Matrimony

[Philip G.]

Let us entertain another scenario regarding matrimony.  Let us pretend that woman is the matter.  On its face, it seems potentially reasonable.  But, I will explain how it is problematic, leaving the priest as the only one who qualifies as the singular significant physical substance/the matter.  I say singular, because just as in the mass, validity is dependent on four things which are separate and separated by identifiable moments, yet it is one solemn heavenly moment.  It is no different in matrimony.  Therefore, once the matrimonial rite has begun, I am not going to consider the man to be his own, and the woman to be her own.  It is a solemn moment.  It is not an exact science. 

Moving on, woman with child, is a quasi sacred character.  Think of the virgin mary with Christ in her womb.  That is a pretty powerful figure.  God has mercy on the widow and the fatherless.  This is enduring.  And, it presents a powerful incentive towards honesty on the part of the man to be, you would think.  However, and this is the problem, as marriage is a sacrament for the many as well(not just the Virgin Mary with St. Joseph)it would imply that consummation(and according to the modern erroneous "matter", cohabitation) comes before sanction, which is wrong.  That turns that aspect of matrimony on its head.  It cannot therefore possibly be.  Matrimony, elevated to a sacrament by Christ at the wedding feast of Cana, cannot confuse woman with the judge.  It is a temptation to hold it as such, and it is not new.  I forget where I read this, but I believe there were condemned "errors" that held that a pregnant woman is an invalidating factor in matrimony.  For it to be a condemned error implies that many people held this false belief. 

The husband certainly doesn't satisfy the matter.  The man traditionally gets down on one knee to ask the woman for her hand in marriage.  She is the one who says yes.  As a result of the emotion and significance of the moment, neither spouse can truly be a sober judge of consent.  It only leaves us with the priest/singular and outside the church the theoretical "witness" singular.

I really have no doubt about this.  Consider matter, form, and intention across the board of all of the sacraments.  And, then, play that nursery song.  "Which one of these is not like the other ones, which one of these doesn't belong".  It is obvious that the church's current definition of matrimonial matter is "not like the other ones", and therefore "doesn't belong". 

Matter is a physical substance/creature.  Desire, to live together and consummate, as the modernists state, is not a creature.  It is not the matter.   

[Michael Wilson]

PhilG.

Michael Wilson - If I wanted to dialogue with sedevacantists, I would not be a member of this forum.  I am as much opposed to your orientation as I am that of Pope Francis.  You can cite your popes and your probabil(ior)ists all you want, it wont become coherent or convincing.  At this point, I wager that those I am interested in are more primed for a reasonable argument than a syllogistic appeal to authority. 

For somebody who claims that they don't want to dialogue with a sed, you are doing quite a good job of dialoguing with a sed.
re. "Citing Popes & other Church authorities"; You want to have a discussion about the "Matter" of a sacrament, but you don't want to listen to the teaching of the Popes or Church authorities on the subject? Very curious attitude. For this matter has already been decided on by the Church; therefore our duty as Catholics is to give our assent to said teaching.

[Michael Wilson]

PhilG.

You look so bad on this point.  That an involuntary interrupted consecration is valid is based on the opinion that consecration outside of mass is valid(you know, consecrate all the bread in the bakery), which is not a doctrine of the church.  Despite disagreement on a single particular, Canon Hesse discusses this very thing.  And, I am free to dissent because as Fr. Hesse concludes, consecration outside of mass is not church teaching.  That is not to say that an interrupted consecration is invalid.  It is doubtful.  That is the teaching of the church.  It is therefore treated as invalid in the practical order(I prefer +Kelly to +Thuc).  Apply that "properly" to our discussion, which discusses consecration "outside of mass" as a result of its lack of completion, and you cannot conclude that transubstantiation occurs as it does under normal circumstances.  The circumstances have changed.  It is pathetic for you to claim the higher ground when you fail to even acknowledge the principles at play.

1. No it isn't; its based on the effect of the words of Consecration: "This is my Body"; which cause the effect that they signify the moment they are spoken; the same as in the other sacramental forms. Per the teaching of the Church.
2. I agree  with the opinion that a Consecration outside of Mass is "doubtful"; but this is irrelevant to the case of an involuntarily interrupted Mass. Also totally irrelevant to the case of a mute person expressing consent to the marriage vows.

[Michael Wilson]

PhilG.

My "opinion" is not "worthless".  "Your opinion" may be, as you yourself state.  But, that is from your mouth.  Don't speak for me.

Yes, in determining what the true "matter" of a sacrament is, your opinion is worthless; it is the teaching of the Church that matters. Bring authoritative evidence forward; which in this case you cannot;  or retract your error.

[Michael Wilson]

PhilG,
I'm terribly sorry, but your whole discussion on the "matter" on #30; it doesn't add up to anything. Its poetic and interesting, but it holds no evidentiary or theological weight.

[Philip G.]

Michael Wilson - I have gone out on this limb, because I believe it is increasingly obvious that the matter of matrimony cannot be as the modernists state, which is "desire to consummate and cohabitate after the sanction".  That leaves us with "two consenting adults" as a "moral authority"(which is absurd), the woman(which I have successfully argued cannot be), or the priest as the matter(which I argue).  Any honest catholic with a sufficient amount of sensus will agree.  I believe in honest catholics(not jesuit casuists), and I believe many of them are members of and or view this forum.  And, like +Lefebvre, who refused to simply point out errors without simultaneously providing a solution/correction, I do the same.  If I simply pointed out the absurdity of this so as to increase doubt without at the very least trying to offer the correct answer/solution, I would be nothing more than "an accuser", which is satan.

The difference between you, a sedevacantist, and I, a sedeplenist, is that you don't accuse.  You invalidate.  One of the worst theological titles I can think of can be levied against you, and that is usurper.  But, I do not say it, out of charity to this forum, its moderator, and the memory of Fr. Fahey.  But, I will say that I am not the usurper in this conversation.  I am basing my opinion off of scripture and tradition, and in conformity with both.  The pope is not "tradition", and the probabil(ior)ists who seek to replace the fathers of the church, who in a very real way gave us scripture(st. jerome), flooding our literature with errors(to the right and to the left) do not constitute "scripture". 



 

[Philip G.]

There are two problems I can initially see with believing that the subjective concept "desire" to cohabitate and consummate is the matter. 

One, in relation to cohabitation, it basically implies that poor people shouldn't get married.  There is a reason the dowry traditionally is money.  The dowry is not a cozy house with all the necessities. 

Two, in relation to consummation, it implies that if you don't "do it" on the honeymoon, or very shortly there after, there is something wrong with the marriage/you are not called to marriage.  Likewise, if you are not wealthy enough to have a big wedding/vacation at the time of where there are a multitude of intoxicating reasons to "do it", there is something wrong with your marriage/ you are not called to marriage".   

I suspect the other two related yet veiled problems tied to the modernists definition of matter might be related to location and the power of language.  I say this because, in some eastern orthodox traditions, divorce is dependent on the spouses going back to the exact location the vows were said, and "unsaying" them.   Of course, this is superstition, and it doesn't undo a marriage.  Unless perhaps the marriage was invalid from the start as a result of precisely all of these potentially invalidating factors I cite. 

[christulsa]

Can you show from Scripture or Tradition that the matter is the priest, and not what the Popes, St Thomas, Denzinger, the old Catholic encyclopedia, etc teach?  ie the Intention to live together and consummate as indicated by the Consent when taking the vow.   I'm not seeing it as a de fide dogma but more a well established lower level doctrine that still requires our assent under pain of sin.  It can be debated as to the meaning or need for clarification, but not as an "open question" where the centuries old doctrine is argued to be false.

Consider all the Japanese Catholics who practiced their Faith for centuries without Priests.  Their baptisms were valid because when a priest is not available anyone can validly baptize as long as they have the intention of the Church.  Were all those thousands of Japanese Catholic marriages invalid because they had no sacramental Priest?   The Church teaches no, because like baptism the Priest is not absolutely essential to affect the Sacrament of Matrimony.  The same has always applied in those parts of the world where Catholics rarely have access to a Priest, yet for many reasons there is a need and right to marry. 

[christulsa]

Form and matter in Catholic sacramental theology come from Catholic philosophy.  In philosophy, form and matter can be related to each other in different ways.  For example, a tree's form is its natural essence signified by the overall visual, outward organization of the tree, its "treeness" whereas all the biological parts that make up a tree are its matter.  Both are joined together very closely, where the form and matter are bound up as one nature.  Applied to matrimony, the outward form is the verbal or written contract or vow to marry which signifies the essence of marriage--lifelong commitment to fidelity, living together, the marriage debt.  And joined very closely to the form is the inward consent of each person to what is promised in the outward vow.

If we are going to rely on the Church's use of scholastic concepts like form and matter, there is another related concept that could help explain how form/matter interact in the sacrament of matrimony: actualization vs. potency.  St. Thomas often drew on the analogy that:  form is to matter, as act is to potency.  Every act is first in potency, in the way that every form first comes from a material cause (which doesn't have to be explicitly corporeal; example: a triangle in the abstract is composed of 3 parts or sides).  First you have to conceptualize the act, plan it out, commit to doing it (all up to this point = potency), and finally do the act itself (actualization).  The essential parts (matter) of an act have to come together to actualize the person.  The taking of the marriage vow is like that.  It is an actualization of the intention to marry, in the very vow itself.  At the moment both have taken their vow, their desire or intention to marry (matter) as simultaneously proclaimed in the vow (form) becomes actualized into a valid sacramental marriage.

[Michael Wilson]

PhilG.
Thank you so much for your responses; you have given me much to mull over; I'm through with this topic; Chris is doing a much better job engaging with you.
Mike

[Philip G.]

Can you show from Scripture or Tradition that the matter is the priest, and not what the Popes, St Thomas, Denzinger, the old Catholic encyclopedia, etc teach?  ie the Intention to live together and consummate as indicated by the Consent when taking the vow.   I'm not seeing it as a de fide dogma but more a well established lower level doctrine that still requires our assent under pain of sin.  It can be debated as to the meaning or need for clarification, but not as an "open question" where the centuries old doctrine is argued to be false.

Consider all the Japanese Catholics who practiced their Faith for centuries without Priests.  Their baptisms were valid because when a priest is not available anyone can validly baptize as long as they have the intention of the Church.  Were all those thousands of Japanese Catholic marriages invalid because they had no sacramental Priest?   The Church teaches no, because like baptism the Priest is not absolutely essential to affect the Sacrament of Matrimony.  The same has always applied in those parts of the world where Catholics rarely have access to a Priest, yet for many reasons there is a need and right to marry.

Matter is not form, and form is not matter, and intention is not matter or form.  Matter is the matter, form is the form, and intention is the intention.  The matter as you state cannot be "the intention".  The modernists say that "matter" is the "desire" to do these things.  Can you put your finger on desire?  No.  It is not a "button" you can press.  Can you put your finger on the matter of the other sacraments?  Yes. 

The difference between your example of japanese matrimony and catholic baptism is that a person cannot baptize them self.  They still need a singular person, even a heretic is sufficient so long as said heretic has the correct intention, to conduct the baptism.  The difference between that and the current modernist definition of matrimony, is that they state that the consent alone is sufficient.  To translate that into baptismal language, that would mean that a person can personally baptize them self.  And, that is not valid, or every intended/taught by the church.  So, your example is irrelevant concerning the particulars of this discussion. 

[Philip G.]

Let us pretend that the kiss is the matter of the sacrament of matrimony.  It is a significant moment.  You could put your finger on it theoretically.  My argument against it would be that there is a condemned error, which basically said something like(vague memory reference) that a woman's kiss has a singular nature, and that nature is sinful."  Basically that a woman's kiss is passionate, and therefore sinful outside of matrimony.  It goes something like that.  And, that was condemned as an error.  Meaning not all kisses are, within the context of this discussion, representative of "desire".  Because, a romantic kiss can certainly be representative or illustrative of "desire".  And, from what I have seen, the kiss of the man and the woman at that moment when say "you may kiss the bride" is not a desire/passionate type of kiss.  It is more a ceremonial type of kiss.  So, I would not conclude that the kiss is "the desire"/"the matter" of the sacrament.  You cannot judge much from it.  Most women I would argue tend to exude more desire the moment they see that rock on their finger.  And, the rock on the finger is not the matter, as shown by Michael Wilson and the bulgarian reference. 

Bishop fulton sheen would say "it takes three to get married".  That is all I am saying.  Except, I am saying for all matrimony.  Not just matrimony in catholic church buildings.  It takes three. 

[Philip G.]

Form and matter in Catholic sacramental theology come from Catholic philosophy.  In philosophy, form and matter can be related to each other in different ways.  For example, a tree's form is its natural essence signified by the overall visual, outward organization of the tree, its "treeness" whereas all the biological parts that make up a tree are its matter.  Both are joined together very closely, where the form and matter are bound up as one nature.  Applied to matrimony, the outward form is the verbal or written contract or vow to marry which signifies the essence of marriage--lifelong commitment to fidelity, living together, the marriage debt.  And joined very closely to the form is the inward consent of each person to what is promised in the outward vow.

If we are going to rely on the Church's use of scholastic concepts like form and matter, there is another related concept that could help explain how form/matter interact in the sacrament of matrimony: actualization vs. potency.  St. Thomas often drew on the analogy that:  form is to matter, as act is to potency.  Every act is first in potency, in the way that every form first comes from a material cause (which doesn't have to be explicitly corporeal; example: a triangle in the abstract is composed of 3 parts or sides).  First you have to conceptualize the act, plan it out, commit to doing it (all up to this point = potency), and finally do the act itself (actualization).  The essential parts (matter) of an act have to come together to actualize the person.  The taking of the marriage vow is like that.  It is an actualization of the intention to marry, in the very vow itself.  At the moment both have taken their vow, their desire or intention to marry (matter) as simultaneously proclaimed in the vow (form) becomes actualized into a valid sacramental marriage.

Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace.  A tree is not an outward sign of inward grace.  If I went off on a tangent like that, I would have been mocked for doing so.  I have stuck with the other sacraments as my foundation in comparison. 

[christulsa]

1.  You can't baptize yourself, but without a priest for a long period of time, you can marry before witnesses as they did in Japan.  That the couple are in fact the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony is in fact de fide.  Rejecting that is heresy, which would place you outside of the Catholic Church.

2.  Matrimony is the only sacrament whose form and matter coincide in the sacramental ceremony.  This is Church teaching which you reject.  In the vow is in fact an outward sign of not only the form (the contract) but the intent expressed explicitly in visible or audible terms.

3.  You do not understand scholastic terms like form and matter, applied to the sacraments.  What you are essentially doing is privately judging the Magisterium, not to mention scholastic theology based on your private opinions/ignorance of the meaning of terms. 

4. And yet you still fail to back up your heretical error from Scripture and Tradition that the matter (expressed intention) is not expressed in the outward vow, or that the Priest (or woman, or kiss, or whatever you fancy) is the actual matter of Matrimony.

Therefore, your argument falls flat on its face as heretical, ignorant, and poorly formed.  It is a danger to your soul and everyone who would listen to such foolishness. 

[Non Nobis]

...

Bishop fulton sheen would say "it takes three to get married".  That is all I am saying.  Except, I am saying for all matrimony.  Not just matrimony in catholic church buildings.  It takes three.

The third is God.

"It takes three to make love; not two: you, your spouse, and God. Without God people only suceed in bringing out the worst in one another. Lovers who have nothing else to do but love each other soon find there is nothing else. Without a central loyalty life in unfinished." ~Fulton J. Sheen