«How Marriage Became One of the Sacraments: … to the Council of Trent»

[Geremia]

Philip Reynolds, How Marriage Became One of the Sacraments: The Sacramental Theology of Marriage from Its Medieval Origins to the Council of Trent, Cambridge Studies in Law and Christianity 6 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).



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).

[Geremia]

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

[Gardener]

Please clarify:

Why are you promoting a book which seems to call into the question of marriage as an actual Sacrament vs one made up by the Church in order to exercise more power over people?

If the latter is true, the Church is not the Church at all.

[Maximilian]

scholarly review of it by Wolfgang P. Müller

author's response

Quite fascinating.

[Geremia]

Why are you promoting a book which seems to call into the question of marriage as an actual Sacrament vs one made up by the Church in order to exercise more power over people?

The author, an Aquinas Professor of Historical Theology at Candler, notes that the Council of Trent was the first time the Church defined marriage's sacramentality as a dogma de fide (cf. 24th Session can. 1).

[Geremia]

Quite fascinating.

I've been looking for a book treating the history of marriage at Trent for quite some time. There's also

E. Christian Brugger, The Indissolubility of Marriage and the Council of Trent (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2017).

The author wrote an article entitled "Five Serious Problems with Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia," so he seems orthodox.

[Gardener]

Why are you promoting a book which seems to call into the question of marriage as an actual Sacrament vs one made up by the Church in order to exercise more power over people?

The author, an Aquinas Professor of Historical Theology at Candler, notes that the Council of Trent was the first time the Church defined marriage's sacramentality as a dogma de fide.

The author contends the Church essentially fabricated the 7 Sacraments:

From the Author Response:

It also offers a fundamental historical reconsideration of some crucial phases in the sacramental theology of marriage, such as its origins in the so-called 'School of Laon'.
...

First, when the doctrine emerged, there was nothing new about recognizing marriage as a holy estate and as a (lowly) way of participating in the life of the church. What was new was the 'decision' on the part of theologians and ecclesiastical authorities to account for the holiness of marriage by including marrying – and not the state of being married – among the seven sacraments of the church.

...

Second, the doctrine of marriage as a sacrament has to be understood in relation to the system of seven sacraments, which emerged at the same time. That system, I argue, established how, in addition to preaching, the 'people' were dependent on the mediation of the clergy for their salvation. (Neither kings nor religious were visible in this picture.) But since the ministry of priests was accidental to the sacrament of marriage, the church 'dispensed' this sacrament not by joining or blessing the spouses sacramentally but by regulating it.

...

Third, the problems and the peculiarities of marriage as one the sacraments gave rise to the recognition that marriage was a peculiarly hybrid sacrament in several respects. Whereas baptism was only a ritual washing, and eucharist only a ritual meal, Christian marriage really was marriage.

...

The real question, I submit, is why the medieval 'church' (if I may be forgiven for reifying so complicated a corporation) never ruled, as a matter of doctrine and canon law, that only marriages joined by a priest were real and valid, as the 'Greeks' had done since the sixth century. I don't doubt that scholastic theologians could have provided an adequate a priori rationale for that policy if it had been adopted. Gratian himself, drawing on Hincmar of Rheims, suggested that a marriage became irrevocable only when a priest blessed the union, although this part of his treatment was largely forgotten (C. 27 q. 2 dictum post c. 50).

...

Based on this, I think you might be getting confused as to how the author is using terminology as a good thing rather than arguing for what is essentially the defenestration of Sacramental Theology on the whole. For throwing out the notion that Christ instituted Marriage as a Sacrament, and it was created at Trent, results in nothing less than the destruction of the Teaching Church and her entire understanding of the Faith.

[Geremia]

Based on this, I think you might be getting confused as to how the author is using terminology as a good thing rather than arguing for what is essentially the defenestration of Sacramental Theology on the whole. For throwing out the notion that Christ instituted Marriage as a Sacrament, and it was created at Trent, results in nothing less than the destruction of the Teaching Church and her entire understanding of the Faith.

Who cares what his personal opinions are. His work is a history, not a dogmatic theology treatise.

[Gardener]

Based on this, I think you might be getting confused as to how the author is using terminology as a good thing rather than arguing for what is essentially the defenestration of Sacramental Theology on the whole. For throwing out the notion that Christ instituted Marriage as a Sacrament, and it was created at Trent, results in nothing less than the destruction of the Teaching Church and her entire understanding of the Faith.

Who cares what his personal opinions are. His work is a history, not a dogmatic theology treatise.

Are you dense?

[Kephapaulos]

I think as Geremia pointed out, he is looking more at the historical facts that can be ascertained from the book, but I myself also found the title disconcerting. Our Lord established Holy Matrimony as a Sacrament of the New Law from the very foundation of His Church period.

[Gardener]

I think as Geremia pointed out, he is looking more at the historical facts that can be ascertained from the book, but I myself also found the title disconcerting. Our Lord established Holy Matrimony as a Sacrament of the New Law from the very foundation of His Church period.

Historical facts and theological implications do not exist in separate vacuums; to argue such would be outright Modernism and Geremia has lambasted clerics who argue such things (such as Cdl. Muller and his statements on the Resurrection; Pope Benedict XVI in the same). The author's title, brief, and response all claim the Church fabricated at least the Sacrament of Marriage as such around the time of Trent (for the purpose of control over people), and if I'm reading him strictly, the Church manufactured the 7 Sacraments in total at that time. This is different than an understanding of declaring something de fide. The author seems to be using the dogmatic declaration of something in the same sense that Protestant detractors do: to make something up rather than mere clarification of that which always existed in truth.

I don't buy the line of these are just opinions, as if an author can be a totally removed Spock/robotic giver of mere facts. He draws theological conclusions and sourced from theologians and secular records. If this was Fr. James Martin, S.J., Cdl. Muller, etc., Geremia would be flipping his lid.

Simply put, if his thesis is correct, we are all wasting our time on here.

Go back to your "learned this at 6" catechism:

Q. "What is a Sacrament"
A. "An outward sign instituted by Christ for the purpose of conferring grace."

Q. "When did public revelation cease?"
A. "Public revelation ceased at that death of the apostle John."

---

Now, do we still wish to just wave away a Modernist position and all its implications in the theological sphere because the guy has some letters behind his name and is on the faculty at a prestigious university? If so, then I'd at least like some consistency as applied to clerics. At least they have pretty little dresses and silk yarmulkas. A professor just has a cat hair laden tweed jacket and a messy desk. Where's the aesthetic titillation in that?

[Geremia]

Based on this, I think you might be getting confused as to how the author is using terminology as a good thing rather than arguing for what is essentially the defenestration of Sacramental Theology on the whole. For throwing out the notion that Christ instituted Marriage as a Sacrament, and it was created at Trent, results in nothing less than the destruction of the Teaching Church and her entire understanding of the Faith.

Who cares what his personal opinions are. His work is a history, not a dogmatic theology treatise.

Are you dense?

There is such a thing as a natural marriage (e.g., that between the unbaptized). The Catechism of the Council of Trent describes the difference between natural and sacramental marriage, which it describes as "two points of view," in its section on the sacrament of Matrimony:

Definition Of Matrimony. Matrimony, according to the general opinion of theologians, is defined: The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life.
...
Twofold Consideration of Marriage. ... matrimony is to be considered from two points of view, either as a natural union, since it was not invented by man but instituted by nature; or as a Sacrament, the efficacy of which transcends the order of nature.

Marriage As A Natural Contract. As grace perfects nature, and as that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; afterwards that which is spiritual, the order of our matter requires that we first treat of Matrimony as a natural contract, imposing natural duties, and next consider what pertains to it as a Sacrament.
...
Marriage Considered as a Sacrament. ... Matrimony is far superior in its sacramental aspect and aims at an incomparably higher end. For as marriage, as a natural union, was instituted from the beginning to propagate the human race; so was the sacramental dignity subsequently [deinde (not simul)] conferred upon it in order that a people might be begotten and brought up for the service and worship of the true God and of Christ our Saviour.

(source)

[Geremia]

I myself also found the title disconcerting.

So did I, but I'm glad I didn't judge the content of the book based upon the title.

[Geremia]

Historical facts and theological implications do not exist in separate vacuums; to argue such would be outright Modernism and Geremia has lambasted clerics who argue such things (such as Cdl. Muller and his statements on the Resurrection; Pope Benedict XVI in the same).

Yes, they deny the historical reality of Jesus (cf. Pascendi §6: "it is inferred [by the Modernists] that God can never be the direct object of science, and that, as regards history, He must not be considered as an historical subject"), but what does that have to do marriage?

The author's title, brief, and response all claim the Church fabricated at least the Sacrament of Marriage as such around the time of Trent (for the purpose of control over people

Trent certainly did want to assert the Church's authority in matters of marriage; e.g., sess. 24, can. 11:

Canon XII.—If any one saith, that matrimonial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges: let him be anathema.

This is nothing new, and Reynolds (judging by his treatment of pre-Tridentine matrimonial canon law etc.) certainly knows it isn't, either.

), and if I'm reading him strictly, the Church manufactured the 7 Sacraments in total at that time. This is different than an understanding of declaring something de fide. The author seems to be using the dogmatic declaration of something in the same sense that Protestant detractors do: to make something up rather than mere clarification of that which always existed in truth.

So you think he's claiming that Trent's definitions on the 7 sacraments and the sacramentality of marriage are novelties?

[Geremia]

Our Lord established Holy Matrimony as a Sacrament of the New Law from the very foundation of His Church period.

Some people argue that it was a sacrament even before Christ, but would be like saying Christ instituted circumcision as a sort of pre-New Law baptism.

BEFORE CHRIST MARRIAGE HAD FALLEN FROM ITS PRIMITIVE UNITY AND INDISSOLUBILITY

It should be added that if we consider the law of nature after the fall and the Law of Moses we shall easily see that marriage had fallen from its original honor and purity. Thus under the law of nature we read of many of the ancient Patriarchs that they had several wives at the same time; while under the Law of Moses (Deut. 24:1) it was permissible, should cause exist, to repudiate one's wife by giving her a bill of divorce. Both these (concessions) have been suppressed by the law of the Gospel (Matt. 19:9), and marriage has been restored to its original state.