MR. MACGREGOR ON THE SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE

New Zealand Tablet, 14 July 1921, Page 37

MR. MACGREGOR ON THE SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE

The following additional letter from Father Lynch appeared in the Otago/ Daily Times of the 6th inst.: To the Editor. Sir, —The matrimonial contract between baptised persons is a sacrament of the new law. This proposition can be proved dogmatically for Catholics only, who admit the infallibility of the church, and historically for non-Catholics and all who reject this infallibility. 1. Dogmatic Proof. —(a) The Council of Trent, session 24, canon 1, defined as of faith that matrimony is a sacrament instituted by Christ, The Church had already laid down the same doctrine in the Council of Verona in 1184, in the second Council of Lyons, 1274, and in the Council of Florence, 1439, at which the Greeks were present and subscribed to the professions of faith drawn up. (b) This proposition is also proved by the unanimous and explicit belief of, the Catholic Church from the thirteenth century at least. No one can deny that since the thirteenth century the doctrine of the sacramental character of matrimony has been in peaceful possession, and that both the doctors and the schools have held it explicitly as a doctrine of faith. We have proof of this in the councils and professions of faith referred to above, no less than in the unanimity of scholastic theologians from the time of Peter Lombard to Thomas of Aquin. But everyone knows that, according to Catholic principles, the belief of the church constitutes an incontrovertible criterion of Apostolic tradition as often as it is universal, and bears on a point considered as belonging to the deposit of faith. Historic Proof. —(a) Indirectly, by argument from prescription : It is a well-known fact that the separated Oriental Churchesthat is to say, the Orthodox Greeks, the Coptic, the Armenian, and Nestorian—regard marriage as a sacrament. This is clear from the writings and formulas of faith. This fact affords an argument from prescription in favor of Apostolic tradition by the following course of reasoning:—The doctrine that the Greek schismatics and other sects mentioned above hold to-day was held by them at the time of the schism when they separated from the Catholic Church. For once the separation was effected it is not conceivable that sects, differing from one another in belief, language, rites, and customs, and all at variance with the Latin Church, could severally have introduced this particular doctrine. Still less conceivable is it that they should have accepted it unanimously from the Latin Church after the separation. We must therefore go back to the year 869, A.D., for the Orthodox Greeks, and to the fifth century for the rest. Whence we may ell conclude that in the fifth century the doctrine of the sacramental character of matrimony was held by the church in the East and West. On no other supposition can the belief of the schismatics in the sacramental character of matrimony be explained. (b) Directly: This proposition is proved by evidence and writings that go back to the Apostolic Age. We must not expect to find in the early waitings of the fathers and doctors of the church that explicit and clearly defined assertion of the sacramental character of matrimony which appears in the pages of later theologians when they declare it to be an efficacious sign of grace. The idea of a sacrament in general was developed only by degrees in the church, especially as in the early ages it as not customary to treat the sacraments methodically and systematically as at the present day. No attempt was made to formulate a generic idea of a sacrament that might afterwards be applied to each in particular, but from the beginning a sacrament is proposed to the faithful as a sacred sign, as the sign of something holy. Thus implicitly the doctrine is there all the time. 1 The writing of the fathers, as well as those of other ecclesiastical writers, even the most ancient, not only speak of marriage as a sacrament, but also insist on its holiness, on the special blessing that Christ has bestowed on it, on the necessity of contracting it in a holy and religious manner before the Church, and in the special -dignity peculiar to Christian marriage, differentiating it from the marriage of infidels. From the same writings we may further infer that marriage is accompanied by grace. St. Augustine (died 430 A.D.) speaks of marriage thus: “Our Lord, when in-

vited, came to the marriage that conjugal chastity might be strengthened* thereby, and the Sacrament of marriage shown forth.” (In Joan, Tract. 9, No. 2). Again he writes: “The good that marriage procures for all nations and for all mankind consists in the propagation of the species and conjugal fidelity; but beyond this, for the people of God, the holiness of the sacrament, which renders it unlawful, even in repudiation, to marry another.” (De Beno Conjugali, cap. 24, No. 32). Origen (died about 253) writes; ‘‘Since God is the author of the union, those who are united by Him are the recipients of His grace. ” .(In Matt. t. 14, No. 16). Tertullian (born about 160) says: “How shall we describe the happiness of thatmarriage which the Church unites, the Sacrifice confirms, the Blessing seals, the angels proclaim, and the Father ratifies!” (Ad Oxorem, L. 2 c). And in the same work, Cap. 7, he speaks of marriage ratified by God as having “the protection of divine grace.” Clement of Alexandria (born about 150) writes: “Marriage is holy; the Apostle ascribes this mystery to Christ and to the Church.” (Stromata, L. 3, cap. 12). St. Ignatius (martyred about 107) writes: It is becoming that marriage should be contracted with the advice of the bishop, so that the marriage may be according to the Lord, and not according to concupiscence.” (Ad Polycarp, cap. 5, No. 2). Lastly, we have the well-known classic text from St.. Paul (Epistle to Ephesians, cap. 5, verses 22-32). Hespeaks of marriage as a great Sacramentthat is to say,, a great sign o*r symbol representing the union of Christ with His Church. “To musterion touto mega estin, ego? de lego eis Christon kai ten ekklesian.” [This is a great', symbol, I speak indeed in reference to (eis) Christ and the* Church.] This text, it is true, does not explicitly attribute to marriage the efficacious sign of grace, but it clearly insinuates it. St. Paul’s purpose in this passage is to> explain the analogy that exists between marriage and the? union of Christ with His Church. Now, according to St.. Paul’s teaching, the union of Christ with His Church is of such a kind that the Church, His bride, is therein sanctified and purified by grace. Consequently, marriage ought also to bring to those united in its bonds a supernatural! sanctification and purification. Marriage must, therefore,, bo no mere symbol, but a sign efficacious of grace. Hence' the marriage bond symbolises the union of Christ and His; Church just as baptism symbolises or represents Christ’s: burial and resurrection, as St. Paul elsewhere teaches.. Now, all Christians admit that baptism is a sacramentpi educing grace in the soul; therefore, a part, matrimony' is a sacrament producing grace in the soul. Lastly, a very clear argument can be derived for the? sacramental nature of matrimony from the ancient prayers; used in the marriage ceremony, also from pictorial representations of the first Christian centuries, where the bride* and bridegroom are often depicted as bearing in their* hands the monogram of Christ. From the foregoing it is obvious that Mr. MacGregor is ill-informed when he asserts that the doctrine that matrimony is a sacrament dates from the Council of Trent. Hei is equally at fault in saying that Trent appeals to Christ’s presence at the marriage feast of Cana for its proof. I have before me the Latin text of the “Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent,” and nowhere in the chapters of the twenty-forth session, which treat of matrimony .as a sacrament, can I find mention of that feast. Mr, MacGregor evidently never read the decrees of the council to which he refers so dogmatically. The words which pronounce matrimony to be a sacrament, literally translated, are; “The fathers, the councils, and the tradition of theuniversal Church have always taught that since Matrimony : in the new law through the grace of Christ excels the marriages of the old law rightly must it be numbered amongst the sacraments of the new law.” What then are we to think of Mr. MacGregor’s honesty as. a historian.’ and of his pretended acquaintance with canon law and! theology ? | . Mr. MacGregor’s excursions into the field of Church history are, even more ridiculous than his dabbblings ire canon law. I have shown that centuries before the Council of Trent (1545) the Church, in East and West, had laid down as , of faith that matrimony was a , scarament instituted by Christ. Moreover, this sacramental union could be ; annulled only by the death of one or other

of the parties to the contract. This doctrine of indissolubility, which according to Mr. MacGregor dates from Trent, is clearly taught in the Council of Lyons (1274) and in the Council of Florence (1439), wherein it is defined that for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever and marry another, or for a man to marry a woman thus divorced, is to commit adultery. This doctrine is clearly taught by Christ in Matthew (cap. 19), and also in the parallel passages of Luke and Mark. Experience shows, despite anything Mr. MacGregor may allege to the contrary, that easy divorce makes for easy. morality. In more than five-sixths of Ireland, for example, there is no divorce annulling matrimony; and yet'nowhere is it possible to find such conjugal fidelity and purity. Promiscuity of wives, abortion, race-suicide, and such evils flourish only, and find their proper setting, in communities that have rejected the sacramental character of matrimony and made that sacred contract a matter of no more pith and moment than the registration of a dog or the purchase of a pair of socks. —1 am, etc., E. J. Lynch.