www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ministers of Matrimony

Relative to the actual statement under consideration



those passages are somewhat oblique not explicit. But as I said I'll grant you the context. Also, what is meant by "official"?

So, what do you say of this:

Any sacramental marriage requires both the mutual consent of the believing, validly baptized (Christian) male and female partners (one each), no diriment impediment obtaining and God's blessing imparted through the ministry of the Church.

Also, the lack of faith of the minister does not invalidate the other sacraments; does it do so here in the case of marriage?

"Scholastic, metaphysical categories -- essence, form, matter, the Platonic horse -- are useful but they can be taken too far (as in some forms of neo-scholasticism)."

Just as in the other sacraments certain things are essential to the sacrament, and if they are omitted there is no sacrament, while certain things belong to the solemnization of the sacrament, and if these be omitted the sacrament is nevertheless validly performed, although it is a sin to omit them; so, too, consent expressed in words of the present between persons lawfully qualified to contract makes a marriage, because these two conditions are essential to the sacrament; while all else belongs to the solemnization of the sacrament, as being done in order that the marriage may be more fittingly performed. Hence if these be omitted it is a true marriage, although the contracting parties sin, unless they have a lawful motive for being excused.

Reply to Objection 2. In penance our act, although essential to the sacrament, does not suffice for producing the proximate effect of the sacrament, namely forgiveness of sins, and consequently it is necessary that the act of the priest intervene in order that the sacrament be perfected. But in matrimony our acts are the sufficient cause for the production of the proximate effect, which is the marriage bond, because whoever has the right to dispose of himself can bind himself to another. Consequently the priest's blessing is not required for matrimony as being essential to the sacrament.
(S.T. Supplement, Q. 45, A. 5)


Catholic Encyclopedia:

As it is certain, therefore, ***from the point of view of the Church* that marriage as a sacrament is fulfilled only through the mutual consent of the contracting parties, it is a matter of secondary consideration, how and in what sense the matter and form of this sacrament are to be taken.


Who dispenses the sacraments? Who is the ultimate minister of every sacrament?

You still don't address what you meant by EENS.

For baptism, the priest (although this is not exclusive to him).
For Confirmation, the bishop, unless relegated to the priest.
For the Holy Eucharist, the priest.
For penance, the priest.
For Holy Orders, the bishop
For Marriage, the couple themselves.
For Extreme Unction, the priest.


"What is the role of the Catholic Church in this sacramental marriage?"

To be a witness to the marriage, as well as to impart God's blessing.


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.

"The opinion of Canus finds but little support in the expressions of the Fathers or in papal letters, which state that marriage without the priest is declared unholy, wicked, or sacrilegious, that it does not bring the grace of God but provokes His wrath. This is nothing more than what the Council of Trent says in the chapter "Tametsi" (XXIV, i, de ref. Matr.), namely, that "the Holy Church of God has always detested and forbidden clandestine marriages". Such statements do not deny the sacramental character of marriage so contracted; but they do condemn as sacrilegious that reception of the sacrament which indeed lays open the source of grace, yet places an obstacle in the way of the sacrament's efficacy."

For the case where the blessing is "made a necessary condition" it cannot be said as does Pohle-Preuss "that the Sacrament of Matrimony is effected *solely* by the mutual consent of the contracting parties.

What about Christ and the Church?


Just to be sure of your answer, here is the question again in context:

This = "the common law marriage of..." Also, if you could answer the first question of the two.

I have not said otherwise. Nor do those words exclude the agency of others also.

Just a thought: Consider a less drastic case. Two baptized, religious, informed Lutherans get married before their pastor and witnesses, a sacramental marriage, a sacrament, and confessing as Lutherans the belief that marriage is not a sacrament, even actively denying that it is so.

1.) A common law marriage between Christians did NOT entail "consent expressed in words of the present." Is it a Sacrament?

2.) Since "these two conditions are essential to the sacrament; while all else belongs to the solemnization of the sacrament" then common law marriages of Catholics with "consent expressed in words of the present between persons lawfully qualified to contract makes a marriage." It is what is essential because "ALL else belongs to the solemnization of the sacrament."

From "The Theology of Marriage," by Msgr. Cormac Burke (a member of the Rota, the Marriage Tribunal of the Holy See in Rome)

One striking difference between matrimony and other sacraments should be noted. In other sacraments (apart from infant baptism), a specific sacramental intention is needed for their reception. In matrimony, the intention of receiving the sacrament is not required; it is enough if one intends the natural reality. Not even a religious intention is needed -- rather, simply the intention to marry. If this is the parties' intention, both being in Christ [that is, baptized], they receive what they intended, raised (perhaps without their realizing it) to the sacramental and supernatural level, enriched and transformed by grace. What is needed is not a sacramental intention -- not even implicitly -- but a matrimonial intention. Regarding marriage itself, then, the parties must have full personal intention to marry; regarding sacramentality, no further intention is required of them.

pg. 11


From this we can conclude that one does not have to desire to receive the sacrament itself, for the marriage to be sacramental. All that is needed is for both parties to be validly baptized, and have the minimum intention of seeking to contract the natural reality of marriage.

Opinion One.





Opinion Two


So is "consent expressed in words of the present" necessary as in Opinion One above? See question 1.) above also.

Yes, it would be necessary. However, it doesn't have to necessarily be expressed verbally; it could well be done by letter. In fact, the partner doesn't even have to be physically present. All that is needed is the consent expressed in words of the present, as opposed to the future.

Then, as requested again:

What is the answer to the question, 1.); comment on the statement 2.).

So to this must be added that the minimum intent must be in the form of "consent expressed in words of the present" either verbally or in writing. Do those words meed any witnessing beyond the participation of the spouses?


Also, from before, they must be "believing Christians."

As stated, Msgr. Cormac Burke's unqualified appraisal would also apply to two believing Catholic spouses.

"Do those words meed any witnessing beyond the participation of the spouses?"

If you actually read his book, you'll find an answer to all of your questions.


"Also, from before, they must be "believing Christians.""

No, they don't have to be believing Christians to confer the sacrament. They simply have to be baptized. I was mistaken in my previous assessment.


"As stated, Msgr. Cormac Burke's unqualified appraisal would also apply to two believing Catholic spouses."

Msgr. Burke is most certainly qualified to give an appraisal on Catholic theology; especially canon law. In fact, he served 13 years on the Roman Rota as an “auditor” (essentially, a judge), retiring in 1999. https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2006/05/25/msgr-cormac-burkes-canon-law-website/

Anyhow, I fail to understand exactly what you're trying to get across.

Now what kind of an answer is that?

The dynamic of this forum and this discussion is to present relevant arguments, here and explicitly. "read his book" is not a relevant argument but a dismissal. Having presented a reference it is incumbent on you to interpret it -- or not if you simply choose to decline -- as required.

Read the quote, "Msgr. Cormac Burke's unqualified appraisal." He says "both being in Christ [that is, baptized]." In the excerpt he does not distinguish or differentiate Catholic and non-Catholic. As presented his appraisal applies to all marriages between baptized spouses.

Consequently, "(a)s stated, Msgr. Cormac Burke's unqualified appraisal would also apply to two believing Catholic spouses."

I am not here to spoon feed you answers. I have better things to do. But to answer your question: Theologically speaking, no. Witnesses are not required or even essential to the sacrament of matrimony.