The Sacrament of Marriage - a Brief Historical Overview – Part IV

Marriage as a sacrament

The 11th, 12th and 13th centuries are the scene of various attempts to clearly explain the sacramentality of marriage. The first element that helped with this was the matrimonial liturgy. As we have already seen, the liturgy of the wedding blessing took shape from the 4th to the 11th century. And just by looking at this liturgy we can see that the Church became aware of the unique religious nature of marriage and its sacramentality. Reflections on virginity for the Kingdom of God also helped. These two themes: marriage and virginity were very often combined in the scholastic reflection.

When in the eleventh and twelfth centuries began to reflect more deeply on the reality of marriage, canonists and theologians drew attention to one word taken from the liturgy: the sacrament of Christ and the Church. Their reflection was also supported by two new factors. The first was the re-influence of certain ideas of St. Augustine. In the case of marriage and the sacrament, the concept of sacramentum-signum - a sign of sacred realities or events was recalled. From that moment on, marriage began to be treated as a sacrament as well. The second factor was the heresies that developed during this period. Manichean tendencies, Catharism, and Albigenses regarded marriage as a radical evil. Faced with these ideas, the Church was bound to intervene. The Second Lateran Council (04/17/1139) condemned these views. All this created a very good atmosphere to deepen the view on the very reality of marriage. The sanctity and goodness of married life were emphasized. The theory of the sacramentum - sacred sign was very useful in defending married life. Thus, marriage – sacrament contained in its nature some reference to the relationship of Christ with the Church. However, the theologians could not agree to explain this reference. Discussions on this subject continued until the thirteenth century.

In the beginning, it was thought about the necessity of priestly blessing, that it gives marriage the value of a sacrament. This view that sacramentality depends on priestly blessing collapsed very quickly, although during the Council of Trent some theologians defended this thesis. The cause of its downfall was the theory of matrimonial consent. As we have already seen, the Church has discovered that the nature of marriage depends on the conjugal consent and therefore the sacramentality must be intrinsically connected with marriage and have some connection with the consent and with the matrimonial act. From the twelfth and thirteenth centuries this opinion was widely accepted, although there was a long discussion about the relationship between the marriage consent and the matrimonial act from the point of view of the sacrament. Does the sacramentality of marriage exist from the moment of consent or from the sexual completion of the marriage? This question was basic.

For many theologians, only the union of hearts (consent) and bodies (sexual intimacy) could fully symbolize the mystery of Christ's relationship with the Church. This is what Anselm of Laon (+1117) says for example. Others were against it. Abelard, referring to the virginal union of Mary with Joseph, makes everything dependent on consent, on a spiritual union - only this can symbolize the union of Christ with the Church. The same view is expressed by Hugo of St. Victor, who created the theological synthesis of marriage by writing the first treatise on the subject. The one who reconciled both views was Peter Lombard. According to him, we can distinguish between two aspects of marriage: a spiritual community of love and a bodily union. These two aspects complement each other. A division also appeared here, which later became known as marriage in fieri and marriage in facto esse. Marriage as such arises when consent is given (in fieri), but the fulfillment of this sacrament is inseparable from everyday life, including the sexual act (in facto esse). Unity and fidelity are the hallmarks of marriage. The first and fundamental mission of marriage is matrimonial reciprocity, down to the smallest details of everyday life (Hugo from St. Victor). Bodily union is the outward expression of Christ's union with the Church. Consent and the bodily act are characteristic of marriage and therefore sacramental. However, bodily union is not a constitutive element of marriage as such. Although it is the external expression of a sacrament, the sacrament as such arises through the expression of mutual consent.

In our analysis, we concluded that medieval theology recognized that marriage was a symbol of the mystery of Christ and of the Church; that it is a sacrament. So far, however, we have not come to recognize in marriage sacramentality in the strict sense, i.e., that this sacrament is not only a sacred sign, but also a source of salvation, an effective sign of grace. There were several reasons why at first the salvific effectiveness of marriage was not recognized, although it was considered a sacrament. Canonists, fighting against simony, found it extremely difficult to acknowledge that marriage, surrounded by a range of dowry and financial interests between families, could be an effective sign of grace. Theologians had other difficulties: grace depends on God, and in marriage mutual consent depends on people. On the other hand, how can marriage, then understood as a means against lust, be a sacramental source of grace? As a sacrament, marriage was only a medicine for those who cannot live in chastity; from the point of view of grace, it had only negative significance.

In the first half of the thirteenth century, this problem was finally resolved. Between 1220 and 1245, especially in Paris, all the work to date on marriage is synthesized and some matters are clarified. At this time, the negative formula of marriage is also transformed as a means of lustfulness into a positive meaning as a source of salvation and as an effective sign of grace.

William of Auxerre (+1237) take the first step. Marriage, he says, does not grant additional grace, but, as a means against evil, preserves God's grace in us. William of Auvergne (+1249) is one of the first to speak of an increase in grace, but it does not depend itself on the reality of marriage, but from the matrimonial liturgy presided over by a priest. Alexander of Hales (+1245) was the one who most profoundly explained the efficacy of the grace of the sacrament of marriage, although he was not the first to speak of it. According to him, marriage must be a source of grace because it is the fundamental characteristic of the sacraments, including marriage. This grace is the fruit of marriage itself and is not dependent on priestly blessing.

The deliberations that led to the full recognition of the sacramentality of marriage ended with St. Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Albert the Great (+1280) analyzing the problem, encountered three opinions: some said that marriage is not a source of grace, others that it preserves grace, and finally the last group that marriage is a source of grace in a positive sense. He does not express his opinion on which of these options he advocates, but from his work it can be concluded that he was inclined towards the third thesis. St. Thomas agrees with this. Blessed Duns Scotus, made a conclusion about the ministers of the sacrament of marriage. These ministers are the spouses themselves, not the priest. St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Albert the Great, Bl. Duns Scotus end the theological evolution of the subject of marriage.

Until Tomorrow

fr. george