How Marriage Became One of the Sacraments: The Sacramental Theology of Marriage From Its Medieval Origins to the Council of Trent

Description

scholarly review of it by Wolfgang P. Müller & author's response

• §9.5.2 "Marriage outside the church" (pp. 350-356 // PDF pp. 382-388)
  • cf. §11.4.9 "The conjugal goods and marriage among unbelievers" (PDF pp. 462-3) and §16.1 "believers, unbelievers, and the bond of marriage" (PDF pp. 699-707).
• PDF pp. 820ff. are on Domingo de Soto, O.P.'s defense of the sacramentality of marriage.
• on the divine, natural, civil, and ecclesiastical laws aspects of marriage, see How Marriage Became One of the Sacraments: The Sacramental Theology of Marriage From Its Medieval Origins to the Council of Trent by Philip L. Reynolds, §16.5 "Thomas Aquinas on Marriage in Law" pp. 686-715 (PDF pp. 718-747).
• PDF pp. 747-749 for St. Thomas's views of the ends of marriage
• §15.3.3 (PDF pp. 680-683) & §15.3.5 (PDF pp. 689-693) are on St. Albert's and St. Thomas's theories, respectively, of conjugal grace.
• Regarding translations of Eph. 5:32 ("This is a great sacrament; but [autem / δὲ] I speak in Christ and in the church.") translating "δὲ" as "and" or "but", my confusion seems to be due to limitations of the English language. St. Jerome uses "autem " (which is a weak adversative conjunction or even a copulative one) instead of the stronger adversative "sed "; thus, he is not excluding human marriage from being a magnum mysterion. (I've always understood "autem " more as "implying causal connexion," as LSJ 's def. of δὲ says.)

Also, Erasmus thought that "but I speak…" is a parenthetic remark (Reynolds 2016 p. 738), but LSJ says "δὲ" can be used "to resume after an interruption or parenthesis".

See "Is δέ in Eph. 5:32 an adversative or copulative particle?"

δὲ will typically and technically be an adversative particle, not so much a conjunction (“and” would usually translate a καὶ, which is abundant through the NT because of the mnemonic function of the Semitic conjunction behind it, וְ/wav). Here in Eph 5:32, δὲ (Ara. דין, which comes from a Hebraic consonantal root embodying the basic underlying meaning of “adjudicate,” “judgement,” “mediate”), generically translated as “but,” can also be rendered in English as adverbial forms, such as: “in fact,” “all the same,” “ also” (which is consistent with St. Jerome’s choice of autem , to my view quite appropriately), “likewise.” More on this point about St. Jerome’s quite pertinent use of autem , I would echo your remark to Ruminator that “St. Jerome certainly had a reason for using autem here (instead of, say, the stronger adversative sed).” He had indeed, owing to his keen grasp of Greek and Semitic local tongues. Yes, fascinating how, to my view, elements of vernacular Western and Eastern Aramaic dialects spoken in 4th century Palestine and beyond (essentially following the usages of Second Temple period multiple and overlapping regionalisms) linguistically and syntactically influenced to some degree upon St. Jerome’s masterly (but syntactically unconventional) use of Latin.

Based on the Pĕshīṭtā version of Eph 5:32, here is how I would literally translate it in English, strictly maintaining the Aramaic original syntax into the translation (sounding like improper English):

“This Mystery great is, I also/likewise/in fact [דין] speaking am of the Messiah/Christ and of His Church.”

Now, check out St. Jerome’s Vulgate text afresh:

Sacramentum hoc magnum est ego autem dico in Christo et in ecclesia.

The reason it may appear (if we just keep translating δὲ as “but”) that it suddenly “seems to exclude that St. Paul is speaking of marriage being a great sacrament,” pertains to what a true sym-bol (σύμ-βολη) by nature is and implies. The Apostle does really speak of marriage, precisely insofar as it is a mysterion /sacrament, implying thereby that the sign (= the visible earthly side of the σύμ-βολη = the indissoluble marriage between a man and a woman) really signifies the other (= the invisible heavenly side of the σύμ-βολη = Christ’s ultimate relationship with His Mystical Bride, the Church).

(I ❤️ Latin's inclusive/exclusive disjunction/conjunction distinctions, too, which English also doesn't have.)

There's also the possibility that St. Paul's δὲ is adversative because he is distinguishing between sacramental and natural marriages (insight courtesy "Pascal'sWager"); Peter Lombard held this view (cf. §11.4.9 mentioned in the first bullet point above).

PDF pp. 94ff. are on "1.7.3 Ephesians 5:22–33 and its reception", in which it is shown that that verse was originally used to show not that St. Paul is not comparing Christ's union with His Spouse the Church to human marriage but to the union between two virgins. (1 Cor. 7:14 seems to be a better proof that matrimony confers grace, but I haven't seen theologians using that verse to prove it's a sacrament.)

PDF p. 598 has an interesting quote from Alexander Hales's Quæstiones disputatæ ‘antequam esset frater’, Quæstio disputata 57 [de matrimonio], disp. 1, m. 1, §9 (1099) on how virginal marriages are superior to consummated ones.
Also, Pohle ref:4.1056, on how unconsummated marriages signify Christ's union with the Church, and consummation signifies Incarnation, a view seems to have Hales held, too; Reynolds ibid. mentions this twofold signification of marriage: "The mutual consent of wills (consensus animorum) signifies the joining or conformity in charity [or per gratiam], whereas sexual union signifies conformity in nature, that is, the union of divine and human natures in Christ [the Incarnation, which proves marriage's indissolubility]."

Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Suppl. , qu. 61, art. 2, ad 1: “Matrimonium ante carnalem copulam significat illam coniunctionem, quae est Christi ad animam per gratiam, … sed post carnalem copulam significat coniunctionem Christi ad Ecclesiam quantum ad assumptionem humanae naturae in unitatem personae, quae omnino est indivisibilis.” —For a fuller development of the doctrine set forth in our thesis see Palmieri, De Matrimonio Christ., thes. 24 [PDF pp. 230-32].

Among the contributions of the medieval church to western culture was the idea that marriage was one of the seven sacraments, which defined the role of married folk in the church. Although it had ancient roots, this new way of regarding marriage raised many problems, to which scholastic theologians applied all their ingenuity. By the late Middle Ages, the doctrine was fully established in Christian thought and practice but not yet as dogma. In the sixteenth century, with the entire Catholic teaching on marriage and celibacy and its associated law and jurisdiction under attack by the Protestant reformers, the Council of Trent defined the doctrine as a dogma of faith for the first time but made major changes to it. Rather than focusing on a particular aspect of intellectual and institutional developments, this book examines them in depth and in detail from their ancient precedents to the Council of Trent.

**

Book Description

An indispensable guide to how marriage acquired the status of a sacrament. This book analyzes in detail how medieval theologians explained the place of matrimony in the church and her law, and how the bitter debates of the sixteenth century elevated the doctrine to a dogma of the Catholic faith.

About the Author

Philip Reynolds has taught at Emory University, Atlanta since 1992, where he is Aquinas Professor of Historical Theology. He is also a senior fellow of Emory's Center for the Study of Law and Religion (CSLR), and he directed CSLR's five-year project on The Pursuit of Happiness (2006-11).