Comments for Marriage: Contract vs. Sacrament at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 10 out of 10 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Tue, 21 May 2013 01:09:35 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/marriage-contract-vs-sacrament.html#comment-12215 Perhaps nobody will read this comment 3 days after the article was posted. But, I would like to strongly recommend reading Sigrid Undset - particularly her "Kristin Lavransdater" trilogy. I can't imagine somebody like Undset winning the Nobel Prize for Literature nowadays. - Randall Mon, 02 Jul 2012 09:31:02 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/marriage-contract-vs-sacrament.html#comment-12200 Re: the minister of Matrimony, see #1623 of The Catechism: the spouses are the ministers. Is not The Catechism a pronouncement of the Magisterium? - Jon S. Sat, 30 Jun 2012 15:22:58 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/marriage-contract-vs-sacrament.html#comment-12199 A person's word is always sacred. - jason taylor Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:53:20 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/marriage-contract-vs-sacrament.html#comment-12197 Thank you for your reply, Dr. Kainz! Quite true that the Catholic Encyclopedia states this and much more. No argument, and it all seems quite good, convincing, and end of the story. But, it's still not a magisterial document. The question is quite complex and unpopular. Very unpopular at that. No one wants to even entertain the thought that perhaps the couple themselves are not the ministers of the Sacrament. Perhaps they are. But it doesn't coincide with the rest of Sacramental Theology. A husband cannot give his wife something (or the contrary of course) when she isn't yet his wife. As we say in French, un marriage ne peut pas boiter (a marriage cannot limp). I'm well aware that there many statements and documents pointing to the fact that the couple is the minister. Because of this, it has become to be believed and assumed to be the standard teaching of the Church. All I'm saying is that the Magisterium has not made a definitive pronouncement. The Orthodox on the contrary have done so. According to them, it's 100% clear that the priest is the minister. For us aligned with Rome... We're still waiting. - Br. David Minot OSB Sat, 30 Jun 2012 09:50:45 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/marriage-contract-vs-sacrament.html#comment-12196 @Brother David Minot, OSB: The Catholic Encyclopedia has a long article on the nature of the sacrament, but considers the following as rather indisputable: "From the earliest times this fundamental proposition has been upheld: Matrimonium facit consensus, i.e. Marriage is contracted through the mutual, expressed consent. Therein is contained implicitly the doctrine that the persons contracting marriage are themselves the agents or ministers of the sacrament. However, it has been likewise emphasized that marriage must be contracted with the blessing of the priest and the approbation of the Church, for otherwise it would be a source not of Divine grace, but of malediction. Hence it might easily be inferred that the sacerdotal blessing is the grace-giving element, or form of the sacrament, and that the priest is the minister. But this is a false conclusion." The theological differences seem to hinge on the scholastic rubric of "matter and form" of the sacraments. - Howard Kainz Sat, 30 Jun 2012 05:41:43 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/marriage-contract-vs-sacrament.html#comment-12193 If you want to know about love and marriage you would have to buy two different books. As Rodney Dangerfield put it: It's tough to stay married. My wife kisses the dog on the lips, yet she won't drink from my glass. - Grump Sat, 30 Jun 2012 04:22:35 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/marriage-contract-vs-sacrament.html#comment-12192 An excellent article, Howard! Many salient points comparing Protestantism v. Catholicism were made here. I read a survey recently that the younger the American, whatever the religious background, the more likely he/she was to accept same-sex "marriage". I am inclined to think that after forty years of ecumenism, more Catholics, and others, are now comfortable with the more flaccid Protestant view of marriage rather than the rigorous Catholic understanding of marriage as a Sacrament. Perhaps part of the problem was that American Catholics were granted more annulments than the rest of the world combined! If it were not for the Grace of God being given to a few over the last fifty years, the Church would have disappeared years ago. Every day we hear/see that It largely has. - Manfred Sat, 30 Jun 2012 04:00:32 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/marriage-contract-vs-sacrament.html#comment-12191 The English judge, Lord Stowell, put it rather well, when he said that marriage is "a religious, as well a natural and civil, contract; for it is a great mistake to suppose that because it is the one, therefore it may not likewise be the other. Heaven itself is made a party to the contract and the consent of the individuals pledged to each other is ratified and consecrated by a vow to God." - Michael Paterson-Seymour Fri, 29 Jun 2012 23:51:40 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/marriage-contract-vs-sacrament.html#comment-12189 Dear Dr. Kainz, Thank you very much for this article, especially the stress on marriage not being a mere contract. FANTASTIC! Quite true, that if marriage were really just a contract and nothing more, there shouldn't be a big fuss over the extensions which you mention. As we know, or at least should, marriage is certainly much more than a contract. There is one element in your article which I regret to point out is not completely accurate. Unfortunately in the space of this comment, it's not possible to provide a detailed reasoning. The Magisterium has not made a pronouncement on who the minister of the Sacrament of Marriage is. Is the minister the priest or the couple themselves? There is NO doctrinal answer, rather there are ONLY theological opinions. In regards to the actual practice of the Sacrament of Matrimony coupled with all the possibilities for a valid marriage, there are problems with BOTH opinions. The main issue with the couple "dispensing" the Sacrament to themselves, is that it is a general logical principle that one cannot give himself a Sacrament. The priest cannot absolve himself, cannot anoint himself. Why then is it possible for a married couple to give themselves a Sacrament? It doesn't make sense. Also, while true that the Sacramental Grace given in the Sacrament of Matrimony is conferred and received on each person, it is there because of the bond that they have; the bond is sanctified and from this sanctification grace pours out to the couple. It is clear that there is a strong tendency in the Latin Church to proclaim and assume that the couple dispenses the Sacrament to themselves. However this is NOT doctrine, but only an opinion. True, Canon Law leans in this direction. But with all due respect to Canon Law, it does not define doctrine. Itself has been written based upon doctrine. I wish it were possible to provide more information. But the comment section is certainly not the place for a doctrinal debate. - Br. David Minot OSB, STL Fri, 29 Jun 2012 21:54:09 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/marriage-contract-vs-sacrament.html#comment-12188 After reading your post, I'm reminded of Pope Pius XI's encyclical on Christian Marriage (CASTI CONNUBII). Great and very thorough defense of the sanctity of marriage on this post. - TJ Burdick Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:30:36 +0100