, i. e. having several wives at the same time, cannot be a valid m ar riage.

T his proposition is de fide. P roof. W hile Calvin, in his extrem e rigo r ism, condemned the plural m arriages o f the P a triarchs as adulterous, Luther and Melanchthon erred in the opposite direction by declaring polyg am y to be permissible under the N ew Testam ent and allow ing the Lan dgrave Philip of Hesse to m arry another woman while his legitimate w ife w as still alive.4 T he excesses committed by the Anabaptists o f M unster are notorious. M ormonism is a menace to the Am erican Republic. A gain st Luther the Council o f T rent defined: I f anyone saith that it is law ful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not prohibited by any divine law, let him be anathema. 5 T he unity o f Christian m arriage can be demon strated from Scripture and Tradition. a) Christ H im self restored monogamy, as it had existed in Paradise, and made it the only
C fr. L u th e r i O p era , ed. D e W cttc, V , 241: " Q u o d circa m atrim on iu m in le g e M o y sis fu it perm issu m , E v a n g e liu m n o n rev o ca t aut r e n t ." d ix e r it, lic c r c C h r istia n is p lu r e s sim u l ha bere u x o r e s et h oc n u lla le g e divin a esse p ro h ib itu m , anathem a s i t . (D cn zin ger-B aim w art,

9 7 2 ).
"S i q uis

G Scss. X X I V , can. 2:

U NITY

175

valid form o f M atrim ony. C fr. M atth. X I X , 4 sqq.: H ave you not read that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and fem ale? A n d he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his w ife, and they two shall be in one flesh. T h erefo re now they are not two, but one flesh. W h at therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. 6 W hen the Pharisees, in response to this declaration, called our L o rd s attention to the fact that Moses commanded to give a bill o f divorce, Jesus replied: From the beginning it was not so. A n d I say to you that whosoever shall put aw ay his w ife, and shall m arry another, committeth adultery. 7 In the first o f these texts our L ord establishes monogamy as the law o f the N ew Testam ent; in the second, H e condemns polygam y as adulterous. St. Paul alw ays speaks o f m onogamy as a m at ter o f course (cfr. Rom. V I I , 2 sqq.; 1 Cor. V I I , 2 sq., 10 sq.; Eph. V , 3 1).
Th e Fathers unanimously uphold monogamy and con demn polygam y. Theophilus o f A ntioch (-]- about 186)
6 M atth. X I X , 4 sqq.; " N o n leg istis, q u ia q u i fe c i t h o m in cm ab in i tio, m a scu lu m et fe m in a m (U p c e v Kal OrjKv ) fe c it e o s ct d i x i t : P r o p te r h o c d im ittct hom o p a tr o n e t m atretn et a d h a creb it u x o r i su a e ( r jj y v v a iK l a v r o v ) ct e r u n t d u o in c a m e un a ( ol Suo els adp K a fj.la.ii Ita q u e tain n o n s u n t d u o , s e d un a coro. Q u o d erg o D c its c o n iu n x it, hom o n o n s e p a r e t. 7 M atth. X I X , 8 sq.: " A b in itio a u tem n on f u i t sic . D ic o a u tc m vobis, quia q u ic u n q u e d im is c r it u x o r e m su a in . . . c t aliam d u x e r it, m oecha tu r (/ j.o tx a T a i)-"

).

i ?6

MATRIMONY

praises his fellow Christians for faithfully observing the unity o f m arriage.8 Clement o f A lexandria w rites: In restoring the ancient [practice], our Lord no longer permitted polygam y, . . . but only monogamy, because of the begetting o f children and the care o f the home, for which the w ife is given [to man] as a helpmate. 0 In the W est, Tertullian valiantly championed the unity o f marriage. M inucius F elix describes the domestic life o f the Christians o f his day as in full agreement with the law of monogamy.10 T h e teaching of the later Fathers and ecclesiastical writers differed in no wise from that o f their predeces sors. The constant practice of the Roman See, therefore, rests upon a solid doctrinal basis.11

b) In dem onstrating the Catholic doctrine theologians generally emphasize the fact that the Creator meant m arriage to be monogamous from the beginning, and consequently the conjugal union between Adam and E ve in Paradise must be looked upon as the pattern exemplar fo r all their descendants.
The Christian law o f monogamy, as we have seen, is simply a restoration of the original condition o f m ar riage. Hence Pope Nicholas the First, that valiant cham pion of the m arriage bond, was justified in w riting: T o have two wives at the same time is repugnant to the orig8 A d A n ta ly c ., 1. I l l , n. 15 (M igne, P . G ., V I , 1142). S tr o m a ta , H I, 12 (M igne, P . G ., V I I I , 1183). 10 T ertu llian , A p o lo g c tic u s , c. 46:
C h r istia n a s u x a r i su a e s o li in osculu s n a s c itu r ." M. F elix , O c ta v iu s ,

c. 3 1 : " U n iu s m a trim o n ii v in c u lo tib c n tc r in h a c r e m u s; cu p id ita tc m proc r c a n d i an t un am sc im u s aut u u lla m ." 11 C fr. J. Sasse, D c S a c ra m c n tis P .c d c sia e , V ol. I I , pp. 390 sqq., F re i burg 1898.

UNITY

177

inal state o f the human race, and forbidden by the Chris tian law . 12 T h e unity o f m arriage, as established in Paradise, was maintained up to the time o f the Deluge. L a mech, a great grandson o f Cain, was the first o f the Patriarchs to have two wives. F o r so doing he was generally regarded as a transgressor o f the law. A fte r the Flood, because o f the lack o f males, God permitted the Jews (and probably also the gentiles) to have several wives. Traces o f this dispensation are clearly discern ible in the M osaic law. H ence Calvin w as wrong when he denied the licitness and validity o f polygam ous m ar riages during this period and accused the Patriarchs and their descendants down to the time o f Christ o f living in adultery. A divine dispensation in favo r of polygam y is plainly evident from Deut. X X I , 15 sqq., where w c read: I f a man have two wives, one beloved and the other hated, and they have had children by him, and the son o f the hated be the firstborn, and he meaneth to divide his substance among his sons, he m ay not make the son o f the beloved the firstborn, and prefer him be fore the son o f the hated, etc. The intimate friendship with which Y ah w eh honored Abraham , Jacob, and D avid, who were all polygamists, shows that He tolerated the practice. Th e use of the term concubine (pelle x , 7 rciAAal) in the O ld Testam ent does not prove that a woman so designated was not a law ful w ife. It simply indicates that she did not enjoy equal civil rights with her husbands chief or favorite w ife. These concubines may be likened to the m organatic wives o f modern princes.13
12 A d C o n su lta B u lg a ro r u m , c. rum u lla p c r m ittit. (M ig n c, P . L ., 5 1: " D u a s te m p o re n n o h a b e re C X I X , 999). u x o r c s n e e ipsa origo hiim an ac c o n 13 O n the use o f the term " cond itio n is a d m ittit tic c le x C h ristia n o c u b in a in Canon L a w see Pesch,

i;8

MATRIMONY

T h at it required a divine dispensation, or perhaps we had better say, toleration, to make polygam y law ful, is expressly stated by Pope Innocent III .14 W e know that the M osaic concession was revoked by Christ, not only for H is faithful followers, but for infidels and pagans as well, and that no polygam ist can be baptized unless he dismisses all his wives except one the first.15

c) The fact that polygam y w as tolerated in the Old Testam ent raises the question whether, and in how far, the practice can be said to be con tra ry to the moral law o f nature.
Polygam y, unlike polyandry,16 is not intrinsically im moral, else God could never have permitted it. This con sideration has led Catholic philosophers and theologians to unite on the proposition that polygam y is opposed to the natural law, not primarily but secondarily. The meaning is: Though the objects o f matrimony may be at tained in a polygamous union, they cannot be reached with nearly the same perfection as in a monogamous marriage, and hence the law o f nature counsels the latter, while it discountenances the former. It is evident that both the bonum prolis and the bonum fidei can be attained in a polygamous m arriage, since one man can cohabit with and be true to several wives and provide for the chil dren born to him. But it is equally patent that a plu rality o f wives is not conducive to domestic peace and happiness nor to the proper control o f concupisccnce, and that polygam y degrades the fem ale sex. Th e most that
P r a c lc c t. D o g m a t., V o l. V I I , 3rd cd., pp. 415 sr|f|. i-i Cap. " G a u d c m u s , D c D iv o r t.: " N u lli unr/uam lic u it sim u l p lu r c s uxorcs h a b ere n is i cui fu it d ivin d r c v c la tio n c c o n c c ss u m .

K. On monogamy as the ideal form o f m arriage see B illu art, D c M a tri101110, diss. 5, art. 1. 10 V . Thesis I, supra.

UNITY

179

can be said against polygam y, therefore, is that it greatly impedes the secondary end o f m arriage, and destroys the symbol o f the m ystic union o f Christ with H is Church so completely that the elevation o f M atrim ony to the dig nity of a Sacrament would have been impossible had not plural m arriage been definitively abolished.17

Thesis I I I : W henever the marriage bond is broken by death, the surviving partner, under the divine law, is free to m arry again.

T his proposition m ay be qualified as doctrina catholica Proof. O ur thesis m erely asserts that second or successive m arriages, contracted after the death o f husband or w ife, are not contrary to the divine law. It does not assert that such m ar riages m ay not be forbidden by the Church.
In m atter o f fact the Church has the right to forbid remarriage, though she has never made use o f it. W hile consistently upholding the principle that perfect monog amy is realized only where husband and w ife remain faith ful to each other, even in death, she has alw ays per mitted widowers and widows to rem arry. T h is can be seen from many authentic declarations by popes and coun cils. Thus the F irst Nicene Council (325) commanded the converted Cathari to hold ecclesiastical communion with those who had married again ( digam i ) .18 Clement I V (12 6 7) caused to be inserted into the profession of
17 On polygam y from the eth ical point of view see Jos. Rickaby, S. J., M o r a l P h ilo s o p h y (S ton yliu rst Serics), pp. 270 sqq.; on the toleration of polygam y in the Old T estam ent,

c fr. St. Thom as, S u p p le m e n t., qu. 65, art. 1; Sm nm a c. G e n t., I l l , 24; I V , 78. 18 C fr. D cnzin gcr-B ann w art, n. 55: cum diga m is c o m m u n ic a b u n t.

MATRIMONY
faith demanded o f M ichael Palseologus a passage declar ing second and third m arriages valid and permissible.19 Eugene I V in his decree for the Jacobites s a y s : W e de clare that a man can law fu lly pass not only to a second, but to a third and fourth m arriage, and to still others, pro vided there be no impediment, adding, however, that It is more praiseworthy to abstain from remarriage and to lead a continent life . 2 This teaching was reinforced 0 by Benedict X I V in two constitutions issued in 1742 and 1745, respectively.

a) St. P aul w rites in his first Epistle to the Corinthians: I say to the unmarried and to w idow s: it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they have not self-control, let them m arry; it is better to m arry than to be on fire [with passion.] 21 A n d again: A w ife is bound to her husband so long as he liv e th ; but if her husband die, she is free to m arry whom she w ill; only [let it be]in the L ord . 22 b) T he Fathers taught that second m arriage, while less perfect than continence, is not fo r bidden.
10 S o lu t o v e r o le g itim o m a tr i 21 i Cor. V I I , 8 sq.: " D ic o aum on io p er m ortem con ittg u m a lte r iu s tcm n on n u p tis ct v id u is : b o n u m cst se c u n d a s et te rtia s d e in d e n u p tia s Hits s i sic p erm a n ca n t, sic u t c t ego. su c c e s s iv e lic ita s [E c c le s ia ] esse diQ u o d si n o n s c c o n tin e n t, n u b a n t; c i t ." (D enzinger-IJannw art, n. 465). m e liu s cst cn in t tin h ere quam u r i. 20 " D c c la r a m u s n on so lu m sc c u n 22 1 Cor. V I I , 39: " M tilie r oldas, se d te r tia s c l q u a rta s ct ttlte r io rc s [HH/ita i], s i a liq u o d im p e d i m en tio n n o n obstat, lic ite c o n tr a h i p o ss e ; c o m m e n d a tio r e s tam en d id m u s, s i u ltc r iu s a con ittg io o b stin en te s in ca stita tc p c r m a n sc r in t. (D c cr c tu m pro Ia co b itis , in Ila rligata cst leg i, q u a n to te m p o re v ir e in s v iv it. Q u o d s i d o r m ier it (KOtpriOy = m o r tu u s fu e r it ) v ir ein s, lib cra ta e st: c u i v u lt n u b a t, ta n lu m in D o m in o . C fr. A l. Sch fer, E r k l r u n g d e r b e id e n B r ie fe an d ie K o r in th e r , pp. 152 sq., M nster 1903.

douin, C o n e ., V ol. I X , col. 1028).

UNITY

181

a) St. Am brose s a y s : W e do not prohibit second marriages, but neither do w e praise them if often re peated. 2 Clement o f A lexan dria w r ite s : I f the 3 Apostle permits a man to pass to a second m arriage be cause o f incontinency, . . . such a one does not sin under the Testam ent for there is no law to hinder him but he fails to attain to that perfect ideal o f life which is practiced according to the Gospel. 24 W hen St. Jerome was criticized for attacking bigamists, he replied : L et my accuser blush for saying that I condemned first m arriages, when he reads that I do not [even] condemn second and third, and, if I m ay say so, eighth m ar riage. 25 St. Augustine knows no reason for condemn ing successive m arriages, seeing that they are allowed by St. P aul.2 6 Tertullians M ontanistic teaching on this head 27 found no defender among the Fathers. (3 ) It should be noted, however, that second marriages were frowned upon in the Orient. Councils held at A ncyra (3 14 ), Neocsesarea (3 14 ), and Laodicea, though acknowledging second m arriages as valid, imposed a can onical fine on those who contracted them. Athenagoras ( + about 182) calls second m arriage decent adultery, 2 8 and says that the Christians o f his time regarded it as a sign o f incontinence and a violation o f the faith pledged
2 3 " N on p r o h ib e m u s se c u n d a s n u p tia s, se d n o n p ro b a m u s sa ep e r e p e t it o s ." ( D e V i d is, c. 1 1 ). 24 S tr o m a ta , 1. I l l , c. 12 (M ig n e, P . G ., V I I I , 1183).

n. 9; M igne, P . L . t X X I I , 499). 28 D e B o n o V id u ita tis , c. 12:

Q u o tie s v o lu c r it, v ir is in o rtu is nub at fe m in a n e c e x m eo c o r d e praete r sc r ip tu r a e sa n eta e a u cto r ita te in q u o ta slib e t n u p tia s a u d co con d cm n a re. (M ig n e, P . L . , X L , 439)27 In his treatise D e M o n o g a m ia . 28 e virpeirijs ( L e g a t c.

2 5 E r u b e se a t c a lu m n ia to r m e u s d ic e n s m e p rim a d am n are m a trim on ia, q u a n d o le g it: N o n dam n o dig am os ct trigam os ct, s i d ic i p o te st, o cto g a m o s. ( E p . 48 ad P a m m a ch .,

33).

i82

MATRIMONY

to the dead. 29 St. Basil ( + 3 7 9 ) vigorously de nounced second and third m arriages3 and demanded 0 severe canonical penalties for those who contracted them. In pursuance of this rigorous policy the Greek Church, under Nicholas I o f Constantinople (A . D. 920), declared fourth and, under certain conditions, even third marriages null and void. T his legislation was approved by Pope John X , but is no longer strictly enforced.31
29 C fr. H . K ih n , P a tr o lo g ie , V o l. I, p. 1 7 7 , Paderborn J 90 4. 30 H e calls them " ca stig a ta fo r n ica tio " and " e cc le sia e in q u in a m en turn. C fr. E p . ad A m p h ilo c h ., j 88, can. 4; can. 50.

Palm ieri, D e M a tr im o n io , O n the Er.cratites and their teaching see J. T ix ero n t, H istory o f D o g m a s, V o l. I , pp. J90 sqq., St. L o u is 1910.
p p . 10 0 s q q .

31 C fr.

SECTION 2
IN D ISS O L U B IL IT Y

i. S t a t e o f t h e Q u e s t i o n . In order to ex plain the Catholic teaching on the indissolubility o f the m arriage bond, we must draw a distinc tion. T o say that the vinculum, or m arriage tie, is intrinsically indissoluble means that it cannot be dissolved by the contracting partners. T o say that it is extrinsically indissoluble means that no earthly authority can annul it. a) T o this tw ofold indissolubility corresponds a tw ofold dissolubility.
A contract is intrinsically dissoluble if it can be re voked by those who have made it. P e r quascunque causas res nascitur, per easdem dissolvitur, says an an cient legal adage. I f the m arriage contract were intrin sically dissoluble, husband and w ife could separate when ever they wished. In m atter of fact, the contract, as we shall see, is intrinsically indissoluble, and con sequently cannot be revoked by the contracting parties. It may happen, however, that an intrinsically indissoluble contract can be annulled by a higher law or authority. Such a contract is extrinsically dissoluble. I f a m ar riage is actually dissolved by divine ordinance or by the Pope, we know that this is m erely a case o f extrinsic
183

184

MATRIMONY

dissolubility, which does not affect the intrinsic indissolu bility o f the bond.1

b) B efore expounding the Catholic teaching on the indissolubility o f m arriage, we must explain the division o f M atrim ony into legitimum, ratum, and consummatum.
( 1 ) A legitimate m arriage ( m atrim onium leg itim u m ) is any m arriage validly contracted between unbaptized persons (Jews, Mohammedans, pagans). Such a m ar riage is not sacramental. (2) A ratified m arriage ( m atrim onium ratum ) is any m arriage between Christians, whether consummated or not. It is alw ays sacramental. (3 ) A consummated m arriage (m atrim onium consum m atum ) is any m arriage which has become perfect by conjugal intercourse.

M arriage between baptized persons, whether consummated 01* not, is alw ays intrinsically indissoluble, so fa r as the vinculum is concerned, and a fter it has been consummated, is indissoluble also extrinsically, that is to say, no human authority can annul it.
2. D
o g m a tic

h eses

Thesis I : E very marriage between baptized per sons, whether consummated or not, is intrinsically in dissoluble.

This proposition m ay be qualified as " saltern fidei p roxim a

1 C fr. l alm icri, D c M a tr im o n io , pp. 125 sqq.

INDISSOLUBILITY

185

P ro o f. T he m eaning is that a valid m arriage between baptized persons cannot be dissolved by the mutual consent o f the contracting partners. F or either o f them to contract another m arriage, therefore, would involve adultery. N ot even heresy, incom patibility o f temper, or desertion would ju s tify either party to dissolve the m ar riage. T he Tridentine Council declares: I f anyone saith that on account o f heresy, or irk some cohabitation, or the designed absence o f one o f the parties the bond o f m atrim ony m ay be dis solved, let him be anathem a. 2 T his canon, which was directed m ainly against Luther and Bucer, does not, o f course, forbid separation from bed and board. a) T h at m arriage between baptized persons is intrinsically indissoluble appears from the fact that our D ivine L o rd abolished the M osaic prac tice o f grantin g a bill of divorce on the express ground that no man should put asunder what God has joined together.3 St. Paul teaches: T o the married I give this charge nay, not I, but the Lord that a w ife depart not from her hus band (but if she have departed, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband), and that a husband put not aw ay his w ife . 4
2 Sess. X X I V , can. 5: S i q u is d ix e r it, p rop ter h a ercsim au t m olestam co h a b ita tio n em au t a ffecta ta m absen tiam a c o n iu g e d iss o lv i p o sse
m a tr im o n ii v in c u lu m , an ath em a s i t . "

(D enzinger-B an m vart, n. 9 7s).

3 M atth. X I X , 6: " Q u o d erg o D c u s c o n iu n x it, hom o n on sc p a r c t. -i 1 Cor. V I I , j o : " l i s a u tem q u i m a trim on io iu u c ti su n t, p ra ccip io ,

MATRIMONY
T his is not m erely good advice, but a divine com mand, which binds under pain o f mortal sin.5 Both to the Corinthians and to the Romans the Apostle speaks in general terms and nowhere makes a distinction between consummated and unconsummated marriages. F o r the teaching of the Fathers see infra, Thesis II. The Church has alw ays enforced the indissolubility of the m arriage bond between Christians.0

b) T he allied question as to the matrimonial tie among non-baptized persons m ay be considered in the light both o f positive divine law and o f the law o f nature. ) In the form er point o f view, m arriage was made intrinsically indissoluble by a positive pre cept in Paradise.
Adam , under the influence o f the H oly Ghost, 7 uttered the prophetic w o rd s: T herefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his w ife, and they shall be two in one flesh. 8 O u r Lord quotes these words and immediately a d d s: W hat therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. 0 W hen the Pharisees retorted : W h y then did Moses command
n o n ego, s e d D o m in u s : u x o r e m a v ir o n o n d isc e d e r e . Q u o d s i d isce ss e r it, m a n ere in n u p ta m ([leviTO) d y a fio s ) a u t v ir o su o r e c o n cilia r i. E t v ir u x o r e m n o n d im it ta t." D C fr. Roin. V I I , 3: " I g itu r v iv e n te v ir o v o c a b itu r a d u lte r a cra m e n tu m , u t ip su m in co n iitg ib u s illo d u ra n te p e r d u r e t ." T h is decla-

(/to txa X is). fu v r it cum a lio v i r o ." 0 C fr. D e c r e t. G reg o r., 1. I V , tit. 19, c. 7 : " S a c ra m e n tu m fxdei, q u o d
s e m e l est od m issu m , n u n q u a m am itt itu r ; se d ratum eflicit c o n iu g ii sa

ration o f Innocent I I I has rem ained a gu id in g principle in the Canon L a w o f the Church. 7 " D iv in i S p ir it u s in s tin c t , a the T rid en tin e Council puts it; Sess. X X IV , P rooem . 8 Gen. I I , 24. 0 Matth. X I X , 6: " Q u o d ergo
D e u s c o n iu n x it, h om o n o n s e p a r e t."

INDISSOLUBILITY

187

to give a bill o f divorce and to put aw ay ? Jesus sa id : In the beginning it was not so, 10 thereby giving them to understand that m arriage is by divine right both monogamic and intrinsically indissoluble.11 I f m arriage is intrinsically indissoluble by divine right, then only God H im self, or some one commissioned by H im fo r this purpose, can permit divorce. T h e M osaic command to which the Pharisees referred was clearly a divine dispensation. C fr. Deut. X X I V , 1: I f a man take a w ife, and have her, and she find not favor in his eyes fo r some uncleanness ( propter aliquant fo ed itatem ), he shall write a bill o f divorce ( libellum rep u d ii), and shall give it in her hand, and send her out o f his house (d im itte t ) T h i s text has been variously inter preted. Peter Lom bard, St. Bonaventure, Dominicus Soto, Estius, Sylvius, and other w riters think that the libellus rep udii merely implied a separation from bed and board. Bellarmine, M aldonatus, and the great m ajority, including practically all modern theologians, on the con trary hold that it meant a true divorce. T h ey base their opinion on three principal grounds.12 ( 1 ) O ur Lord H im self testifies that M oses permitted the Jew s to put aw ay their wives because o f the hard ness of their hearts. 13 (2 ) Th e Bible takes for granted that under the Old L a w a w ife who was put aw ay by her husband in virtue
10 M atth. X I X , 8 : " A b in itio (a7r P X V *) a,ltem n on 'fu it s i c . " 11 In tliis sense Pope Pius V I w rote Ju ly 11, 1789: " I n ta li
m a trim on io ve r u m cst [in fid e liu m ], m a trim o n iu m , siq u id e m p ersta re at! E p is c. A n g r ia e , quoted by Roskovan y, M a trim . in E c c le s . C a th ., V ol. I, p. 291)12 C fr. St. Thom as, S iim m a T h e o l., S u p p le m ., qu. 67, art. 3. 13 M atth. X I X , 8 : " M a y s e s ad du ritia m c o r d is v e s tr i p crm isit (eirirp exp ev) v o b is d im itte r c u x o r e s v e s tra s .

deb et o m n in o q u e p ersta t p e r p e tu u s illc n e x u s , q u i a prim a o r ig in e div in o iitrc m atrim on io ita a d h a e r ct, u t n u lli su b sit c iv ili p o tc s ta ti." (E p .

MATRIMONY
o f a libellus repudii could rem arry as well as the hus band. (3) H ad the lib ellu s repudii not been a real divorce, how explain the M osaic law which forbade a discharged w ife to return to her first husband after having been repudiated by the second, or after his d e a th ? 14 W hat was the aliqua fo e d ita s on account o f which a man could put aw ay his w ife ? The meaning of this phrase is not quite clear. The H ebrew term , which the Septuagint renders by co-x^ov irpayiia, no doubt denoted something with which the O ld Testam ent Jews were perfectly fam iliar. T hat it meant any reason what ever, e. g. inability to cook, as Rabbi Hillel and his school maintained, is highly improbable. Sham ais theory that the law referred to a violation o f conjugal fidelity, is far more likely.

P) T here remains the purely philosophical question whether the matrimonial bond is indis soluble under the law o f nature.
It stands to reason that m arriage, whether consum mated or not, cannot be dissolved by the contracting parties at pleasure. The law of nature inculcates order and virtue no less rigorously than the positive divine law. Pope Pius IX in his famous Syllabus condemned the proposition that Th e bond o f matrimony is not indis soluble by the law o f nature, and in certain eases divorce, in the strict sense o f the term, may be sanctioned by civil authority. 15 O ur doctrine is more easily demonstrable o f marH Deut. X X I V , 2 sqq. p ro p rie d ictu m a u cto rita te c iv iti san15 Prop. 67: " lu r e n a tu ra e tita cir i p o te st. (D en zin ger-B an n w art, fr im o n ii v in c u lu m no n c s t in d is s o lu n. 1767).
b ile et in v a r iis ca sib u s d iv o r liu m

INDISSOLUBILITY
riages blessed with children than o f such as have proved sterile. T h e bodily and spiritual care o f children de mands a home and life-long parental cooperation. O ne cannot advocate divorce without adm itting all those seri ous inconveniences that flow from the principle o f free love, whereby the human race is reduced to the level of the poultry-yard. The voice o f reason is confirmed by experience. H is tory teaches that all pure and strong nations have up held the sanctity and indissolubility o f the m arriage tie, whereas the introduction o f divorce has alw ays signalized decay. Ancient Rom e in its early days and under the emperors affords a good exam ple fo r both assertions. U n fru itfu l m arriages, too, are indissoluble: first, be cause M atrim ony by its very nature implies permanent and undivided community of life, and second, because the knowledge that a divorce can be had fo r the asking seriously imperils the fam ily and the State.18 A s the domestic and social evils o f divorce can be greatly lessened by legal control, we have still to answer the question whether the natural law does not empower the State in exceptional cases (sterility, incurable insanity, adultery) to grant a divorce to unbaptized persons. Theologians are at variance on this point. S o m e 17 concede this power to the State, whereas others hold with St. Thom as 18 that no purely human authority can dissolve the m arriage bond because the common good of society is superior to the individual w elfare o f its mem10 C fr. the m agnificent E n cyclical " A r c a n u m d iv in a e o f Leo X I I I , issued Feb. 10, 1880, and contained in an excellen t English translation in T h e P o p e an d th e P e o p le , a collection o f select letters and addresses by Leo X I I I , published by the English C atholic T ru th Society, new and revised edition, London 1912, pp. 41-46. See also Jos. R ickaby, S. J., M o r a l P h ilo s o p h y , pp. 276 sq. 17 E . g. Bellarm ine, D e M a trim o n io , c. 4, and Sanchez, D e M a trim o n io , 1. I I , disp. 13, n. 4. 18 S u m m it T h e o l., S u p p l., qu. 67, art. .

19 0

MATRIMONY

bers, and the natural law cannot take into consideration accidental evils, but must aim at that which is substan tially good and safe.10 Hence, if a m arriage were to be dissolved in a State governed under the pure law o f nature, it could be done only by the highest authority, i. e. God, and He would have to exercise this power, not by a gen eral permission, because this would open the door to license and anarchy, but individually in each case in which, for weighty reasons, H e is willing to dispense from the secondary demands o f the natural law .2 0

Thesis I I : No cause, not even adultery, can justify the innocent, and much less the guilty partner in pro ceeding to a new marriage.

T his is fidei proximum. Proof. W e have here merely an application o f our first thesis. M ost Protestants regard adul tery as a sufficient ground for divorce.21 T his er ror is shared by the O rthodox/ and to some e x tent even by the U niate Greeks. A m ong Latin theologians it was defended by Cajetan, Ambrose Catharinus, and Launoy. T he official teaching o f the Catholic Church is clearly set forth by the Tridentine Council: I f anyone saith that the Church has erred in that she taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and Apostolic doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of
10 C fr. B illu art, D e M a trim o n io , diss. 5, art. 2, 1. 'l lic* indissolubility o f Christian m arriage is well treated l>y Palm ieri, D e M a trim o n io , thcs. 23. 21 C fr. Luther, l'o n E h e sa c h e n ,

INDISSOLUBILITY

191

the adultery o f one o f the m arried parties, . . . and that he is guilty o f adultery who, having put aw ay the adulteress, shall take another w ife, as also she who, having put aw ay the adulterer, shall take another husband, let him be anathe m a / '2 2
Though the above-quoted canon, strictly speaking, de fines nothing more than that the Church is infallible in her teaching on this point, that teaching itself is so clearly set down as o f faith that it cannot be denied without a dan gerous approach to heresy. Pallavicini relates that in form ulating this canon the Council chose the milder among two proposed phrases at the suggestion o f certain prelates who thought it would be unwise to brand the Greeks as heretics.2 3

Separation from bed and board, on the other hand, is permitted fo r good reasons. Eugene I V says in his fam ous Decretum pro Arm enis: Though it be permitted, because o f fornication, to obtain a separation a toro, it is not allowed to contract a new m arriage, because the bond o f legitim ate wedlock is perpetual. 2 T his teach 4 ing can be proved from Scripture and Tradition.
S i q itis d ix c r it, E c c lc sia m erra re, q u u n i doc itit c t d o ce t iitxta e v a n g elica m e t a p ostolica m d o c tn n a m p ro p te r a du lte riu m a lte r iu s co n iu g u m m a trim o n ii v in c u lu m n o n p osse d is s o lv i . . . m o e c h a r iq u e cum q u i dim issa a du ltcra aliam d u x c r it. ct earn quae ditnissa a d u ltc r o a lii n u p se r it, an athe-

1530; C alvin , I n s tit., I V , - - Scss. X X I V , can. 7:

19, 37.

ma

(D en zin ger-B an n w art, n. 9 77). 23 P a lla vicin i, H is t. C o n c il. T r id ., X X I I , 4, 27 sqq. 24 " Q n a m v is a u tem e x causa fo rs i t .

n ica tio n is lic e a t to r i sep a ro tio n em fa c c r e , n o n tam en a liu d m atrim on ium c o n tr a h c re fa s c st, quiim m a trim on ii le g itim i v in c u lu m p cr p e tu u m s it .

(D en zin gcr-Iiann w art, n. 702).

192

MATRIMONY

a) The scriptural argument may be stated in three propositions, to w it: ( 1 ) W henever H oly Scripture speaks o f m ar ried people who have separated from each other, it brands the rem arriage o f either with a third person as adultery (M atth. X , 11 sq .; Luke X V I , 18). ^ (2 ) W h ere there is a just cause for separation (none can be more just than adultery) the Bible knows o f but one alternative the parties must either remain single 01* become reconciled. (1 Cor. V II, 10 sq.) (3 ) The only thing that can dissolve the m ar riage bond is death (cfr. Rom. V II, 2 sq .; 1 Cor. V I I , 3 9 ).2 5
a) This teaching would be contradictory if adultery were a legitimate cause for divorce, and hence the most elementary principle o f hermeneutics demands that the two ambiguous texts from St. M atthew, which Protestants quote in favor of divorce, be interpreted in conform ity with the Scriptural truths stated above. The texts referred to a r e : Matth. V , 32: W hosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the case of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery, and he that shall m arry her that is put away, committeth adultery. 2 0 Matth. X IX , 9 : W hosoever shall put aw ay his w ife, except it be fo r fornication, and shall m arry another,
2 The r> argum ent 3 developed in detail by Tcpe, I n s tit. T h e o l., V o l. I V , pp. 636 sqq., P aris 1896. 2 Matth. V , 32: " O m n is, gut
d im is e rit uxorcm su a m , c x c c p ta fo r n ic a iio m s causA ( irapeK rbs \ 6 y o v i r o p v d a s ), fa c it cam m o cclia ri, et g ut dim issam d u x c r it, a d u ltc r a t.

INDISSOLUBILITY

193

committeth adultery; and he that shall m arry her that is put away, committeth adultery. 27 O ur opponents conclude from these texts, not only that a man may leave his adulterous w ife, which is in con form ity with Catholic teaching, but that adultery dis solves the m arriage bond, as if Christ had sa id : H e who puts aw ay his w ife for fornication (adultery) and marries another, does not commit adultery. B ut this interpretation is m anifestly false. L ogic fo r bids us arbitrarily to shift a restriction from one mem ber of a sentence to another. T h e phrase, nisi ob fo r nicationcm , or exceptd fo rn ica tio n e, plainly refers to dim ittcre, not to ducerc aliam. W ere I to s a y : W h o ever eats meat on Friday, except he have a dispensation, and drinks to excess, commits a sin, I could not rea sonably be understood to mean that he committed no sin, who, having a dispensation perm itting him to eat meat on Friday, would drink to excess. T o drink to excess is alw ays sinful. I f a man, besides drinking e x cessively, wrere to eat meat on Friday, he would com mit two separate and distinct sins. Sim ilarly, Christ means to say: T o put aw ay an adulterous w ife is no sin, but to m arry another is adultery, while if a man were to put aw ay his innocent w ife and then m arry another, he would be guilty of double adultery, that is to say, he would be responsible for the adultery committed by his w ife (fa c it earn m o echa ri ) and commit the same crime himself. Hence, when our Lord speaks o f dismissing a w ife for fornication, he does not mean divorce, but merely a separation from bed and board, and the sense of the two texts is: W hosoever shall put aw ay his w ife
27 M atth. X I X , 9: Q u ic u m q u e d im ise rit u x o r e m su a m , n is i ob fo r n ica tio n e m (xtj eirl tro p v d q .), et aliam d u x e r it, m o e ch a tu r et diin issom d u x e r it, m o e c h a tu r ." qui

194

MATRIMONY

(which is justifiable if she be guilty o f adultery), and m arry another, commits adultery. 2 8 The interpretation we have given is the only one that fits into, nay is demanded by, the context. T h e object o f the whole passage (M atth. X IX , 3 -9 ) is to revoke the M osaic law permitting divorce, and to restore M atri mony to its pristine indissolubility. H ad our Lord e x cepted adultery as a cause for divorce, H e would have stultified H im self, for H e says (M atth. X I X , 19) : H e that shall m arry her that is put away, committeth adul tery. H ow could this be if the adulterous woman did not remain the w ife of her first hu sban d ?2 9 I f we were to grant the Protestant interpretation for argum ents sake, what would be the result ? W ould M at rimony be elevated from its form er state o f degrada tion to a position o f security and permanence under the N ew Testam ent? N o ; on the contrary, it would sink beneath the level o f the M osaic law, fo r the adulterous w ife as well as her husband would be em powered to contract another marriage, whereas a woman innocently put aw ay by her husband would, according to 1 Cor. V I I, 10 sq., be obliged to remain single unless she became reconciled to her husband. This would be putting a premium upon adultery and m aking the N ew Testam ent inferior to the Old, which punished adultery in both male and female with death.30 T o ascribe such legislation to Christ would be to deny H is wisdom and holiness. T h e Apostles evidently did not understand our L ord s words in the sense which modern Protestants put
28 C fr. T cp e , J n stit. T h c o l., V o l. I V , p. 636. 29 C fr. St. A ugustin e, D e C o n iu g . A d u lt., I, 9, 9: " N c q u c q uisq uain ita c st a b su rd u s, u t m o cch u m ttcg ct css c q u i d u x c r it cam quam m aritu s p ro p ter causam fo r n ic a tio n is a b iccit, q u u m m o cch u m dicat c u m , q u i du.rcrit cam , qua e p ra e tcr ca usa m fo r iiic a tw iiis a b iccta c s t . so Lev. X X , 10.

INDISSOLUBILITY

195

upon them, fo r they said to H im : I f the case o f a man with his w ife be so, it is not expedient to m arry/ 31 that is, if a man may not put aw ay his w ife for adultery, it is better not to m arry. /?) T his interpretation o f the disputed texts is so evi dent and incontrovertible that w e need not devote much space to certain other theories which have been suggested by Catholic theologians. Cardinal Bellarm ine, e. g., e x plains the clause nisi ob fo rn ica tion em in a purely nega tive sense, as if our Lord meant to s a y : W hosoever shall put aw ay his w ife, I am not now concerned with the case of fornication, and shall m arry another, committeth adultery. 32 T his interpretation fails to do ju s tice to the context. O ther writers suggest that the two Scriptural passages under consideration refer to m arriage among the Jews, who under the M osaic law rightly regarded adultery as a sufficient ground for divorce. This interpretation is plainly untenable. Th e same must be said o f Dollingers theory that the term fornication {iropvda) means unchaste conduct before m arriage.33 I f this were so, Christ would have made a sin committed before m arriage a diriment impedi ment. P atrizi interpreted forn ica tio literally and explained the disputed passages in St. M atthew s Gospel as fo llo w s: No m arriage can be dissolved, even by adultery, e x cept the quasi-marriage o f those who live in concubin age. 34 T his suggestion is unacceptable: first, because forn icatio is a generic term which includes adultcrium as a species, and second, because Christ expressly calls the al31 M atth. X I X , 10: " S i ita e st causa h o m in is cum u x o r c , n on exp e d it n u b e r c . 32 D e M a tr im o n io , I. I, c. 16. 33 D ollinger, C h r iste n tu m und K ir c h c , p. 392, Ratisbon 1868. 31 D e In te r p r e t. S c r ip tu r ., 1. I, c.

7, Rome 1844.

i 96

MATRIMONY

leged concubine w ife , 35 and brands her second m ar riage as adultery. 36

b) T he L atin Fathers are unanimous in teach ing that adultery is no ground for divorce, and we m ay therefore confine the Patristic argum ent to the Greek Fathers, in order to show that the lax practice o f the schismatic O rientals belies their own past.
W e begin with H ennas, because he wrote in Greek. I f a man have a faithful w ife in the L ord , says the Shepherd, and finds her out in some adultery, does the husband sin if he lives with her? . . . W hat . . . shall the husband do if the w ife remain in this dis position ? Let him put her aw ay, he said, and let the husband remain by himself (e<3 ecun-w). But if he put his w ife aw ay and m arry another, he also commits adul tery him self. 37 St. Justin M artyr says: W hoever marries a woman that has been put aw ay by another, commits adultery. 38 Clement of A lexan dria w rite s: W hen Sacred Scrip ture advises [a man] to take a w ife, and never allows a withdrawal from marriage, it openly lays down the law :
35 M atth.
suam , ri}v

X IX ,

9:

" u x orem

e i> Kvplw Kal raiirrjv evpy ev oiX e^ T l vl>

yvpaiK a av ro v -

apa

aixapravci.

avr]p

discussion o f the N ew T estam ent teaching on the subjeet of divorce we m ust re fe r the student to Palm ieri, D e M a tr im o n io , pp. 178 sqq.; A . O tt, D ie A u s le g u n g
der n c u tc s ta m c n tlic h c n T e x te ber die E h e s c h e id u n g , M nster 19 11; F. E. G igot, C h r is ts T e a c h in g C o n c e r n in g D iv o r c e in th e N e w T e sta m e n t,

30 For a fu ller

<rvv^ciii> /er <pr]fil> Ki'pte,

lir i e lv o

a v r r j s; T I ovv. n o n fa y 6 dvrjp, ea v
ij

rw ita O e t t o v t w

71 <vr)\

A w o X v ffa T U t < f> i)oiv, a v r i j t ' K a l 6 avrjp <p avTui f i e v i r W ea v 8& dnoX vaas ti]v yvvc K a. rtp a v

N ew Y o rk 1912. 37 P a s t o r H c r t n a c , Mand. I V , i, 4-

-ya/itjJcrjj, K a l a iir b s /ttoixarat- (K . Lake, T h e A p o s to lic F a th e r s, V o l. I I , p. 78, London x9 13)* 88 A p o L , c. 1, 11. 15 (M ig ne, P . G ., V I , 350).

6: " . . . el yvvaiKa ex v TIS irKrryv

INDISSOLUBILITY

197

Thou shalt not put aw ay thy w ife except fo r adultery. A t the same time, however, [the Bible] declares it to be adultery if a person marries another while his or her partner is still alive. . . . It s a y s : W hoever m arries the w ife that has been put aw ay, commits adultery. 39 O f such pseudo-m arriages O rigen s a y s : iC A s the w ife who has been put aw ay is an adulteress, though she seems to be married to another man during the lifetim e o f her husband, so our Saviour has shown that the man who has seemingly m arried such a woman, is not to be called her husband, but rather an adulterer. 4 0 St. G regory o f N azianzus condemns the unjust di vorce laws o f his time as fo llo w s: In this question I behold most people ill advised, and their law unjust and il logical. W hat justifies them in putting a curb 011 the woman, while they leave the husband unmolested? The w ife that has disgraced the m arriage bed o f her husband is branded with the mark o f adultery and punished with the severest penalties, whereas the husband who is un faith ful to his w ife goes scot free. I do not approve of such a law, I do not commend such a custom. Men made this law, and therefore it is directed against the women. 41 St. John Chrysostom composed a homily on the M osaic bill o f divorce, in which he s a y s : W hat is that law which Paul has given to us? Th e w ife, he says, is bound by the law, and consequently may not separate from her living husband, or take another man besides him, or contract a second m arriage. A nd behold how carefully he has weighed his words. H e docs not say: She shall cohabit with her husband as long as he lives,
30 S tro m a ta , 1. I I , c. 23 P . G ., V I I I , 1095).

(M ign e,

40 In M a tth a e u m , tom. 14, n. 23 (M ig ne, P . G ., X I I I , 1246). 41 O r ., 37, n. 6.

198

MATRIMONY

b u t: Th e w ife is bound by the law as long as her hus band lives. Hence, even if he gives her a bill o f divorce, and she leaves his home and lives with another, she is bound by the law, and an adulteress. . . . Do not cite the [civil] laws made by outsiders, which command that a bill be issued and a divorce granted. For it is not ac cording to these law s that the Lord will judge thee on the last day, but according to those which H e H im self has given. 4 2

Thesis I I I : A consummated marriage between Christians is both intrinsically and extrinsically indis soluble.

T his proposition m ay be technically qualified as propositio cert a. Proof. A m arriage may be intrinsically indis soluble, yet extrinsically soluble.4 A consum 3 mated m arriage between unbaptized persons can be dissolved if one party embraces Christianity and is baptized, while the other either refuses to live with the baptized party, or will not cohabit with him or her in peaceful wedlock without injury to the Creator. (T h is is called the P aul ine privilege or casus Apostoli, o f which we shall have something more to say later on.) 4 A m ar 4 riage legitim ately contracted between baptized Christians, but not yet consummated (matrimo nii tin ratum tantum ), can be dissolved either by
P. L ib c llo R c p u d ii (M ign c, G ., L I , 218). C fr. M. Denncr, D ie E h e s c h e id u n g tin N e u e n T e sta m e n t. D ie A u s le g u n g d e r u c u tc -

12 D c

sta m c n tlic h c n S c h r ift t e x t e b e i V ter n , l adcrborn 1910. >3 V . su pra , No. 1. 44 V . in fra , Scct. 3.

d en

INDISSOLUBILITY

199

solemn profession in a religious order or by decree o f the Sovereign Pontiff.45 W e are dealing in this thesis with a consummated m arriage ( ratum et consummatum) between Christians, and we as sert that such a m arriage cannot be dissolved by any earthly power. W e advisedly say, by any earthly power, because God could dissolve it, though we hold that H e never does so. T he argum ent fo r our thesis m ay be briefly stated as follow s: H ad God meant to empower any earthly authority to dissolve a validly con tracted and consummated m arriage, H e would surely have given this privilege to H is Church, and not to the State, which in all probability can not even dissolve purely natural m arriages. But the Church denies that she has this power. Con sequently, no earthly authority can dissolve a con summated m arriage between Christians.
Canon L aw is full o f provisions showing' the mind of the Church in this matter. Even where the situation of the innocent party is almost unbearable, the Church fo r bids second marriage as adulterous if it is certain that the first m arriage was both ratified and consummated. Pope A lexan der III declares: W hat the Lord says in the Gospel, that a man is not allowed to put aw ay his w ife exccpt fo r fornication, must according to the true inter pretation o f Sacred Scripture be understood o f those whose m arriage has been consummated by carnal inter course.' 4 0 45 V . in fr a , Sect. 3. 40 " S a n e q u o d D o m in u s in e v a n
g e lio d ic it, n o n H eere viro n is i ob ca usa m fo r n ic a tio n is u x o r e m suam

200

MATRIMONY

T h e reason for this absolute indissolubility is that only o f a properly consummated Christian marriage can it be said in the full sense o f the phrase that hus band and w ife are two in one flesh, 47 and that their union is a perfect symbol o f Christs mystic union with H is Church, consummated by the Incarnation.4 8
d im itie r e , in te llig e n d u m e s t s e c u n d u m in te rp r e ta to n em sa cri e lo q u ii de q u a e e st C h r is ti ad anim a m p er gra tia m , . . . se d p o st carn a lcm c o pulau sig n ifica i c o n iu n c tio n e m C h r is t i ad E c c le sia m q u a n tu m ad a ssu m p tio n em hum a n a e n a tu ra e in u n ita te m p erso n a e, q u a e o m n in o est in d iv is ib ilis . F o r a fu lle r develop

(Denzin ger-B an n w art, n. 395). 47 Gen. I I , 24. 48 C fr. St. Thom as, Sum m a T h e o l., S u p p l., qu. 61, art. 2, ad 1: " M a tr im o n iu m a n te carn a lem c o p u
lavi sig n ifica i il lam c o n iu n c tio n e m ,

h is, q u o ru m m a trim o n iu m co p u l est c o n su m m a tu m .

ca rn a li

m ent o f the doctrine set forth in our thesis see Palm ieri, D e M a tr im o n io C h r is t., thes. 24.

SE CT IO N 3
E X T R IN S IC D IS S O L U B IL IT Y IN E X C E P T IO N A L CASES

W e have seen that M atrim ony can be dis solved neither by mutual agreem ent nor by any human agency. T he question a ris e s: Can it be dissolved by a divinely constituted authority? The answer i s : Y es, in certain exceptional cases. M arriage between baptized persons, provided it has not yet been consummated, can be dis solved ( i ) by a dispensation from the Supreme Pontiff, and (2 ) by solemn profession in a re ligious order. M arriages am ong pagans or infidels, whether consummated or not, can be dissolved by virtue o f the Pauline privilege when one party becomes converted to the true faith and the other refuses to receive Baptism or to live in peaceful wedlock. W e shall explain this teaching in three sep arate theses.
T h esis I : T h e P op e can for im portan t reasons d is so lve an unconsum m ated m arriage b etw een C hristian s.

P roof. In the M iddle A g es the doctrine em bodied in this thesis w as upheld by the canonists
201

202

MATRIMONY

against the theologians, but to-day it is regarded as sententia communis et certa by all.
A bout the middle o f the sixteenth century Ruardus T apper (-f- 1559) censured Cardinal Cajetan for defend ing this papal prerogative against the common view o f theologians and the express teaching o f St. Thom as. A m ong later divines Tournely, Drouin, Collet, and B er lage took the same attitude, while canonists quite generally held the affirmative. Am ong the earlier theologians there was a sort o f dissensus negativus, as they did not treat this subject at all. H ow ever, it has been proved from history that unconsummated m arriages between Chris tians w ere occasionally dissolved by papal decree,1 nay, more, from M artin V to Leo X I I I the popes have ex pressly claimed and exercised the prerogative o f dissolv ing such m arriages, and hence it is no longer permissible to speak o f mistakes committed by individual pon tiffs. The conduct o f the H oly See in this matter is so constant and so deeply touches faith and morals that it cannot possibly be attributable to error. Consequently, the power o f dissolving unconsummated m arriages between Christians must be a legitimate function o f the primacy.

Some w riters deduce this prerogative from M atth. X V I , 19: W hatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. But this text proves too much and therefore proves nothing. W ere we to allow the interpretation put upon it, we should have to admit that it proves
1 I f only unconsum m ated marriages had been dissolved by papal decree, Dom. Soto m ight have been justified in w ritin g: " F a c t u m
p o n tificiu m n on fa c it fid e i articuh im , s e d o p in io n e m c a n on ista ru m su n t s c c u t i." ( C o m m e n t. in S e n t .,

I V , dist. 27, qu. i, art. this was not the case.

4).

But

EXTRINSIC DISSOLUBILITY

203

the power o f the Pope to dissolve consummated as well as unconsummated m arriages, which is false. H ence we prefer to rest the argum ent on a d if ferent basis. T he papal prerogative asserted in our thesis is not contrary to Scripture, T ra d i tion, and the natural law ; and, according to the unerring belief o f the universal Church, belongs to the Sovereign P ontiff by virtue o f the primacy.
Th ere is nothing in Sacred Scripture or Tradition to prove the absolute (intrinsic and extrinsic) indissolubility o f Christian m arriage before it is actually consummated. T h e law o f nature m erely says that the m arriage bond can not be dissolved except by God or by a divinely constituted authority.2 But the Pope, being the vice-gerent o f Christ on earth, exercises his primatial power in the name o f God, and the Church not m erely tolerates this practice, but expressly approves o f it. Surely the episcopate would have protested had the H oly See usurped a power to which it had no just claim. It is incompatible with the dogma o f the Churchs infallibility to assume that the entire Church, both docen s and discens, grievously erred in such an important question o f faith and morals, and hence we must conclude that the Supreme P on tiff actually has the power to dissolve unconsummated m arriages between Christians.3

T hesis I I : A n unconsummated m arriage between Christians is dissolved by the solemn profession of either party in a religious order.

W e are here dealing w ith an article o f faith.

2 V . supra, Sect. 2. 3 T h is thesis is m ore fu lly developed by P alm ieri, D e
M a tr im o n io C h r is t., pp. 209 sqq.

204

MATRIMONY

P ro o f. T his exception from the rule o f in dissolubility was m anifestly made in favo r of the religious state, which, as such, is superior to wedlock.4 Exam ples o f m arriages dissolved by solemn religious profession can be traced to the early days o f Christianity. Theoretically our dogma w as defined by the Council o f Trent, as follow s: I f anyone saith that M atrim ony contracted, but not consummated, is not dissolved by the solemn profession o f religion by one o f the married parties, let him be anathema. 5 Hence solemn profession in a religious order stands in the same relation to unconsummated m arriage as death does to consummated m arriage. It is a kind o f spiritual death, a relinquishment o f the world and worldly things.0 Note, however, that the m arriage bond is not dissolved by mere entry into a religious order, but only by the act of solemn profession. a) T he proof o f our thesis rests entirely on Tradition. In the tw elfth century, what had long been a practice was embodied in a decretal o f A lexander III, and in the thirteenth, was con firmed by a decision o f Innocent III. Both docu ments form part o f the Corpus Iuris Canonici.1
4 V . su p ra , pp. 130 sqq. 5 Scss. X X I V , can. 6: " S i d ix c r it, m a tn m o n iu in ratum q u is non

o C fr. St. Thom as, Sttm m a T h e o l., S u p p l., qu. 6 1, art. 2. 7 D e c r c t. G r eg o r ., 1. I l l , tit. 32, c. 2 and 14. T h e decrctal o f Innocent I I I reads as follow s: " N o s . . .
v o lc u lc s a p ra e d ec e sso r u m n ostrorum r c s tig iis . . . d e c lin a r e , g u i re-

co n su m m o tu in p er so le m n e m relig io n is p ro fcs sio n cm a lte r iu s co n iu gum n on d lrim i, an ath em a s it .

(D enzingcr-U anm vart,

11. 976).

EXTRINSIC DISSOLUBILITY

205

Pope A lexan der III recalls the example o f certain saints who left their wives to embrace the religious state. A s A lexan der wrote in the year 1180, these saints must have lived before the tw elfth century. St. Bede has preserved an early example in the story o f Queen E dilthryda, who flourished in the seventh century.8 Still more ancient is the story o f the twro courtiers related by St. Augustine in his Confessions.9 The older Fathers 10 tell how St. Thecla abandoned her husband to serve God in the state o f virgin ity.11 Though the A cts o f Paul and Thecla are not history but a highly romantic work of im agination, 12 the reflexions based upon her supposed conduct by the Fathers prove that the prim itive Church re garded the act o f leaving husband or w ife for G ods sake as a new and higher spiritual m arriage with the Divine Spouse. It was this belief, no doubt, which led to the opinion that the new bond dissolved the older and weaker
sp o n d e r e c o n s u lti, a n teq u a m m atri io n iu m s it p er cariialem co p u la m co n su m m a tio n , lic e r e a ltc r i c o n iu g u m r e liq u o in c o n s u lto ad r c lig io n e m tra n sire , ita q u o d r e liq u u s e x tu n c le g itim e p o te r it a lte r i c o p u la r i.

(D eu zin ger-B ann w art, n. 409). T h e older decretal o f A lexa n d er I I I runs th u s: P o s t c o n se n su m le g itim u m
d e p r a e s e n ti licit inn e st a lte r i, a lter o etia m r e p u g n a n te , e lig e r e 1n on a ster iu n i, s ic u t sa n c ti q uidam d e n u p tiis v o c a ti fiie r u n t , d u m m od o ca rn a lis c o m m ix tio non in te r v e n e r it in te r eos, e t a lte r i r e m a n e n ti ( s i com to n itu s c o n tin e n tia m se r v a r e n o lu e r it ) lic it it m c st ad se c u n d a vo ta tr a n sir e : q u ia q u u m n o n fu is s c n t u n a ca ro s im u l e ffe c ti, sa tis p o te st ttn u s ad D e u m tra n sire et a lter in sa e c u lo r e m a n e r e ." (E d . F ried bcrg, I I , col.

c fr. H erd e rs K i r c h e n le x ik o n , V o l. I V , 2nd ed., pp. 125 sqq., F reib u rg 1886. 9 C o n fe s s io n e s , V I I I , 16, 15. 10 C fr . Epiphanius, H a e r ., 78, 16 (M ig n e, P . G ., X L 1 I, 72 6 ); St. A m brose, D e V ir g in ., I I , 3, 19 (M ig n e, P . L . , X V I , 2 1 1 ) . 11 St. Am brose says (/. c . ) :
" T h e c la doceat im m o la ri, q ua e c o p u la m fitg ie n s n u p tia le m et sp o n si fu r o r e da m n a ta n a tu ra m etiam b estia ru m v ir g in ita tis v e n e r a tio n e m utav it. 12 C fr. Bardenhew er-Shahan, P a tr o lo g y , p. 102, F reib u rg and St.

L o u is 1908. O n the A cts o f St. T h ecla see C arl H olzh ey, D i e T h e k la A k t e n , Hire V e r b r e itu n g m id B c u r te ilu n g in d e r K ir c h e , M unich 1905; J. p . K irsch in the C a th o lic E n c y c lo p e d ia , V ol. X I V , p. 564.

583 sq., 579; D en zin gcr-B an nw art n.

396 ). 8 H is t. E c c le s . A n g lo r .,

IV ,

19;

206

MATRIMONY

one, provided the latter had not yet become indissoluble by carnal intercourse.

b) T here is a lively controversy among theo logians as to whether the dissolution o f an un consummated m arriage by solemn religious pro fession is based on the natural law, the law o f the Church, or the divine law.
a ) St. Thom as,13 Bellarmine, Habert, Drouin, and oth ers hold that it is based on the law of nature. They argue that so long as there is no violation o f the rights o f a third party (which is impossible when a m arriage has not yet been consumm ated), the more perfect abol ishes the less perfect state. H ow ever, this view is un tenable fo r several reasons. In the first place it would seem that the m arried state, being prior to the religious state, negatives the latter. Second, the marriage bond and the religious state are by no means m utually exclusive, but may coexist, as e. g. when a father enters a religious order with the consent of his w ife. Third, a truly religious life may be led not only in the regular orders, but likewise in approved congregations which demand no solemn profession. Thus the Society o f Jesus, accord ing to a constitution of Gregory X I I I ,14 is a true religious order despite the fact that many o f its members take only simple vows, which do not dissolve the bond of an un consummated m arriage. Fourth, the episcopate vies in perfection with the religious state, and yet episcopal con secration does not dissolve the marriage tie. (3 ) Suarez, Lessius, Sardagna, Lehmkuhl, Tepe, and other theologians hold that the dissolution of an uncon13 S u m m a T h c o l., S u p p l-, Qu. 53,

art.

2;

qu.

61,

art.

2.

11 " A s c c n d e n te 25, 1584.

D o m i n o M ay

- EXTRINSIC DISSOLUBILITY

207

summated m arriage by solemn religious profession is based entirely on ecclesiastical law. T h e Church, they say, has the power to clothe any religious profession with the character o f solemnity. V o ti solem nitas e x sola con stitutione E cclesia e est i n v e n t a says Pope Boniface V I I I .15 H ence it is the Pope who, by virtue o f the pri macy, and acting through an ecclesiastical law, dissolves the m arriage bond whenever one party to an unconsum mated m arriage makes solemn profession in a religious order.16 A gainst this theory stands the fact that the dissolution o f the m arriage bond by solemn religious profession is more ancient than the papal book o f decretals and the Canon L aw o f the Church. The law is m erely a posi tive formulation o f a practice which existed in the primi tive Church, and hence cannot be o f purely ecclesiastical origin. M oreover, there must be some unalterable dog matic truth underlying the Tridentine canon. I f the law dissolving m arriage in the case o f solemn religious profession owed its existence to the Church, it could be revoked by the Church, which no theologian will dare to assert. y) Hence it is more probable to hold with Sanchez, Tournely, Billuart, Benedict X I V , Perrone, Palm ieri, and De Augustinis, that the law by which an unconsummated m arriage is dissolved when one o f the parties makes solemn profession in a religious order, is o f divine in stitution and that the Church has no other power with regard to this law than to determine the conditions under which it takes effect.17
S i x t i D e c r e t., 1. I l l , tit. 15. 18 C fr. T ep e, I n s t. T h e o l., V o l. I V , p. 646. 17 F o r a fu ller treatm ent o f this
15

in o n io

Palm ieri, D e M a triC h r is t., pp. 205 sq q .; D e A u gu stin is, D e R e S a c ra m e n t., V o l. I I , 2nd cd., pp. 708 sqq.

thesis consult

208

MATRIMONY

Thesis I I I : A marriage between infidels or non baptized persons, even though consummated, m ay be dissolved by virtue of the so-called Pauline privilege, if one party is converted to the faith, while the other refuses to live w ith the baptized in peaceful w ed lock.

T his doctrine m ay be qualified as sententia communis et certa.

T h e Pauline privilege, or casus A p o sto li, as it is commonly called by canonists, applies only to marriages contracted between unbaptized infidels, Jews or pagans. A s soon as one o f the parties embraces Christianity and receives Baptism , even though the other remain un converted, such a m arriage falls under the jurisdiction of the Church. H ow ever, Baptism as such does not dissolve the m arriage bond,18 but m erely gives the bap tized party the right to contract a new m arriage with a Christian, which latter ipso fa cto dissolves the previous m arriage.10 B efore the converted party to such a m arriage can invoke the Pauline privilege, he or she must ascer tain, ( i ) whether the unconverted party is willing to em brace the Christian religion, in which case the bond re mains intact; (2) whether he or she is willing to live in peaceful wedlock without injury to the Creator (sine contum clia C rca to ris). O nly if both these questions are an swered in the negative may the Pauline privilege be made use of and a new m arriage contracted. Such a dissolution
18 C fr. D e e r . G r eg o r ., 1. I V , tit. 9, c. 8: . . . q u u m p er sacram en tnm bap tisini non so lv a n tu r eon iu g ia , se d erintina d in iitta n tu r .

(Den-

10 C fr. Peach, P r a e le c t. D o g m a t., V ol. V I I , 3rd ed., pp. 401 s q .; Palm icri, D e M a trim o n io C h r ist., pp. 224 sqq.

zinger-B annw art, n. 407).

THE PAULINE PRIVILEGE

209

o f the m arriage bond takes place in favo r o f the faith and by divine right.2 0

P ro o f. a) T h e fam ous privilegium Paalinum is promulgated in 1 Cor. V I I , 10 sqq., where the Apostle s a y s : Iis autem, qui matrimonio [Christiano] iuncti sunt, praecipio non ego, sed Dom inus, uxorem a vivo non discedere; quodsi discesserit, manere innuptam aut viro suo reconciliari, et vir uxorem non dimittat. Nam ceteris ( T & Xonroh) ego ^ dico, non Dontinus: S i quis frater uxorem Jiabet infidelem (an-ov) et haec consentit habit are C l t m illo (owcvSo/ca ofociv jtter avTovJ j UOH dimittat illam. E t si qua midier Udelis habet vinm i infi delem et hie consentit habitare cum ilia, non dimittat virum. . . . Quodsi inHdelis discedit, discedat 8 o a7 e rioros xb 'L eTal, X^P1^ ^ ) '. UO)l )p enim servituti subiectus est (SeSou'Aamu) frater aut soror in Imiusmodi; in pace (& Se ecpVtf) autem vocavit vos D ens. A nglice (according to the W estm inster V e r sion) : T o the married I give this charge nay, not I, but the Lord, that a w ife depart not from her husband (but if she have departed, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her hus band), and that a husband put not aw ay his w ife. But to the rest, it is I who speak, not the L ord : I f any brother hath an unbelieving w ife, and she
20 C fr. D c o r e t. S . O fficii, d. // I u l i i 1SS6.

210

MATRIMONY

is content to live with him, let him not put her aw ay. A n d the w ife that hath an unbelieving husband, who is content to live with her, let her not put aw ay her husband. . . . (B u t if the un believer depart, let him d ep art; the brother or the sister is under no bondage in such cases, but God hath called you unto peace). T h at St. Paul in this passage concedes to the baptized party under certain conditions the right to dissolve the old and pass to a new m arriage, is evident from the fact that he expressly opposes the m arriage o f unbelievers to m arriage between Christians.
Am ong Christians, he says, if a w ife depart from her husband, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to him. In other words, Christian m arriage is indissoluble. N ot so among the unbaptized. I f one party receives Baptism, and the other refuses to dwell peacefully with him or her, let the unbeliever depart, for the brother or the sister is under no bondage in such cases, that is to say, is free from the m arriage bond, and consequently can contract another marriage. F or if the neophyte re mained bound by his form er marriage, he would enjoy no privilege but, on the contrary, be condemned to lead a celi bate life, like the separated parties to a Christian marriage. St. Paul does not expressly discuss the case where the unconverted party is willing to dwell peacefully with the converted party, not, however, sine contum clia Crcatoris, i. c. without injury to God and his or her own soul.21
21
S u p p l.,

C fr. St. Thom as, S u m m a T h e o l., verb a b h u p h em ia e p ro ru m p e n s qu. 59, art. 5: . . . in n o m en C h r isti a u d ire n o le n s ."

et

THE PAULINE PRIVILEGE

211

B ut the very purpose o f the Pauline privilege sufficiently indicates that such unsatisfactory cohabitation would be morally equivalent to a discessio and consequently could not stop the effect o f the xwpi&a&u for the baptized party.22 M oreover, in such cases it is not true that the unbeliev ing husband is sanctified in the w ife, and the unbelieving w ife is sanctified in the believing husband. 23

b) W hether or not the unconverted party is w illing to live with the converted party,24 can only be ascertained by an inquiry.
T his inquiry, technically called interpellatio , is imposed by the Church as a strict obligation.25 W hether its omis sion makes a new m arriage invalid, is a controverted ques tion. T h e affirmative view is championed by Brancatius and Perrone. A gain st them Ballerini m ain tains20 that the mere fact that the unconverted party refuses to dwell peacefully with his or her converted partner is sufficient to render a new m arriage valid, just as the mere fact that a husband or w ife is dead is sufficient to insure the validity o f a second marriage.

c) W h at if the inquiry demanded fo r the P a u line privilege is either physically or m orally

22 C fr. D e c r e t. G r eg ., 1. I V , tit. 19, c. 7: " C o n tu m e lia C re a to r is
s o lv it iu s tm tr im o n ii circa cu m , q u i r e lin q u itu r . (D enzinger-B an n w art, th e C o r in th ia n s, P a rt I, pp. 92 sqq.; F . E. Gigot, C h r is t s T e a c h in g con c c r n in g D iv o r c e in th e N e w m e n t, pp. 121 sqq. T e sta -

n- 4 S)23 i Cor. V I I , 14:

est e n im

" S a n ctific a tu s v ir in d e lis p e r m u lie r e m

24 i Cor. V I I , 12 sq.: " S i ha ec [h ie ] c o n s e n tit ( avvevd oK et ) hab ita re cu m m 0 [,//a ] . ,

fid e lem , et sa n cti ca ta est m u lic r in fid e lis an p er v ir u m d e lc m ." C fr. Sch fer, E r k l r u n g d e r b e id e n B r ie f e d ie K o r in th e r ,

25 C fr.

D e c r e t.

C o n g r.

dc

Prop,

pp. 130 sqq.; J.

M cR o ry, T h e E p is tle s o f S t. P a u l to

20 O p u s Palm ieri, V o l. V I , 3rd ed., pp. 330 sq., P ra ti 1900.

f i d e d. 5 M a r tii 1816. T h e o l. M o r a l., ed. D.

212

MATRIMONY

impossible, as e. g. when the unconverted party is a prisoner o f w ar or has removed to unknown parts? Is the baptized party in such a case con demned to lead a single life? A ccording to Canon L aw the H oly See has the power to dis pense from the duty o f interpellation if the un converted party cannot be found.27
a) The T h ird P lenary Council o f Baltim ore (1884) de crees : One who has contracted M atrim ony with an in fidel in the state o f infidelity, and then becomes con verted to the faith and baptized, cannot pass to a new m arriage without first interrogating his infidel spouse con cerning her (or his) w ill to live with him (or her) peace fu lly and without injury to the Creator. I f the infidel party cannot be interpellated in accordance with the law, the H oly See must be asked for a dispensation. 28 A peculiar feature o f this practice is that a new marriage contracted with papal dispensation is valid even if it turns out later that the unconverted party was ready at the time to dwell peacefully with the converted party or had himself embraced the faith. A s this case is not covered by the Pauline privilege, some theologians (Benedict X I V , Perrone, H urter, Braun) hold that in such circum stances the Pope can extend the Pauline privilege because in exceptional cases, which St. Paul did not foresee, there must exist a supreme authority which adapts the divine law to concrete conditions.2 0
G reg or. XIII, " P o p u lis n a tio n ib u s, Jan. 25, 1585. 28 " C o n iu x q u i iani n ia triin on inin in in fid clita tc cum in fid e li c o n ir a x it, et c o n v e r su s d e in d e od fidem baptisatu s ( it, n cq u it novum in a trim on ium in ir c , q u in p riu s iu tc r p c lle t con iu g e m in fid cletn circa e iu s v o lu n ta tc m
27 C o n st.

et

c o lia b ita n d i p a cifice et s in e C rea to ris in iu ria . Q u o d s i c o n iu x in fid e lis tieq u c a t le g itim e in tc rp e lla ri, recu rren du m e st ad S . S e d a n pro dispensat i o n c ." ( A c ta et D e c r e ta , 129,

Baltim ore 1886, pp. 65 sq.) 2 C fr. Benedict X I V , D e S y n o d o D io e c c sa n a , 1. X I I I , c. 21, n. 4;

THE PAULINE PRIVILEGE

) H ow ever, the practice o f the A postolic See in granting such dispensations can be more satisfactorily explained on the assumption that the Pope is not only empowered to interpret the Pauline privilege authenti cally, but likewise, by virtue o f the prim acy, to dissolve the legitimate m arriages o f infidels when either one or both parties embrace Christianity. T h at such a power is really vested in the H oly See m ay be inferred from the declara tion o f U rban V I I I that the m arriages o f infidels are not so firm that they cannot be dissolved when necessity urges, 30 and from the fact that a convert who has sev eral wives may, if the first refuses to be converted, with papal permission retain any one o f them who will embrace the faith.31
R ead in gs: Gasparri, Tract. C anonicus de M atrim onio, 2 vols., Paris 1891. Baier, D ie N a tu reh e in ihrem V erh ltn is cu r paradie sischen, vorchristlichen und christlich-sakram entalen E h e , Ratisbon 1883. C. Boeekenhoff, D e ln d ivid u ita te M atrim onii, Berlin 1901. Didon, D ie U nauflslichkeit der E h e und die E hescheidu ng, Ratisbon 1893. A l. Cigoi, D ie U nauflslichkeit der christl. E h e und die E h esch eidu n g nach S c h r ift und T radition, Paderborn 1895. J. Fahrner, D ie G eschichte der E h esch eid u n g im kano
n ischen R e ch t, I : G esch ich te des U nauflslichkeitsprincips und der vollkom m enen S ch eid u n g der E h e, Freiburg 1904. Scharnagl, D a s fe ierlich e G elbde als E h eh in d ern is in sein er g esch ich tlich en E n tw ick lu n g , Freiburg 1908.
A r c h iv f r ka th . K ir c h e n r e c h t, V o l.

S i, pp. 209 sqq. 3 0 " I n fid e liu m

ita firm a s u a d e n te

(Q u oted

m atrim on ia non c e n s e r i, q u in n e c e ssita te d is s o lv i p o s s in t. b y C h r. Pesch, P r a e le e t.

v e r s u s a n te su sc c p tio n e m b a p tism i h a b eb a t p lu r e s a x o r e s e t prim a r e c u s a l a m p le cti fidem , tu n c le g itim e p o te st q u a m lib e t e x illis r e ti e r e , d u m m o d o d e lis fia t . " F o r fu rth er

D o g m a t., V o l. V I I , 3rd ed., p. 399). 3 1 C o n s titu tio n " R o m a n i P o n tifi c e s ," o f A u g. 2, 1571. T h e H oly

Office, on A u g. 1, 1759, issued the follow in g instruction fo r the m issions o f Cochin-China: " S i g e n tilis con -

inform ation on the P aulin e privilege see Gasparri, T r a ct. C a n o n ic u s de M a tr im o n io , V o l. I I , n. 1083 sqq., P a ris 1891; A . Lehm kuhl, S.J., in the C a th o lic E n c y c lo p e d ia , V ol. V , p. 60; E. T aunton, T h e L a w o f th e C h u r c h , p. 483, London 1906.

CHAPTER III
THE M IN IS T E R

T he contracting parties to a m arriage admin ister the Sacram ent to each other. T he priest is merely the minister o f the (accidental) celebra tion and the representative and chief official w it ness o f the Church. T his explains w hy his pres ence is prescribed by ecclesiastical law. a) T h at the contracting parties administer the Sacram ent to each other is evident from the fact that contract and Sacram ent coincide 1 and that both the m atter and the form o f M atrim ony are contained in the contract.2
Contract and Sacrament being identical, he who makes the contract co ipso administers the Sacrament. Again, as matter and form o f the Sacrament are contained in the contract, whoever furnishes the matter and form, effects the Sacrament. It is the express teaching o f the Church that the Sacrament o f M atrim ony is effected so lely 3 by the mutual co n sen t4 o f the contracting parties. Conse
l V . su p ra , Ch. I, Sect. i, T h esis c r c t. G reg o r., 1. I V , tit. i, c. 23 II. (D en zin gcr-B an nw art, n. 404). 2 V . su pra, Ch. I, Sect. 2. M u tu u s c o n se n su s. C fr. D e e r . 3 S o lu s co n se n su s. C fr. R csp. pro A r m c n is (D enzin gcr-B an nw art, N ic o la i I. ad C o n su lt. D u lg a r., c. 3 n. 702). (D cn zin gcr-B an n w art, n. 334 ); D e-

214

THE MINISTER

215

quently the contracting parties are the sole ministers o f the Sacrament. It is on this assumption that the T r i dentine Council declared clandestine m arriages (i. e. m ar riages perform ed without a priest and the required w it nesses) to be vera et sacra, provided the Church does not enjoin a special form o f celebration as a condition of validity. Berlages opinion 5 that the priest is the ordinary, whilst the contracting parties are the extraordinary ministers o f the Sacrament, is untenable, ( 1 ) because the form o f a Sacrament can not be arbitrarily changed, and (2 ) be cause N icholas I and Innocent II I have expressly declared that the only thing required for the validity o f m ar riage, and hence o f the Sacrament, is the consent o f the contracting parties. V e ry properly, therefore, is M atri mony called the lay Sacram ent.

b) If, as we have seen, the sacram ental form o f m arriage does not consist in the benediction given by the priest, the priest cannot be the min ister o f the Sacrament.
H ow , then, are w e to regard the part which he takes in the celebration o f m arriage? ( 1 ) T h e priest is the official representative o f the Church, to whose external forum Christian m arriage be longs on account o f its juridical effects; (2) H e is the official chief witness ( testis autorizab ilis), upon whose presence, since the Council o f Trent, both the licitness and the validity o f m arriage ordinarily depen d; (3 ) H e is the (sole) minister o f the solemn ceremonies with which the Church surrounds m arriage, not only the
0 D o g m a tik , V o l. V I I , p. 827, M n ster 1864.

2 l6

MATRIMONY

ecclesiastical recognition ( solem nizatio m atrim onii), which he expresses in saying, I join you together in M atri mony ; but also the nuptial blessing, which is one o f the Churchs most beautiful and significant sacramentals. Y e t all these ceremonies are non-essential, as appears from the fa ct that they may, nay under certain conditions must, be omitted and that they have varied in different ages and countries. In the primitive Church the bride concealed her face under a red veil to symbolize her fidelity and submission to her husband, just as nuns wear a white veil as an emblem o f fidelity and obedience to their m ystic spouse.6 T h e very word nuptiae is de rived from nubere, to veil or conceal. A t one time it was custom ary for the bridal couple to carry burning candles as a sign of conjugal chastity.7 The bride, if she was a virgin, wore a crown o f flowers, which later developed into the bridal wreath. Am ong the Greeks, in conse quence o f this custom, m arriage is still called the crow n ing o f the bride. 8 Another ancient custom was to tie the bride and groom together with a ribbon as a warning that they must not break the bond of conjugal unity.0 T his is still done in some dioceses, only that the stole is used instead o f a ribbon. The blessing of the wedding ring, too, is an ancient ceremony. St. Isidore of Seville says that the wedding ring is worn upon the fourth finger because a vein is believed to run from that finger to the heart. 10
c. o C fr. St. Am brose, D e V ir g in ita te , 5, n. 26: " U tin am p ossem re8 ffTe<pa.vu>fi.a, o r tip & v ia iia . n a tio ). com pagem c o n iu g a lis d isr u m p a n t." St. Isidore o f Seville, D e D iv . O ffic., I I , t<j. u n ita tis

( coro-

v o ca re tiu p tu r a s! U tin a m p o ssem flam m eum [1. c. r u b r u m ] v u p tia le pro in te g rita tis m uta re v e la m in e l "

0 . . . ne

L u m in u m tc s tim o n io ce lc b r a 10 I b id .: " Q u a r t o d ig ito a n n u lu s ca stita s u u p tia r u m . St. Peter id e o in sc r itu r , qu o d in eo ven a quaeClirysologus ( + 450), S e r m ., 22 dam , u t fe r tu r , sa n g u in is ad co r (M ign e, P . L ., L I I , 262). u s q u e p e r v e n ia t." tu r

7 "

CHAPTER IV
THE R E C IP IE N T

The contracting parties are not only the minis ters, they are also the recipients o f the Sacrament. T he conditions o f valid reception are four : ( 1 ) T he recipients must be b a p tize d ;1 (2 ) T h ey must be o f different sex; 2 (3 ) There must be no diriment impediment in the w ay o f their m arriage; (4) T h ey must have the intention o f doing w hat the Church does, i. e. contracting a C h ris tian m arriage.3 In order that a m arriage be licit as well as valid, the Church furtherm ore requires: ( 1 ) Freedom from forbidding impediments (impedimenta prohibentia) ; (2 ) Compliance with all other ecclesiastical precepts ; (3 ) T he state o f san ctifyin g grace.4 The detailed explanation o f these requirements belongs to M oral T heology and Canon Law .
a) A re all men obliged to receive the Sacram ent o f M atrim ony ?
1 V . su fr a , p. 157. 2 F . su p ra , p. 140. 3 V , su p ra , p. 158. 4 V . su pra, pp. 168 sqq.

217

2 l8

MATRIMONY

I f M atrim ony were necessary for salvation, all men would be obliged to m arry, regardless of whether M atri mony were a Sacrament or not. H ow ever, no such obliga tion ( praeceptum m atrim onii) can be proved either from the law o f nature or from the positive divine law. T h e law o f nature obliges a man to do those things, and those only, which are necessary to attain his final end. iMarriage is not necessary for this purpose, except per accidens, e. g. for those who are unable to live chastely outside of the married state. But does not the individual owe it to the community in which he lives, to the State, to society, to m arry and beget offspring? T h e duties we owe to society, we owe to existing society, not to the society of the future. M ar riage serves to beget future citizens, towards whom we have no duties because they do not yet exist. True, the State has an interest in m arriage because without a sufficient number o f marriages the human race would become extinct. But the State has no right to com pel any individual to m arry in order to forestall such a calamity. M arriage is a m atter o f the heart, and com pulsory legislation would lead to tyranny and rouse pop ular opposition. Sanchez s a y s : Form erly, when men were few, [God] obliged individuals; now that they have m ulti plied, he merely obliges the State in a general w ay to compel its subjects to man*y in case of necessity. 5 This assertion is untenable. H ow could the State make mar riage obligatory? It is simply impossible. N or is any thing gained by attributing this right to the law of nature in the abstract. F or to say that the obligation o f m arrying
C D e M a tr im o n io , 1. I, disp. 3, n. 3: " O lim quu m p a u ci h o m in e s era n t,
obligabat [v o lu n ta s D e i] sin g u lo s, n u n c autem illis m u ltip lic a tis tanturn o b lig ot rem p vb lica m in c o m m u n i, ut n e c e ssita te o c c u r r e n te comp ella t s u b d ito s .

THE RECIPIENT

219

does not bind all men, but m erely some (a restriction demanded by the inequality in the number o f men and women) is equivalent to saying that nobody in particular is obliged to m arry, or at most the community at large, which, as such, cannot m arry. W e m ay add that a law compelling people to m arry would be utterly superfluous. T h e sexual instinct is so strongly developed in the m ajority o f men, and m arriage offers so m any advantages, that it is m orally impossible that all men should p refer a single life.6 A s a m atter o f fact the race has steadily m ultiplied from A dam and E ve down to the present day without any law compelling peo ple to m arry. b) But how about the positive divine command (Gen. I, 2 8 ): Increase and multiply and fill the e a rth ? These words were obviously addressed, not to our first parents alone, but to all their descendants. A s an argu ment for compulsory m arriage, however, they prove noth ing. O ur L ord H im self and St. Paul frequently extol virginity above m arriage.7 God would contradict H im self if H e recommended the single life to some after im posing the obligation o f m arriage on all. H ence if, as some believe, Gen. I, 28 contained a universal command, that command must have lost its obligatory force as soon as the Creators purpose in giving it was attained, that is to say, as soon as the earth became peopled with human beings. In m atter o f fact Gods words to Adam
0 C fr. St. Thom as, S u m m a T h e o l., S u p p l., qu. 41, art. 2: " E x ta li inc lin a tio n e non o b lig a tu r q u ilib e t h om o p er m odum p r a e c e p ti; a lia s q u ilib e t hom o o b lig a r e tu r ad agricu ltu ra m e t a e d ificcto r ia m , e t ad hniu sm o d i ofUcia qu a e s u n t n e cc ssa r ia c o m m u n ita ti h u m a n a e ; se d in clin a tio n i n a tu ra e sa tisfit, q u u m p er div e r so s d iv ersa d e p ra e d ictis c o m
p le n tu r . Q u u m erg o ad p e r fe c tio n c m hum a n a e m u ltitu d in is s it n e ce ssa r iu m a liq u o s c o n te m p la tiv a e v ita e in s e r v ir e , qu a e m a xim c p e r m atrim on iu m im p e d itu r , in c lin a tio n a tu ra e a d m a trim on iu m n o n o b lig a t p er modtim p ra c c e p ti, etia m se c u n d u m philo s o p h o s. 7 K. su p ra , pp. 130 sqq.

220

MATRIMONY

and E ve were meant as a benediction; they form part o f the general blessing pronounced upon all living creatures. The words Increase and multiply are on a level with subdue the earth and rule over the fishes o f the sea, etc. T h ey embody a vocation, not a command. F or our first parents, o f course, this vocation involved the duty o f m arrying, because their failure to do so would have frustrated the express purpose o f the Creator. T his does not, however, apply to all their descendants. W h at if the human race were threatened with extinc tion, would m arriage in that case be obligatory on all ? T h is question is purely theoretical because such an even tuality is not likely to occur. W ithout attempting an an swer, we will simply call attention to St. A ugustines 8 declaration that there would be no universal obligation to m arry even if the human race were about to die out, but that even in that case it would be more advisable for men to lead a virginal life in order that the predestined number o f the elect might be attained as soon as pos sible.
R e a d i n g s : I. Pleyer, D e M inistro Sacranienti M atrim onii, 1759. Th. M. Filser, U eber den A n ssp cnd er des E hesakram entes, 1844 A . Fischer, D c r S pend er der sakramentalen Gnade bei den unter Christen geschlossenen Ehcbiindnisscn, 1845. W . Sulerzyski, W er ist M in ister bei dew Sakram ent der E h e f 1881.

8 D e Bono

C o n iu g a ti,

1. X.

CHAPTER V
T H E C H U R C H S C O N T R O L OVER C H R I S T I A N R IA G E ----I M P E D I M E N T S M AR

In this chapter w e purpose to show, ( I ) that the Church possesses control over Christian m arriage; (2 ) that this control is based on a positive divine law and can be exer cised independently o f the secular pow er; (3 ) that the Church has the exclusive right to establish diriment im pediments.

S E C T IO N 1
T H E C H U R C H H A S CO N TRO L OVER T H E S A C R A M E N T OF M A R R IA G E

I . T h e D o g m a . T he contracting parties, the officiating priest, and the required witnesses are by no means the only persons who have a part in the administration o f M atrim ony. T h e Pope and the bishops, as representatives o f the Church to whom our Lord has entrusted the administration o f all the Sacram ents,1 also play an important role. One o f the palm ary rights o f the Church in connection with m arriage is to establish and to dispense from diriment impediments. Luther and Protestants generally admit those
1 C fr. 1 Cor. I V , i.
221

222

MATRIMONY

impediments which are mentioned in Leviticus, but deny that the Church has the power to es tablish others. T his attitude is entirely con sistent on the part o f men who do not regard M atrim ony as a Sacrament. A gain st the Protestant Reform ers the Council o f T ren t defined: I f anyone saith that the Church could not establish impediments dissolv ing m arriage, or that she has erred in establishing them, let him be anathema. 2 L uthers pet the ory is expressly condemned in canon 3 o f the same Session: I f anyone saith that those de grees only o f consanguinity and affinity which are set down in Leviticus can hinder matrimony from being contracted, and dissolve it when contracted, and that the Church cannot dispense in some of those degrees or establish that others may hinder and dissolve it, let him be anathema. 3 2. P r o o f o f t h e D o g m a . T he Church is in fallible, indefectible, and holy; and hence, i f she attributes to herself and exercises a right, that right undoubtedly belongs to her. N ow it is a fact that, constantly asserting her claim, she has es tablished diriment impediments since the fourth
2 Sess. X X I V , can. 4:
S i q u is c l aflinitatis g r a d u s, q u i L c v itic o exp rim u n tu r , p o sse m p e d ir e m atrim on inm c o n tr a h e n d u m et d ir im e r e contra ctu m , n e c p o sse E c c le sia m in n o n n u llis illo ru m d isp en sa re aut con stitu e r e , ut p lu r e s im p edia n t c t diriw a n t, an a th em a s it . (D enzingerd ix e r it, E c c le s ia m n o n p o tu iss e statu e r e im p ed im en ta m a trim on iu m d irim e n tia v e l in iis c o n stitu e n d is err asse, an athem a s it . (D cn zinger-

B annw art, n. 974). n Sess. X X I V , can. 3:

d ix e r it, e o s tan tu m

" S i q u is c o n sa n g u in ita tis

Bannw art, n. 973).

THE CHURCHS CONTROL

223

century. Consequently, she had the right to es tablish such impediments.

a) T h e m ajor premise o f this syllogism belongs to A pologetics or Fundam ental Theology. T h e minor must be proved from history. The Council o f E lvira, A . D. 300, regarded the defect o f Baptism ( disparitals cult us) as a diriment impediment.4 T h e Council o f Neo-Caesarea, 314, mentions affinity among the diriment impediments.5 St. Basil ( + 3 7 9 ) says no man can m arry a woman with whose sister he has had il licit intercourse.0 Pope St. Leo the Great ( + 4 6 1 ) or dained for the diocese o f Rom e that no deacon should m arry, and that if a man espoused a slave, m istakenly thinking her to be free, the m arriage should be null and void ( im pedim entum co nd itionis) ,7 G regory the Great ( + 6 0 4 ) forbade m arriages between first cousins, which were permitted under the Rom an law .8 Spiritual rela tionship arising from Baptism w as made a diriment im4 Can. 15 " P r o p t e r copiam p u c lla ru m g e n tilib u s m in i m e in m atrim o n iu m d an dae s u n t v ir g in e s ch ristia n a c , n e aetas in ilore tu m e n s in a d u lte r io an im ae r e so lv a tu r . " (H ardouin, C o n c iL , I, p. 252). 5 Can. 2: F e m in a s i d n o b u s fra tr ib u s [1. e. su c c e s s iv e ] n u p se r it, e x tr n d a tu r u s q u e ad m o r te m ; s c d in m orte p ro p te r h u m a n ita icm , s i d ix e r it q u o d u b i c o n v a lu e r it, so lv e t tnatrim a n n u n , h a b eb it p o c n itc n tia m ." 0 " S i q u is im p u r ita tis v itio a liqitan do v ic tu s in illicita m d u a ru m so ro ru m c a n iu n c tio n c m in c id e n t, n e que id m a trim on iu m c x is tim d u r n c q u c o m n in o in E c c lc s ia c c o c tu m a d m itta tu r, p riu sq u a m a s e in v ic e m d ir im a n tu r ." (E p . 160 ad D io d o r ., n. 2; M ignc, P . G ., X X X I I , 623). 7 " A n c illa m a toro a b iiccr e c t u xo r c m c c r ta e in g e n u ita tis a c d p e r e , n o n d itp lica tio c o n iu g ii, sc d p r o fc c t u s c s t h o n e s t a t i s ( E p . 67 ad R u s tic , E p is c . N a r b o n ., c. 6).

8 In his instructions to St. A ugustine o f C anterbury (L . X I I , ep. 3 1 ) : " Q u a e d a m te r r cn a le x in R om a n a

R c p u b lic a p e r m ittit, u t s iv e fr a tr is s iv e so ro r is se n d u o ru n i fr a tr u m g e r m a n o ru m v c l du a ru m so roru m filiu s et filia m isce a n tu r. S c d c x p c r im c n to d id ic im u s, e x ta li c o n iu g io s o b o lc m n o n p o sse s u c c r c s c c r e , ct sa cra le x [1. c. L e v itic u s ] p ro h ib e t co g n a tio n is tu r p itu d in e m r e v c la r c . U n de n cccsse e st, u t iam tertia v c l qua rto g e n c ra tio fid e liu m lic e n tc r sib i iu n g i d cb ca t. N a m s c c u n d a , qitarn d ix im u s, a sc om n i m odo d e b e t a b stin c r e . C u m n o v c r c a a u tcm m is c c ri g ra v e c s t fad u n s ."

224

MATRIMONY

pediment by the Council in T rullo (692). A synod held at M ayence, in 813, prohibited m arriage in the fourth degree of consanguinity and designated the spiritual re lationship arising from Confirmation as a diriment impedi ment.10 Pope Zachary testified at the Roman Council o f 743 that the archbishops and princes o f Germ any had asked him for instructions with regard to m arriage.11 Pope Nicholas I ( + 867), in confirming the diriment im pediments o f consanguinity and spiritual relationship, cited the sacred canons, and especially the decrees of Pope Zachary. 12 b) In order to understand how the Church can in validate the Sacrament o f M atrim ony without changing its matter and form, we must consider that the validity of the Sacrament is conditioned by the validity o f the matrimonial contract.13 B y nullifying the contract, the Church deprives the Sacrament of its basis. T h e va lidity o f the contract does not depend solely on the free will of the contracting parties ; it depends also on the will o f God, which may m anifest itself in a threefold man0 Canon 53: " Q u o n ia m . . . in tio n n u llis lo c is c o g n o i'im u s qu o sd a m ,
q u i e x sa n cto et sa lu ta ri b a p tism atc in fa n te s s u s c ip iu n t, p ostea q u o q u e cum m a trib u s illo ru m z id itis m a tri m o n iu m c o n tr a h e re , sta tu im u s ut in p o steru m n ih il Hat e iu sm o d i. S i q u i autcm p ost p ra cscn tcm ca n on cm h oc f a c e t e d e p r e h e n si fu c r in t, ii q u id e m prim o ab h oc illic ito m a trim on io desista n t, d e in d e et fo r n ica to r u m p o e n is s u b iic ia n tu r ." 10 Can. 54, 55: " C o n tr a d ic im u s q u o q u e , ut in quarta g e n e ra tio n c m tllu s a m p liu s co n iu g io c o p u lc tu r ; u b i a utem p ost in tcrd ictu m fa ctu m in v e n tu m f u c r it, sep a rctu r. N u llu s ig itu r prop riu m filium z'cl filiam d e fo n te bap tism atis su sc ip ia t, n c c filiolam n cc com m atrem du ca t n c c illa m c u iu s filiu m a u t fliam ad co n firm a tion cm d u x c r it: u b i a utem fa ctu m fu c r it, s e p a r e n tu r ." ( lia r douin, C o n c il., I V , p. 1016). 11 . . p e te n tc s a p osto lica prac-

ccp ta , q u a lite r lice a t e is con iu g io cop u la r e et q u om od o d e b e a n t obserr a r e ." 12 R e sp . ad C o n s u lt. B u lg a ro r ., c. 39: " S a c r i z e r o C nones et pracc ip u e Z a c h a r ia e su m m i p ra c su is dccreta q u id h in c p r o m u lg c n l, episcopo vestro v o b is exp lova n du m rclin q u im u s ." On the very ancicnt im p edim en tu m v o ti, see in fra , Sect. 2. On

the historic developm ent o f these impediments in general cfr. Palm ieri, D c M atr. C h r ist., tlies. 29. 13 V . Ch. I, Sect. 1. Thesis II.

1ix o r c m ,

THE CHURCHS CONTROL

225

ner: through the law o f nature, through a positive law, or through an ecclesiastical precept. Hence there are three distinct classes of diriment im pediments : ( 1 ) Impediments flowing from the law of nature (e. g. impotency, error, violence) ; (2 ) Impediments set up by a positive 'divine law ( e . g. the bond o f an existing m arriage) ; (3 ) Impediments established by ecclesiastical law (c . g. clandestinity, difference o f religion, affinity). No matrimonial contract is valid if the contracting parties are incapacitated for m arriage by the law of na ture, by a positive divine law, or by the law of the Church. Persons thus incapacitated are technically known as inhabiles. A m arriage entered into with such a person is null and void because there can be no true and binding consent between inhabiles. These considerations explain why the Church can establish diriment impediments w ith out altering the m atter and form o f the Sacrament. Both m atter and form o f M atrim ony consist in the valid con sent o f the contracting parties. W here there is no valid consent, there can be no valid m arriage, and hence no Sacram ent.14 Conversely, the Church can, by establishing impediments, render a m arriage unlaw ful, but she cannot prevent it from being sacramental if the underlying con tract is valid.

Two F u n c t io n s o f E c c l e s ia s t ic a l A u . A s the Church has the power to regu late Christian m arriage, she must also have the power o f dispensing from diriment as well as fort h o r it y
14 i \

3.

Ch. I, Scct. 1.

226

MATRIMONY

bidding impediments ( potestas dispensandi) and o f haling matrimonial causes before her judgm ent seat ( potestas iudicialis). The potestas dispensandi is exercised both in foro externo and in foro interno, and extends to all impediments, except where the natural or a positive divine law form an insuperable obstacle; it may also validate an invalid m arriage in radice. The potestas iudicialis is the power to pass de finitive judgm ent on all matters pertaining to the essence o f M atrim ony, e. g. the dissolubility or indissolubility o f the bond,15 matrimonial en gagem ents (sponsalia), separation from bed and board, etc. In regard to the latter, the T riden tine Council declares: I f anyone saith that the Church errs in declaring that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and w ife in regard o f bed 01* cohabitation, for a determinate or fo r an indeterminate period, let him be anathema. 10 A s matrimonial laws bind the universal Church, the Pope is the only competent authority fo r the definitive adjudica tion o f m arriage cases and the granting o f dispensations, and 110 bishop can do anything without his consent.
A dispensation is a special exemption granted from the
15 V . C h . I I , S c c t. 2 an d 3. 10 S css . X X I V , can . 8: " S i q u ts d ix e r it, E c c lc sia m errare, q u u m ob m u lta s cau sa s sep a ro tio n em in te r c o n iu g c s quoa d to ru m sc u qu o a d co h a b iia tio n e m ad cc r tu m in ce r tu m v e tem p u s fieri p o sse d e c c r n it, anath em a s i t . "

THE CHURCHS CONTROL

227

requirements o f a law or rule.17 W h at is the extent of the papal power of dispensing from diriment impedi ments to M atrim ony? The diriment impediments at present in force are enumerated in the follow ing h exam eters:
E rro r, conditio, votu.m, cognatio, crim en, C u ltu s disparitas, vis, ordo, ligam en, honestas, A cta s, affinis, si clandestinns et im pos, R aptave sit m ulicr, parti nec reddita tntae: H aec socianda vetant covnnbia, fa cta retractant.

O f these fifteen impediments, five are based partly on the natural and partly on positive divine law. T h ey are: ( 1 ) ligam en, i. e. the impediment o f existing m ar riage; (2) error, i. e. a m istake as to the person married, either before or at the time o f the m arriage; (3) v is or m etus gravis, i. e. grave fear, unjustly caused, for the purpose o f extorting m atrimonial consent; (4) consangitinitas, i. e. blood relationship within certain degrees; (5 ) im potentia, i. e. an antecedent incapacity to per form the functions of the married state. From these impediments not even the Pope can dispense. W ith re gard to the im pedim entum ligam inis, note that the dis solution of the m arriage bond in certain cases 18 is not, properly speaking, effected by a dispensation but either by divine law or in virtue o f the loosing power exercised by the Supreme Pontiff in the name o f Christ. Th e im pedim entum v o ti arises from the solemn vow of chastity taken by religious. Being based upon a promise made directly to God, rather than to the Pope or the Church, this impediment is o f divine right, but as it is se lf imposed and a m atter of free choice, there is no contra diction involved when the Pope, for weighty reasons, after
17 D is p c n sa tio
in a liq u o casu e st rcta xa tio le g is

18 V . su p ra , C h . I I , Sect. 3.

p a rticu la ri.

228

MATRIMONY

liftin g the solem nitas zoti, which is of purely ecclesiastical institution, dispenses from the simple vow of chastity just as he can and does dispense from a promissory vow
(iiiram entum p ro m issorin m ).

A ll other impediments are o f purely ecclesiastical in stitution, and it needs no argument to prove that the Church can dispense from laws o f her own making. T h e only difficulty arises in connection with the dis pensation technically known as sanatio in radice, by which a m arriage invalid from the beginning is made valid just as if there had been no ecclesiastical impediment. H ow can the Church do this? A re we to assume that the Pope is able to undo past deeds or that his power is rctro-active ? 19 Nothing o f the kind. Th e sanatio in radice is simply a fictio iuris, by which an invalid m ar riage, besides being made valid by a dispensation ( e x m in e ), is juridically regarded as if it had been valid from the beginning ( e x tim e). Th e principal effect of this meas ure is to legitimize children begotten before the revalida tion.2 0
10 " Ad p ra eter itu m n u lla d a tu r a lso in r e g a rd to t h e ir c iv il e ffe c ts , p o te n tia , s a y s a n a n c ie n t p ro v e r b . 20 A ls o in o th e r re s p e c ts th is p ap a l fa v o r is o f fa r -r e a c h in g c o n s e q u e n c e , e s p e c ia lly in q u e s tio n s o f s u c c e ss io n an d in h e rita n c e a r is in g in r o y a l fain ilic s. T h e th e o lo g ia n s c o m m o n ly te a c h th a t it b e h o o v e s C h ris tia n p rin c e s to re s p e c t su ch p ap a l a c ts, n o t o n ly in th e ir s p ir itu a l, b u t ( C f r . S a n c h e z , D e M a tr im o n io , 1. V I I I , disp . 7 ) , th o u g h it w o u ld be d iffic u lt to s h o w th a t th e y h a v e a s tr ic t o b lig a tio n to do so, e s p e c ia lly r u lin g n io n a rc h s in q u e s tio n s p ertain in g to s u c c e s s io n . O n th e s u b je c t o f th is s u b d iv isio n c f r . P a lm ie ri, D e M a tr im o n io C lw isiia n o , tlies. 35.

SECTION 2
TH E C H U R C H S CONTROL OVER C H R IS T IA N M AR

R IA G E IS O F D IV IN E R IG H T A N D IN D E PEN D EN T OF T H E STATE

i. H e r e t i c a l E r r o r s vs. t h e D o g m a tic T e a c h i n g o f t h e C h u r c h . Antonio de Dominis was the first to maintain that the Church de rives her power over matrimonial causes from the State.1 H e w as follow ed by Launoy 2 and the court theologians o f A u stria, France, and Italy. In 1786, the Jansenist Council o f Pistoia put this teaching into practice by form ally requesting the A rchduke Leopold II o f Tuscany, a brother of Em peror Joseph II, to abolish the two m atri monial impediments o f spiritual relationship and public propriety and to limit consanguin ity and affinity to the second degree. T his impudent act led Pope Pius V I to condemn the principle espoused by the court theologians as heretical.3 H is decision merely confirmed and
1 D e R e p u b l. C h r is t., 1. V , c. u, su p rem a m c iv ile m p o te sta tem dttmL o iiflo n 16 18. 2 D e R e g ia in M a tr im o n iu m P o te sta te, P a r i s 1673. 3 B u l l " A u c ta r e m fid c i," 17 94 ; c f r . P r o p . S y n . P is to r . dain n at., prop. 59: " D o c tr in a sy n o d i a sseren s, ad ta xa t o rig in a rte sp e c ta r c , c o n tr a c tu i m a trim o n ii a p p o n ere im p e d im e n ta c itis g e n e r is q u a e ipsum n u llu m redd im t d ic u n tu r q u e d ir im e n tia , q u o d iu s o rig in a riu m p ra etcrea d ic itu r 'c u n t iu r e d isp e itsa n d i e ss e n tia lite r

2 29

230

MATRIMONY

emphasized the teaching o f the Tridentine Coun cil.

Launoys interpretation of the Council was arbitrary. W e will give but one example. Th e Council d eclares: I f anyone saith that the Church could not establish im pediments dissolving m arriage, or that she has erred in establishing them, let him be anathema. Launoy claims that Church here means the E cclesia discens, or com munity of the faithful as represented by the State, to which the E cclesia docens owes whatever powers she enjoys in matrimonial affairs. Launoy further main tained that the Tridentine canons possess no dogmatic au thority, but are purely disciplinary, and therefore re vocable. A s a matter of fact the Council expressly meant to define that the Church has the power to establish diriment impediments, and that she is infallible in exercis ing this power. No such infallibility resides in, or has ever been claimed by, secular rulers. Besides, the T r i dentine Council had in view mainly the heresy o f Luther, who denied jurisdiction in matrimonial matters to the H oly See, not to the State. The Council proved its inde pendence o f the secular power by establishing a new impediment (clandestinity), by lim iting the scope o f cer tain traditional impediments, and by refusing the urgent request of the K in g of France and other monarchs to de clare the marriage o f children without parental consent invalid.4
eo n n e x u m s u b iu n g e n s ' su p p o sito as* scn su v c l e o n n iv e n tia p rin eip u m p otn iss c E cc lc sia m iu stc e o n stitn e r e inip cd im cn ta d irim cn tia ipsum co n tra cturn m a tr im o n ii, q u a si E c c le sia n o n sem p er p o tu c r it oe p o ssit in C h ristia n o r u m m a trim on iis itire p ropvio im p ed im en ta e o n stitu e r e , quae m atri io n iu m n on so lu m im p cd ia n t, s c d c t n u llu m red d a n t quoa d v in c u lu m , . . . in cisd cm d isp cn sa re : eano>111111 j , 4, 9, 12 S c s s . X X I V . C onc ilii T r id c n tin i c v c r siv a , h a crctica

(D cnzin ger-B an m vart, n. 1559).

4 C fr . P a lm ic ri, C h r ist., th cs. 28. De M a tr im o n io

THE CHURCHS CONTROL

231

2. P r o o f o f t h e D o g m a . a) T o refute the court theologians it is sufficient to point out that their teaching is contrary to dogma. N o C ath olic is permitted to doubt that the Church has the God-given right to control the adm inistration o f all the Sacram ents, including M atrim ony.5 N ow the control o f the matter and form o f this S acra ment, which consist in the matrim onial consent o f the contracting parties,0 is merely a function o f the legitimate adm inistration o f M atrim ony. M oreover the establishment o f diriment impedi ments involves actual control over m atter and form , and hence the Church has the right to es tablish such impediments and to condition upon them the valid ity o f the matrimonial consent, which is inseparable from the Sacrament. T his fundamental right comprises the power o f g ran t ing dispensations and other acts o f jurisdiction. It follow s that the Church has received her pre rogatives and rights, not from any monarch, nor from the secular power as such, but directly from Jesus Christ. b) A sufficient argum ent from T radition is furnished by the demonstration that the contrary thesis has no foundation in history.
a) W hen did the State confer upon the Church the power to regulate matrimonial causes? T his cannot, in the nature o f things, have happened during the era o f 5 V . S u p r a , C h . I , S e c t. x. o V . S u p ra , C h . I , S e c t. 2.

232

MATRIMONY

the persecutions, which ended with the edict of Milan, 313. Did it perhaps occur after the reign of Constantine, at the beginning o f what we are wont to call the Middle A g e s? Impossible. The court theologians themselves emphasize, with no small degree o f satisfaction, that the secular princes who ruled during this epoch (Theodosius, Justinian, et a l.), far from relinquishing their alleged rights in favor o f the Church, set lip and abolished diri ment impediments without her consent, nay contrary to her w ill.7 Th e M iddle A ges witnessed many sharp conflicts between the papacy and the rulers of the H oly Roman Empire, and the Church was often compelled to defend her rights against usurping princes. N or does modern history furnish a single fact or document to prove that the Church derives her matrimonial jurisdiction from the State. H ence the assertion of the court theologians is groundless. ) W e can go a step farther and show that, in estab lishing certain impediments, the Church either had no precedent on the part o f the State, or paid scant attention to existing civil laws. T ake e. g. the hnpedim entum voti. T his is one o f the most ancient ecclesiastical impedi ments o f which we know. A s early as the third century St. Cyprian ( + 2 5 8 ) declared that young women who married after taking the vow o f chastity excommunicated themselves.8 W hen the Church was recovering from the terrible persecutions o f the first three centuries, a Span ish council held at E lvira (A . D. 300) refused to ad mit such women to the Sacraments except on condition
7 C f r . I'. I I . V e r in g , G e s c h ic h te d e r P a n d e k te n d e s r m isch en u n d h e u tig e n g em e in e n P r iv a tr c c h te s , 4th ed ., pp. 556 sq q ., M a y e n c e 1873. O n c e rta in o b je c tio n s d ra w n from the w r itin g s o f A thenagoras, S t. A m b ro se, a n d S t. A u g u s t in e see P a lm i-

e r i, D e M a tr im o n io C h r ist., pp. 258 sqq. 8 E p . 4 (a l. 6 2 ): " Q u o d s i obstinatae p er s v ra n t n ee se ab in v ice m sp a ran t, scia n t se cum hac sua imp u d ica a b stin a tio n e n un q ua m a n o b is a d m itti in E c c le sia m p o s s e .

THE CHURCHS CONTROL

233

that they abstained from conjugal intercourse.9 St. Basil ( + 379) testifies that m arriages o f this kind were re garded as invalid in the Eastern Church.10 Pope Innocent I (-}- 407) distinguishes two classes o f virgins, veiled and unveiled, and says that the form er cannot be absolved until after the death o f their guilty partners.11 St. Je rome ( + 4 2 0 ) declares that virgins who m arry after taking a solemn vow o f chastity are guilty o f incest rather than adultery. 12 Gelasius I (-}- 496) brands as sacrilegious the attempted m arriage o f virgins who had dedicated themselves to God by a solemn vow o f chastity.13 T h e Church proceeded with similar independence in determining the forbidden degrees o f consanguinity and affinity,14 in recognizing the diriment impediment o f dis parities cultiis (defect of B aptism ), which was not gener ally enforced until after 1000,15 in establishing the im pedim entum crim inis, for which civil legislation offered no precedent, and so forth. T o these and other canonical laws Christian rulers bowed in obedience without ever claiming that their own rights were being usurped.16
0 C a n . 13 : . . . u t a b stin e a n t se a c o itu . 10 " C a n o m c a r u m fo r n ic a tio n e s p ro m a trim on io n on r e p u te n tu r , se d earum c o n iu n c tio o m n in o d iv e lla tu r . ( E p . 1 ad A m p h il., c an . 6 ) . 11 E p . ad V ic tr ic . E p is c . R o to m a g . 12 A d v . lo v in ., I , 7 : V ir g in e s qu a e p ost co n se cra tio n e m n u p se r in t, n on tain a d u lter a e su n t quam in ce sta e. 13 T h e C o u n c il o f T o u r s (5 6 7 ) c itc s in s u p p o rt o f th e n u llit y o f such m a rria g e s th e co d e o f E m p e ro r T h e o d o s iu s th e G re a t ( + 3 9 5 ), w h ic h p u n is h e s th e fo r c ib le a b d u c tio n o f c o n s e c ra te d v ir g in s fo r th e p u rp o se o f m a rria g e w ith d e a th ; b u t a s id e fro m th e fa c t th at th e s e c u la r la w is n a r r o w e r in sco p e, th e C o u n c il g iv e s a s a re a so n f o r th e d irim e n t e ffe c t o f th e v o w o f c h a s tity (c a n . 20, ap ud P a lm ie r i, p. 3 5 0 ) : q u o d v c l A p o s t o lu s P a u lu s v e l Pa p a I n n o e e n tiu s s t a t u it ." F o r fu lle r in fo rm a tio n s ee P a lm ie r i, D e M a tr im o n io C h r ist., pp. 237 sqq. 14 su p ra , S e c t. 1. 15 C f r . B e lla r m in e , De M a trim o n io , I, 23. i C fr . P a lm ie r i, D e M a tr. C h r ist., tlies. 30 a n d 3 3 . - O n th e s u b je c t o f m a r r ia g e im p e d im e n ts fro m th e s ta n d p o in t o f M o ra l T h e o lo g y see T lio s . S la t e r , S .J ., A M a n u a l o f M o r a l T h e o lo g y , V o l. I I , pp. 283 sq q ., N e w Y o r k 1908; fro m th e c a n o n ic a l p o in t o f v ie w , D e S m etD o b e ll, B e tr o th m e n t an d M a rria g e, V o l. I I , B r u g e s 19 13.

SECTION 3
TH E C H U R C H S E X C L U S IV E R IG H T TO E S T A B L IS H D IR IM E N T IM P E D IM E N T S

i. T h e T e a c h in g o f t h e C h u r c h . A b stractly speaking there is nothing contradic tory in the assumption that the State, too, has the right to establish diriment impediments to m arriage. In matter o f fact there have been some theologians who held this to be the case. Prom inent among them were Peter Soto, A m brose Catharinus, Tournely, Collet, and Carrire. K in gs and secular princes, says c. g. Tournely, possess the innate right to establish impediments which render m arriage forbidden or invalid. 1 G regory o f Valentia, Gonet, Henno, and espe cially Th. Sanchez 2 thought it prudent to m odify this thesis. T h ey said the State originally did possess the right to set up m arriage impedi ments, but it was taken aw ay by the Church in the legitim ate exercise o f her potcstas indirecta in temporalia. To-day it is doctrina certa that the State has no jurisdiction over matril " R e g c s et p rin c ip e * s a c c u la r c s iu r e sib i p rop rio ac in n a to c o n s ti tu e r c p o ssu n t im p ed im en ta m atritn on iiim irrita n tia et d ir im e n tia . ( D e M a tr im o n io , q u. 7, a rt. 2 ). 2 D e M a tr im o n io , 1. V I I , disp. 3.

234

IMPEDIMENTS

235

monial causes so fa r as they (directly or indi rectly) relate to the Sacram ent. T h e Tridentine Council declares: I f anyone saith that m atri monial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges, let him be anathem a. 3 Pope Pius V I authentically interpreted this synodal canon as m eaning that all matrim onial causes belong solely to ecclesiastical judges. 4
T h e correctness o f this interpretation is evident. Th e proposition condemned as heretical by the Council, vis.: M atrim onial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges, must mean either that not all matrimonial causes belong to ecclesiastical judges, or that all m atri monial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges. Th e contradictory o f the first proposition would b e : A ll matrimonial causes belong to ecclesiastical ju d g e s; and o f the second, Some matrimonial causes do not be long to ecclesiastical judges. But to assert this would afford no guidance to Catholics. H ence the Council can only have meant what Pius V I says it meant, or, to employ the P on tiffs own words, Th e terms in which the canon is clothed are so general that they comprehend and con tain all [matrimonial] causes. 8 I f w e further consider that the reason w hy matrimonial causes belong to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction is that M atrim ony among Christians is a Sacrament, it follow s that they be3 Sess . X X I V , can . 12 : " S i gut's sp ecta n t ad s o lo s in d ic e s e cclesia d ix e r it, oausas m a trim o n ia le s n o n sp e c ta r e ad iu d ic c s e c c le sia stic o s , a n athem a s it." (Dcnzinger-Bannw a r t , n. 982). 4 " O n in e s ca u sa e m a trim o n ia les s t ic o s ." (E p . ad E p is c . M o tn lc n s . d. 16 S e p t. 1788). 0 " V erb a c a n o n is ita g en cra lia su n t, o m n cs u t c a u sa s c o m p r ch cn d a n t et c o m p le c ta n tu r ." ( I b U .)

236

MATRIMONY

long solely to the jurisdiction o f the Church.0 W ere we to grant fo r argum ents sake that some m atri monial causes belong to the State, we should be at once confronted with the question: D o they belong to the State independently o f the Church or depen dently? T o say that they belong to the State indepen dently of the Church would be to deny the Tridentine teaching that all matrimonial causes belong to eccle siastical judges. T o say that they belong to the State dependency o f the Church would be to admit her e x clusive jurisdiction in principle. F or the rest, the Council o f Trent acted in perfect accord with the above-quoted interpretation of its tw elfth canon when it declared clandestine marriages to be truly sacramental so long as the Church does not expressly de clare them null and void. H ence it is doctrina certa that all matrimonial causes belong exclusively to the Church.7

legitim ately established diri ment impediment produces tw o distinct effects: ( 1 ) remotely, it renders certain persons in capable o f contracting a valid m arriage (inhabili tas personarm n) ; ( 2 ) proxim ately, it nullifies any attempted marital consent on the part o f such persons ( inefficacitas consensus). The State cannot do either o f these things. For if it were empowered to declare baptized persons incapable o f contracting m arriage, it would possess the right
2. P
r o o f .

0 " S ic u t

haec

sa c r a m c n ti

r a tio

c lc s ia s tic o s, quu m ca dcm ratio sit in o m n ib u s ." ( I b id .) 7 C fr . P a lm ie r! , C h r is t., pp. 267 scj. De M a trim o n io

c o m m u n is cst o m n ib u s c a u sis m a trim o n ia lib u s, ita o m n c s hae ca usa e cp ccta rc u m c c d e b e n t ad in d ic e s ec-

IMPEDIMENTS

237

to regulate the adm inistration o f the Sacram en ts; but this belongs exclusively to the Church. I f the State could render the matrim onial consent null and void, it would necessarily also possess the right to determine the m atter and form o f the S ac rament, which is equally inadmissible. Conse quently, the State cannot establish or gran t dis pensations from diriment impediments, nor can it claim jurisdiction over matrimonial causes.
This argument derives strength from the philosophical consideration that no two tribunals can exercise indepen dent and supreme jurisdiction over the same class o f cases. I f the State had equal jurisdiction in matrimonial matters with the Church, it m ight happen that the Church, by virtue o f her divine prerogatives, would establish a diri ment impediment which the State refused to recog nize, or vice versa. In that case a m arriage m ight be valid and invalid, licit and illicit, legal and illegal at one and the same time, and there would be no end o f trou ble between the two powers, while the faith fu l subjects o f both would be sorely em barrassed; all this not be cause o f some human weakness or im perfection, but in consequence o f a positive divine ordinance. Since it can not be the will o f God to bring about such an intolerable state o f affairs, we must conclude that the control o f Christian m arriage belongs either to the Church or to the State. M atrim ony being a Sacrament, its control belongs to the Church, and hence the State has no ju ris diction whatever over matrimonial causes. In claiming jurisdiction over all matrimonial causes among Christians, the Church is not actuated by an im moderate desire for power, or by jealousy, but purely and

238

MATRIMONY

solely by obedience to the commands o f her Divine Founder. Due weight must be attached to the sacra mental dignity, says Leo X I I I , by the addition o f which the m arriages o f Christians have become far the noblest of all matrimonial unions. T o make laws and regulations with regard to the Sacraments is, by the will of Christ, so much the privilege and duty of the Church, that it would be plainly absurd to maintain that even the smallest part of such power has been transferred to the civil rulers. 8 T h is principle underlies the constant prac tice o f the Church.

3. R i g h t s o f t h e S t a t e . It would be w rong to deny, however, that the State has some rights with regard to m arriage. A wide field is open to civil jurisdiction in regulating the m arriages o f unbelievers and exercising a certain control over the civil effects o f the m arriages o f C hris tians. a) Some modern theologians assert that the State has no jurisdiction over the non-sacramen tal m arriages o f the unbaptized. These w rit ers (Perrone, M artin, Feije, Zigliara, Chr. Pesch, and others) argue as follow s:
(1) The so-callcd marriage o f nature was originally intended to symbolize Christs mystic union with H is Church and thereby withdrawn from all purely human jurisdiction.9
8 " C o n sid e r a n d o sa cr a m e n ti d ig n iso n u m s it p la n e p o te sta tis eitis v e l tas cst, c u iu s a cc e ss io u e m a trim on ia m in im am partem ad g u b e r n a to r c s C h ristia n o r u m e v a ser e lo n g c n o b ilisret c iv ilis v e lle e ss e tran slatam . sim a. D c sa cr a m e n tis a utem s ta tu c r e ( E n c y c l. " A r c a n u m d iv in a s," F eb . ct p ra cc ip c r c ita e x v o l n ta te C h r is ti sola p o test ct d eb e t E c c le s ia , u t ab10, 1880). 0 C f r . S t. L e o th e G re a t, E p . 2 ad

IMPEDIMENTS

239

(2 ) M arriage is older than civil society. Th e State found it in existence and incorporated it into its own organism. T his explains w hy even to-day m arriage is re garded prim arily as a natural and only secondarily as a civil contract.10 Nevertheless the great m ajority o f Catholic divines ad here to the traditional opinion that the secular rulers of non-baptized subjects undoubtedly possess the lig h t to uphold and enforce the diriment impediments flowing from the natural law, and to establish new impediments o f a purely civil character. T his power is, however, subject to tw o limitations, (a) Th e State cannot arbitrarily dissolve validly con tracted m arriages between unbaptized persons, and (b) a non-Christian, and a fo rtio r i a Christian ruler can not make purely civil impediments binding upon his baptized subjects. F o r the m arriages of Christians are in no w ay subject to the jurisdiction o f the State. T o prevent misunderstanding it m ay be well to note that the power o f the State over the m arriages o f its non-Chris tian subjects is preeminently a religious prerogative, which owes its existence to the fact that in the purely natural order the secular ruler is the supreme representative of religion and unites within him self both political and re ligious jurisdiction.11

b) W ith regard to baptized persons, the State

R u s tic . N a r b o n ., 4: " S o c ic ta s 11iptiarum ab in itio ita fu it c o n stitu ta , v t p ra etcr s e x u u m c o n iu n c tio n e m hab e r et in sc C h r is ti et E c c le s ia e sa cra m e n iu m . (M igne, P. L ., LIV , 204). l O C f r . P i u s V I , E p . ad E p is c . A g r ie n s ., J u l y 11 , 17 89: " M a trim o n iu m n o n cst c o n tr a ctu s m ere c iv ilis , s e d et c o n tr a c tu s n a tu r a lis d iv iu o iu r e an te om n em so cic ta tc m co n stitu tu s et fir m a tu s. n O n the ri g h t s o f the S t a t e in th e m a t r i m o n ia l c au se s o f unbaptiz ed pe rs on s c f r . A . R es c m an s , D e C o m p e te n tia C iv ili in V in c u lu m C o n iu g a lc I n fid c liu m , R o m e 1887.

240

MATRIMONY

must confine itself to the regulation o f the socalled civil consequences ( effectus civiles) of m arriage.
Christian m arriage is a Sacrament, and whatever con cerns it as a Sacrament, e. g. the validity o f the contract, the indissolubility o f the bond, separation from bed and board, betrothment and the public celebration o f mar riage, the legitim acy of children, etc., belongs exclusively to the jurisdiction o f the Church. T h e civil effects or con sequences over which the State has control are such non essential matters as property, dowery, and inheritance. B y virtue o f her right to enforce the effects of marriage in foro extern o the Church has established certain external consequences analogous to the effectu s civiles, such as the incapacity o f bigamists to receive H oly O rders.12

c) A word about civil m arriage. Civil m ar riage (matrimonium civile), in the sense o f a true m arriage between baptized persons, under State control and without regard to the laws o f the Church, is contrary to the divine law. Under the influence o f the Lutheran view that m ar riage is a w orldly thing, and o f the French Revolution, civil m arriage was introduced by Napoleon I in France, whence it made its w ay into nearly all countries o f Europe and North Am erica and into some of the South Am erican republics.13 It has been repeatedly condemned, by Pius V I I , Pius I X ,14 and Leo X III.
13

C h r ist.,

C fr . P a lm ie r i, th cs. 3 1.

De

M a tr im o n io

13 C fr . J. A . R y a n in th e C a th o lic In c y c lo p ed ia , V o l. I X , p. 698. 14 S e e th e S y lla b u s , p rop . 6 5 -7 5 .

IMPEDIMENTS

241

W hen civil m arriage cannot be regarded as an ecclesi astically valid clandestine m arriage, it is neither a true m arriage nor a Sacrament, nay, according to a decision o f the H oly Office o f M arch 13, 1879, it is not even equiva lent to a valid betrothal. In some countries civil m arriage is essential to the v a lidity of the conjugal union before the civil law ( m atri m onium civile o b lig a to riu m ). In others, e. g. the United States, it is m erely one o f several w ays in which m arriage may be contracted ( m atrim onium civ ile fa c u lta tiv u m ) . In still others it is provided fo r cases in which a m arriage for some reason, e. g. the lack o f a dispensation from an ecclesiastical impediment, cannot take place in church. W here the State conditions the civil effects of m arriage upon the fact o f its being contracted before a civil m agis trate, or where it refuses to recognize as legitimate children born of a purely ecclesiastical m arriage, C ath olics have no choice but to submit, nay they are in duty bound to do so, since civil m arriage in such cases is noth ing but a legal form .15
R e a d i n g s : A . R oscovn y, M atrim onium in E cclesia Catholica P o tcsta ti E cclcsiasticae S ub iectu m , 2 vols., N eu tra 1871. J. Schneem ann, S.J., D ie Irrtiim er ber die E h e , F re ib u rg 1866. H eu ser, D e P o testa te Statuend i Im pedim enta D irim entia E cclcsiae Propria, 1859. J. B ecam el, Tract, de M atrim onio et D ispensationibus M atrim onii, P a ris 1889. D e B ecker, D e Sponsalibus et M atrim onio, B ru x e lle s 1896. J. Pom pen, Tract, de D ispensationibus ct de R evalidatione M atrim onii, A m sterd am 1894. F . X . F e ije , D e Ivipedim entis et D ispensationibus M atrim onialibus, L o uvain 1890. F. H u sz r, D e P o testa te E cclcsiae circa M atrim onium , R om e 1900. J. H o llw e ck , D as Z iv ileh erech t des brger lichen G esetzbu ches im L ich te des kanonischen R ech tes, M ayen ce 1900. 15 C f r . B e n e d ic t X I V , D e S y n . Z iv ile h e v o r dem F o r u m d e s R e c h te s D io e c e s ., 1. I V , c . 7 ; A . V is e k , D i e u n d d e s G e w iss e n s , P r a g u e 1884.

242

MATRIMONY

S ch nitzer, K a th o lisch es E h erech t, F re ib u rg 1898. F . H einer, G rundriss des katholischen E h erech tes, M nster 1900. M . L eitner, L ehrbu ch des katholischen E h erech tes, P aderb orn 1902. * F . X . W ern z, S J ., In s D ecretalium , V o l. I V , 2nd ed., l u s M atri m oniale E cclesia e CaPholicae, Rom e 1911. D e Sm et, B etrothm en t and M arriage. A Canonical and T heo log ica l T reatise w ith N o tice s on H istory and C iv il Law , tr. by W . D obell, 2 vols., B ru g es 1912 and 1913.

INDEX
A A bbesses, 127. A bb ots, 122 sqq. A c ts o f the A p ostles, 100 sqq. A g d e, C oun cil o f (506), 115. A d a m and E ve, 150, 176, 186, 219. A d u lte ry , 190 sqq. A riu s o f Sebaste, 80, 85, 87. A ix -la -C h a p e lle , C ou n cil of (836), 11. A lb e rtu s M agnus, 20, 22, 88, 111. A lb ig en ses, 147. A le x a n d e r I II , 199, 204 sq. A le x a n d e r o f H ales, 88. A lp hon su s, St., 107, i n . A m a lariu s o f T re v e s, 112. A m b rose, St., 60, 118, 143, 155, 181. _ A n abap tists, 174. A n cy ra , C ou n cil o f (314). 133. B altim ore, T h ird P le n a ry C o u n cil of, 212. Baptism , 12, 28, 44, 48, 60, 75, 90, 92, 126, 127 sq., 162, 171, 208, 223, 233. B ard en h ew er, 83. B arlo w , W illiam , 71. B arnabas, 81 sq. B asil, St., 182, 223, 233. B ecan us, 22. Bellarm ine, C ard., 9, 32, 41, 66, 88, 90, 103, n o , i n , 132, 162, 166, 170 sq., 187, 195, 206. B en ed ict X I V , 23, 46, 66, 97, 107, 120, 128, 132, 180, 207, 212. Benevento, C ou n cil o f (10 9 1), 108. B erlage, 202, 215. B ern ard o f P a v ia , 152. B erti, 9, 10, 66. B ickell, 132. B iel, G abriel, 88. B illot, C ard., 66, i n . B illu a rt, 36, 66, i n , 207. B lessin gs o f m arriage, 143 sqq. B on aven ture, St., 7, 9, 26, 36, 62, 88, i n , 187. B o n ifa ce V i l i , 207. B o n ifa ce I X , 124. B onum fidci, 143 sq., 178. B om im prolis, 143 sq., 173, 178. B onum sacramenti, 143 sq. B osco, 76. Boudinhon, 40. B rag a, Council o f (56 3), 61. B ran catius, 211. B rau n , 212. C C aesariu s o f A rle s, St., 14 sq. C ajetan , Card., 88, 103, 107, i n , 163, 190, 202. 243

181.
A n g lica n O rd ers, 70 sq. A n tioch , C ou n cil o f (341 ) , 123. A ntoninus, St., 114. A n ton io de D om inis, 158, 229. A p o sto lic C on stitu tions, 104, 119, 126, 133A rch a n ge lsk y , 17. A rcu d iu s, 46. A rm en ians, 11, 65, 66, 152. A th an asiu s, St., 86. A th en agoras, 181. A tzb erge r, 49 , 107, 124, 163. A u g u stin e o f C an terbu ry, St., 119. A u g u stin e, St., 60, 74, 90, 97, 120, 135. 144, 153 sqq., 181, 205, 220. A u reo lu s, 122. B B allerin i, 211.

244

INDEX
C onstantinople, C ou n cil of (16 72 ), 10. Copts, 48, 152. C orneliu s, Pope, i n sq. C yprian, St., 83, 96, 112, 232. C yril o f A le x a n d ria , 156. D D eaconesses, 126 sq. D eacons, 56, 99 sqq., 223. D e A u g u stin is, 23, 111, 112, 207. D ecen tius o f E ugubium , 39 sq. D ecretum Gratiani, 41, 108. D ecretum pro A rm en is, 16, 21, 24, 25, 32, 44, 65 sq., 72, 113 sq., 116, 120, 191. D e Lu go , 64, 66. D en zin ger, 104. D iacon ate, 99 sqq., 123 sq. D ig a mi, 179 sqq. D ion ysiu s o f A le x a n d ria , 118. D irim en t impedim ents, 227 sq., 234 sqq. D isciplin e o f the secret, 11. D ispen sin g from m arriage im pedim ents, T h e C h u rch s p ow er of, 225 sqq. D ivo rce, 189 sq. D ivo rce, M osaic bill of, 185 sqq. D ollin gcr, 66, 195. D onatists, 60, 90. D rouin , 202, 206. D uran du s, 22, 26, 88, 103, 107, i n , 128. E E d ilth ryd a, 205. E g b e rt o f Y o rk , 27. E d w ard in e O rdinal, 71. E g g e r, i n . E lv ira , Council o f (about 300), 130 sq., 223, 232. E n cratites, 147. Epiphanius, St., 85, 127, 134. Episcopate, 80 sqq. Episcopus, 81 sq., 95 sq. 'EniffKonos, S ec Episcopus. E stius, 41, 65, h i , 158, 187.

C alvin , 5 , 47, 54 , 150, 174, 177Cano, M elch ior, 158, 159, 163, 164. Cantor, P eter, 109. Capreolus, 65, 162. C aram uel, 124. C arrire, 234. C arth age, F o u rth C ouncil of, 112. Casus A p ostoli, See P auline p rivilege. Catacom bs 152 sq. C athari, 5, 179. C atharin us, A m b rosiu s, 9, 190, 234. C elestin e I, 76. C clibacy, C lerical, 130 sqq. Chalcedon, C ou n cil o f (4 5 1), 61, 127. Chalons, C ou n cil o f (8 13 ), 11. C haracter, See S acram ental C haracter. C harism ata, 9 sq., 57. XeipoO ecri a, 69 sq. (S e e also Im position o f h a n d s). X e ip o T o v ia t 69 sq. (S e e also Im position o f h an d s). Chorcpiscopi, 122 sq. Chrism a, 14, 17, 40. C hrysostom , St., 12 sq., 39, 57, 59. 85, 89, 97, 103, 135, 197 sq. C iv il effects o f m arriage, 240. C iv il m arriage, 240 sq. Clan d estin e m arriages, 164 sq., 215, 230.

Clement IV , 179 sq.

Clem ent V I I I , 124. Clem ent o f A le x a n d ria , 102, 133, 176, 181, 196 sq. Clem ent o f Rom e, St., 101. Clcricatu s, 41. C ollet, 202, 234. C olluthos, 86. C ollyridians, 126. Concubine, 177. Confirm ation, 75, 92, 120. C oninck, 76. C onsecration, R ite of, 68, 119 sq. C onstantine, 232.

INDEX
E u gen e I V , 21, 65 sq., 113 sq., 120, 124, 180, 191. E u stathiu s, 85. E x tre m e U n ctio n : N am e 1 sqq. ; D efinition, 3 ; A tru e Sacram ent, 4 sqq. ; D ivin e in stitution, 5 sqq. ; M atter and form , 16 sqq. ; S acram ental effects, 24 sqq.; N ecessity, 35 sqq. ; M in ister, 38 sqq. ; R e cipient, 44 sqq. F Fabian, Pope, 108.

245

Fabius o f Antioch, i n .
F e ije , 238. F loren ce, C ou n cil o f (14 39 ), 151, 159 sq. F o rm u la o f adm in isterin g E x trem e U n ction , 21 sqq., 49 sq. F orn ication , 192 sqq. F ra n zelin , C ard., 62, 64, 81.

Free love, 189.

F u n k , 132. G G asp arri, C ard., 124. G au frid u s, 152. G elasiu s I, 121, 152, 233. G lossn er, i n . G oar, 46, 62. G onet, 65, i n , 234. G otti, 36, 66, i n . G ratia curationum , 5, 8, 9 sq., 33 . 39 . G re g o ry o f N azianzu s, St., 197.

H a llier, 66. H ealth , R estoratio n o f, as a conditional effect o f E xtre m e U n ction , 32 sqq. H e fe le , 132. H egesippus, 83. H enno, 234. H enriqu ez, 162. H e n ry o f O stia, 152. H era cla s, 118. H erm as, Shepherd of, 196. H ille l, 188. H o ltzclau , 158. H o ly Office, 18, 21, 241. H o ly O r d e rs : D efinition, 52 sq. ; A true S acram ent, 54 sq q.; D ivin e institution, 54 sq q.; M a tte r and form , 62 sqq. ; S acram ental effects, 72 sq q .; D ivisio n o f O rders, 78 sqq. ; T h e episcopate, 80 sqq. ; T h e priesthood, 94 sqq. ; T h e diaconate, 99 sqq. ; T h e subdiaconate, 106 sqq. ; F o u r m inor O rd ers, n o sqq.; T h e m in is ter, 116 sqq.; T h e recipient, 125 sqq. H u gh o f St. V ic to r, St., 7, 107,

h i.
H u gu ccio, 123. H u rte r, 163, 212. H yp od iacon ate, 109, n o , 113.

I
Ign atiu s o f A n tioch , St., 82 sq., 95, 97, 101 sq., 156. Im pedim ents, 217, 221 sqq., 234 sqq. Im position o f hands, 55 sq., 62 sqq., 105. In crease amd m ultiply, 219 sq. In d isso lu b ility of C hristian m arriage, 183 sqq. Incfcacitas consensus, 236 sq. In fan ts, Can they be valid ly o r dain ed ? 128 sq. Jnhabilitas pcrsonarum , 225, 236. Innocent I, 13 sq., 18, 39, 40, 233. Inn ocent III, 109, 178, 204, 215.

G regory o f Nyssa, St., 59, 97.

G re g o ry o f V a len tia, 65, 132, G re g o ry the G reat, n , 104, 119, 120, 131, 223. G re g o ry V I I , 130. G re g o ry X I I I , 206. G utberlet, 48, 64, 66. H H ab ert, 206.

234.

246

INDEX
L yo n s, Council o f (12 74 ), 173. M M ahaffy, 136 sq. M aldonatus, 9, 66, 187. M altzew , 45 sq. M anichieans, 147. M ark, E x trem e U n ction insinu ated in the G ospel o f St., 9 sq. M arriage, 134 sq., 140 sqq. M arsiliu s o f Padu a, 80. M artene, 62, 76, 104. Martin V , 202. M artin , 238. M ary, B. V ., 126, 142. M astrius, 162. M a trim o n y : D efinition, 140 sq q .; B lessin gs of, 143 sqq.; D ivision , 145 s q .; A true S ac ram ent, 147 sqq.; M atter and form , 164 sqq.; Sacram ental effects, 168 sq q .; Prop erties, 172 sq q .; U n ity, 172 sq q .; In dissolubility, 183 sqq.; M in is ter, 214 sqq.; Recipient, 217 sq q .; the C h u rchs control o v e r Christian m arriage, 221 sqq.; T h e C h u rch s righ t to establish dirim ent im pedi ments, 234 sqq. 'Matth. V , 35 and M atth. X I X , 9 explained, 192 sqq. M atrim onium legitim um , ration, consummatum, 184 sqq. M ayence, C ouncil o f (8 13 ), 224; (847), n . M elanchthon, 54, 174. M esolaras, 46. M etrophanes K ritop u los, 17. M ichael P alaeologus, 10 sq., 173, 180. M in or O rders, n o sqq., 120 sqq. M im icius F e lix, 176. M onogam y, 172 sqq. M ontanists, 126. M orinus, 22, 62, 107, i l l , 113, 122. M orm onism , 174.

Innocent V , 26. Inn ocent V I I I , 124. Instrum ents, D e liv e ry o f 62 sqq., 105. Interp ellatio, 211. Irenaeus, St., 83. Ischyras, 86. Isid o re o f S ev illa, 216.

J
James, E p istle o f St., 5 sqq., 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 22, 24, 29, 31 sq., 33 sq., 36 sq., 38, 39, 41 sq., 44, 45. Jansenism , 27. Jerom e, St., 59 sq., 86 sq., 97, 118, 134, 181, 233. John X , 182. John C h rysostom , St., See C hrysostom . John M an dukani, 14. John o f Jerusalem , 86. Justinian I, 131, 232. Justin M arty r, St., 196. K K ern , Jos. ( S .J .) , 23, 26 sqq., 32 , 48, 49 -

L
Lam ech, 177. Laodicea, Council of, 181. L ateran , Second C ou n cil o f the (113 9 ), 130. L au noy, 40,41, 158, 190, 229, 230. L a y Sacram ent, T h e, 215. L ea, H. C., 137, 139. Ledesm a, 66. L eh m kuh l, 206. Leopold II o f T u sca n y , 229. Leo the G reat, St., 67, 122, 131, 223. L e o X I I I , 70, 161, 202, 238, 240. Lessius, 206. L ib ellu s rcpudii, See D ivorce. Lu th er, 5, 54, 147, 150, 153, 174, 222.

INDEX
M ystery, M atrim on y 149 sqq., 159. a great,

247

P erron e, 62, 163, 207, 211, 212, 238. P esch , C hr. ( S .J .) , 62, 163, 238. P e te r L om bard, 7, 36, 74, 88, N 107, h i , 187. P etzek, J. A ., 158. N apoleon I, 240. P h ilip o f H esse, 174. N atalis A le x a n d e r, 132. P h illip s, 132. N a va rru s, 88, 166. _ Ph otius, 11. N eocaesarea, C ou n cil o f (314), P isto ia, C ou n cil of, 229. 181, 223. P iu s V , 124. N estorian s, n , 1 7 , 42, 152. P iu s V I , 160, 229, 235. N etter, T h o m as, 40. P iu s V I I , 240. N icaea, F ir s t C ou n cil o f, 128, P iu s I X , 160 sq., 188, 240. 133 , 179, M . P o lyan d ry , 172 sq. N icaea, Secon d C ou n cil o f, 01, P o lyca rp , St., 102. 121. P o lyga m y , 172 sqq. N ich o la s I, Pope, 176, 215, 224. Pope, T h e , Can dissolve an un N ich o la s I o f Constantinople, consum m ated m arriage, 201 182. sqq. N uptiae, 216. P ray e r-U n ctio n , 8 sq. N u p tial blessing, 216. H pecrfivT epos, 82 sq., 95 sq. _ N u ytz, J. N ., 158, 161. P r ie s ts part in the m arriage cerem ony, 215 sq. O Priesth oo d , 94 sqq., 122 sq. O liv e oil, 16 sq. P riscillia n ists, 147. P rob st, 132. O ptatus, St., 102. P rofessio n , Solem n religious, O rigen , 12, 39 102, 156, 197. D isso lv e s the bond o f an un O rlean s, C ou n cil o f ( 533 ) , 61. consum m ated m arriage, 203 O sw ald, 32, 33 , 45 , 62. sqq. P rop agan d a, S. C. o f, 50. P P rotestan ts : T h e ir v iew o f E x trem e U n ction , 5 s q .; 26 sq., P a lla vicin i, 191. 39; O f H o ly O rd ers, 54; O f P alm ieri, 163, 207. M atrim on y, 147 sq., 151, 190, Palu dan u s, 22, 76, 88, i l l . 192, 194, 222. P an holzel, 124. P u lle r, 51. Paphnutius, St., 133. P a rk e r, M atth ew , 71. P a trizi, 195. Q P au lin e p rivilege, 198, 201, 208 Q u asi-ch a ra cter o f M atrim ony, sqq. 170 sq. P au l, St., 56 sqq., 73 , 8 i, 88 sqq., 117, 125 sq., 127, 133, 135, 148 R sqq-, 159, ! 69 . 174, l8o, 185, 208 sqq., 219. R eordin ation , 74, 128. P a u l V , 18. R epetition o f E xtre m e U nction, P a u l V I , 7147 sq. P ela giu s II, 131. R h allis, 46. Penance, 1, 32, 48, 49, 50, 166.

248
R om an Catechism , 23, 30. Rom an R itual, 22, 23, 65, 99. R usticus o f N arbonne, 122.

INDEX

S acram en tal C h a ra cter o f H o ly O rd e rs, 72 sqq., 98; Q u asi ch aracter o f M atrim ony, 170 Sacram entum exeu ntium , 45. Sanatio in radice, 228. San ch ez, 162, 163, 166, 170 sq., 207, 218, 234. S ain te-B eu ve, 9, 32, 46. S ard agn a, 206, Sasse, i n . S chell, 37, 41, 76. Schm id, F r., 48. S ch w eiz, 62. S cotus and the Scotists, 9, 22, 31, 47, 48, 88, h i , 123, 166. Second m arriage, 179 sqq. S ep aration from bed and board, 191 sqq., 226. Serapion o f T hm u is, 11. Sham m ai, 188. Sim eon o f T hessalon ica, 17. Sim m onet, 162. Sin and its remains, 29 sqq. S iriciu s, Pope, 131. S o ciety o f Jesus, 206. Socrates, 133. S oto, D om inicus, 65, 88, 163, 187. S oto, P eter, 36, 62, 88, 234. Sozom en, 133. S tate, R igh ts o f the re ga rd in g M atrim ony, 145, 199, 218, 229 sqq., 238 sqq. Stephen, St., 100, 103, 104, 108. S u arez, 9, 27, 36, 49, 73, 166 sq., 206. S ubdiaconatc, 106 sqq., 121 sq., S u ccessive m arriages, 179 sq. S ylve ster II, 60. S ylve ster M aurus, 76. S ylviu s, 158, 187.
. .

sq-

T ab arau d, M . M ., 158. Tam etsi, 164 sq. T an n er, 162, 163. T ap p er, R u ardu s, 26, 202. T ep e, 32, 62, 163, 206. T ertu llian , 97, 102, i n , 156, 176, 181. T h ecla, St., 205. T h ein er, J. A ., 137, 158. T h eod osius the G reat, 232, 233. T h eoph ilus o f A n tioch , 175 sq. T hom as, S t .: On E xtre m e U nction, 9, 20, 26, 33, 36; O n H o ly O rd ers, 65, 67, 71, 74, 88, 89, 108, 115, 123, 128, 152, 159, 189 sq., 202, 206. T hom assin , 76. T h o m ists, 22, 162. T h u rston , H e rb ert ( S .J .) , 126, T illem on t, 132. T im oth y, 56 sqq., 73, 82, 88 sq., 117. T itu s , 82. T oled o , C ou n cil o f (653), 61. T o n er, 20. T o n su re , 114 sq. T o u rn ely , 22, 32, 36, 62, 128, 132, 158, 202, 207, 234. T raditio instrum entorum , See Instrum ents, D e live ry of. T re n t, Council o f, 6 sq., 10, 17, 18, 24, 25, 29, 31, 32 sq., 36 sq., 38, 44 sq., 47, 48, 54 sq., 64, 72, 73, 78 sq., 80 sq., 84, 90 sq., 93, 94, 97, 98, 99 sq., 105, n o , 114, 115, 116, 118, 121, 130, 134 sq., 145 sq., 147 sq., 151, 160, 163, 164 sq., 168, 169, 174, 185, 190 sq., 204, 215, 222, 226, 230, 235 sq. T ru llo , C oun cil in (692), 132, 224. U U n ity o f m arriage, 172 sqq.

137.

INDEX
U rb an II, 108, 109, 131. U rb an VIII, 213. V iVasquez, 66, 75, 103, 107, i l l , 119, 132, 162, 165 sq. V ig ila n tiu s, 134. V irg in ity , 134 sqq. V o w s , 227 sq., 232 sq. W W ald en ses, 5.

249

W e d d in g ring, 216. W iclifites, 5. W illia m o f A u x e r r e , 88. W om en , 125 sq., 232 sq. W o rm s, C ou n cil o f (868), 11. Z Z accaria, 132. Z ach ary, Pope, 224. Z ie gle r, T h ., 158. Z ig lia ra , Card., 238. Zosim us, Pope, 76.