Dist. 27, Art. 3, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 27
ARTICULUS III.
De insolubilitate matrimonii.
Consequenter quantum ad tertium articulum quaeritur de insolubilitate matrimonii; et de hoc duo quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur de insolubilitate quantum ad matrimonium consummatum. Secundo, quantum ad matrimonium ratum.
QUAESTIO I.
Utrum matrimonium consummatum sit insolubile.
Quantum ad primum, quod tale matrimonium sit insolubile, ostenditur:
1. Per verbum Domini, Matthaei decimo nono8: Quod Deus coniunxit homo non separet: ergo tales, qui a Deo sunt coniuncti, sunt inseparabiles, quia Deus nullos separat.
2. Item, quaecumque sunt separabilia, plura sunt; sed Dominus dicit9, quod vir et mulier non sunt duo, sed una caro: ergo non sunt separabiles.
3. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur per definitionem matrimonii, quam ponit Magister in littera10: «Individuam vitae consuetudinem retinens».
4. Item, hoc matrimonium est signum unionis Christi et Ecclesiae secundum conformitatem naturae11; sed illa unio est inseparabilis: ergo etc.
Contra: 1. Omne vinculum iterabile est dissolubile; sed matrimonium est iterabile, quia possunt esse secundae nuptiae: ergo est dissolubile.
2. Item, omne Sacramentum perpetuum imprimit aliquod signaculum in subiecto perpetuo; sed matrimonium nihil imprimit in animam: ergo etc.
3. Item, omnis effectus, cuius causa est dissolubilis, ipse est dissolubilis; sed causa matrimonii est mutuus consensus, et ille est dissolubilis: ergo etc. Prima patet per illud Chrysostomi1, quod «eisdem causis, quibus unumquodque construitur, per easdem destruitur».
4. Item, vir tenetur uxori ex vinculo matrimonii reddere debitum; sed ex mutuo consensu possunt se perpetuo absolvere: ergo similiter ex mutuo consensu matrimonium dividere. Similiter ex lege matrimonii tenentur insimul cohabitare; et possunt diversas religiones ex communi consensu intrare2: ergo etc.
CONCLUSIO.
Matrimonium est vinculum insolubile, extremis manentibus, sed non perpetuum.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod matrimonium est insolubile, extremis manentibus; sed ipsis corruptis, vel eorum altero, solvitur, quia non manet ligatio, nisi etiam maneant quae ligantur. Extrema autem sunt destructibilia, quia sunt extrema ratione sexuum, non animorum; et quia sexus respicit dispositionem a parte corporis, et ita vitam corporalem: dico, quod recte matrimonium dicitur vinculum insolubile, sed non perpetuum3.
1. 2. Et per hoc patet responsio ad duo prima; obiicit enim, ac si vinculum esset perpetuum. Ratio autem huius insolubilitatis dispositive venit ab eius significatione, quia significat unionem indissolubilem, scilicet Christi et Ecclesiae secundum conformitatem naturae; sed effective venit ab institutione, quia sic Deus instituit, ut amplius non solvantur, dum vivunt.
3. Et per hoc patet responsio ad illud de consensu: quia non est tota causa matrimonii — unde, si esset tota causa, bene obiiceret — sed ulterius est ibi divina institutio. — Verumtamen illud non bene solvit, pro eo quod si duae causae concurrunt ad eundem effectum, altera destructa, non manet effectus; et ideo, si ad matrimonium cum institutione divina concurrit consensus, videtur etc. Dicendum igitur, quod est causa introducens tantum, et introducens et conservans. Quando dicitur, quod si destruitur causa, et effectus; verum est de conservante, non autem est verum de introducente tantum; consensus vinculum illud introducit, non conservat: et ideo, ipso desinente, non desinet4. Et ideo patet illud.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de redditione debiti et cohabitatione, dicendum, quod illud est in potestate coniugatorum: quia uterque habet potestatem super corpus alterius5; et quoniam uterque potest iuri suo renuntiare: inde est, quod cohabitatio et debiti solutio potest dividi; non sic vinculum, quod Deus instituit, quod tenet rationem Sacramenti.
I. Fide tenendum est, matrimonium Christianorum ratum et consummatum prorsus indissolubile esse quoad vinculum (cfr. Trident. Sess. XXIV. prooem.), neque hoc per adulterium dissolvi posse (ibid. can. 7.). Nihilominus «ob multas causas separatio inter coniuges quoad torum seu quoad cohabitationem ad certum incertumve tempus fieri potest» (can. 8.). Item, «matrimonium ratum, non consummatum per solemnem religionis professionem alterius coniugum dirimitur» (can. 6.). — De matrimonio generatim, ut comprehendit etiam coniugia non baptizatorum, dicendum cum Leone XIII. (Encycl. Arcanum divinae Sapientiae): «Cum matrimonium habeat Deum auctorem fueritque vel a principio quaedam incarnationis Verbi Dei adumbratio; idcirco inest in eo sacrum et religiosum quiddam, non adventitium, sed ingenitum, non ab hominibus acceptum, sed natura insitum». Hinc in Syllabo Pii IX. (prop. 67.) reprobata est propositio: «Iure naturae matrimonii vinculum non est indissolubile, et in variis casibus divortium proprie dictum civili auctoritate sanciri potest». De casu, in quo matrimonium infidelium etiam consummatum dissolvitur, cfr. infra d. 39. a. 2. — De ipsa 1. quaestione vide hic dub. 4. et plura infra d. 33. a. 3; quo loco alii commentatores de hac quaestione tractare solent.
De 1. quaestione: Scot., supra d. 26. n. 10, infra d. 31. n. 4. et d. 33. q. 3. — S. Thom., infra d. 33. q. 2. a. 1; Suppl. q. 62. a. 1-5. — B. Albert., hic a. 9. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. et infra d. 33. q. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. 4. — Durand., infra d. 33. q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., infra d. 33. q. 2.
II. Quaestio 2. a Concilio Trident. (can. 6. cit.) irrefragabiliter soluta est. De ipsa agunt: Scot., infra d. 31. q. unica n. 5. seqq. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3; Suppl. q. 61. a. 1-3. — B. Albert., hic a. 8. 10. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. 4. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.
---
Article III.
On the indissolubility of matrimony.
Consequently, as regards the third article, inquiry is made concerning the indissolubility of matrimony; and about this two [questions] are asked. First, inquiry is made concerning indissolubility as regards a consummated marriage. Second, as regards a ratified marriage.
Question I.
Whether a consummated marriage is indissoluble.
As regards the first point, that such a marriage is indissoluble is shown:
1. By the word of the Lord, Matthew, chapter nineteen8: What God has joined together let no man put asunder: therefore such persons, who are joined by God, are inseparable, because God separates none.
2. Likewise, whatever things are separable are several; but the Lord says9 that man and woman are not two, but one flesh: therefore they are not separable.
3. Likewise, this same thing is shown by the definition of matrimony which the Master sets down in the [Lombard's] text10: «retaining an undivided partnership of life».
4. Likewise, this marriage is a sign of the union of Christ and the Church according to conformity of nature11; but that union is inseparable: therefore etc.
On the contrary: 1. Every bond that can be repeated is dissoluble; but marriage can be repeated, since there can be second nuptials: therefore it is dissoluble.
2. Likewise, every perpetual Sacrament imprints some seal in a perpetual subject; but marriage imprints nothing in the soul: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, every effect whose cause is dissoluble is itself dissoluble; but the cause of matrimony is mutual consent, and that is dissoluble: therefore etc. The first [premise] is evident from that saying of Chrysostom1, that «by the same causes by which each thing is constructed, by the same it is destroyed».
4. Likewise, the husband is bound to render the debt to the wife by the bond of matrimony; but by mutual consent they can perpetually release each other: therefore likewise by mutual consent [they can] divide the marriage. Similarly, by the law of matrimony they are bound to cohabit together; and by common consent they can enter different religious orders2: therefore etc.
Conclusion.
Marriage is an indissoluble bond while the extremes remain, but it is not perpetual.
I respond: It must be said that marriage is indissoluble while the extremes remain; but when they, or one of the two, are destroyed, it is dissolved, because the binding does not remain unless the things that are bound also remain. Now the extremes are destructible, because they are extremes by reason of the sexes, not of the souls; and because sex regards a disposition on the part of the body, and thus corporeal life: I say that marriage is rightly called an indissoluble bond, but not a perpetual one3.
1, 2. And by this the reply to the first two [objections] is evident; for [the objection] argues as though the bond were perpetual. Now the ground of this indissolubility comes dispositively from its signification, because it signifies an indissoluble union, namely that of Christ and the Church according to conformity of nature; but it comes effectively from the institution, because God so instituted it, that they be no longer loosed while they live.
3. And by this the reply to that objection concerning consent is evident: because [consent] is not the whole cause of matrimony — whence, if it were the whole cause, [the objection] would argue well — but beyond it there is present divine institution. — Nevertheless [the objection] does not resolve it well, on this account, that if two causes concur toward the same effect, when the one is destroyed the effect does not remain; and therefore, if consent concurs with divine institution toward matrimony, it seems etc. It must be said, then, that there is a cause that is introducing only, and [a cause that is] both introducing and conserving. When it is said that if the cause is destroyed, [so is] the effect; this is true of a conserving [cause], but it is not true of an introducing-only [cause]; consent introduces that bond, it does not conserve it: and therefore, when it ceases, [the bond] does not cease4. And so that [objection] is evident.
4. To that which is objected concerning the rendering of the debt and cohabitation, it must be said that this is within the power of the married persons: because each has power over the body of the other5; and since each can renounce his own right: hence it is that cohabitation and the payment of the debt can be divided; not so the bond, which God instituted, [and] which holds the character of a Sacrament.
I. It is to be held by faith that the marriage of Christians, ratified and consummated, is wholly indissoluble as to the bond (cf. Trent, Sess. XXIV, proem.), and that this cannot be dissolved by adultery (ibid., can. 7). Nonetheless «for many causes a separation between spouses as to bed or as to cohabitation, for a certain or uncertain time, can be effected» (can. 8). Likewise, «a ratified marriage, not consummated, is dissolved by the solemn profession of religion of one of the spouses» (can. 6). — Concerning matrimony generally, insofar as it comprehends also the marriages of the unbaptized, it must be said with Leo XIII (Encycl. Arcanum divinae Sapientiae): «Since matrimony has God for its author, and was from the beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of the Word of God; therefore there is in it something sacred and religious, not adventitious but inborn, not received from men but implanted by nature». Hence in the Syllabus of Pius IX (prop. 67) the proposition was reprobated: «By the law of nature the bond of matrimony is not indissoluble, and in various cases divorce properly so called can be sanctioned by the civil authority». Concerning the case in which a marriage of unbelievers, even consummated, is dissolved, cf. below, d. 39, a. 2. — On this first question itself see here, dub. 4, and more below, d. 33, a. 3; in which place the other commentators are wont to treat of this question.
On the 1st question: Scotus, above, d. 26, n. 10, below d. 31, n. 4, and d. 33, q. 3. — St. Thomas, below, d. 33, q. 2, a. 1; Suppl. q. 62, a. 1-5. — Bl. Albert, here, a. 9. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. 3, a. 2, sub-question 1, and below, d. 33, q. 3. — Richard of Middleton, here, a. 2, q. 1, 4. — Durandus, below, d. 33, q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, below, d. 33, q. 2.
II. The 2nd question was irrefragably settled by the Council of Trent (can. 6, cited). Of it treat: Scotus, below, d. 31, q. unica, n. 5 ff. — St. Thomas, here, q. 1, a. 3; Suppl. q. 61, a. 1-3. — Bl. Albert, here, a. 8, 10. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. 3, a. 1, 2. — Richard of Middleton, here, a. 2, q. 1, 4. — Durandus, here, q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. 2.
---
- 8Vers. 6. — Plures codd. Quos Deus etc.Verse 6. — Several codices [read] Quos [i.e. "whom"] God etc.
- 9Matth. 19, 6.Matt. 19:6.
- 10Hic c. 2.Here, c. 2 [i.e. in the Master's text, chapter 2].
- 11Ut insinuat supra Magister in lit. d. XXVI. c. 6. Cfr. ibid. Comment. a. 2. q. I.As the Master intimates above in the [Lombard's] text, d. XXVI, c. 6. Cf. there the Commentary, a. 2, q. I.
- 1Homil. 32. in Matth. (Op. imperfect.). Cfr. C. Omnis res: Per quascumque causas nascitur, per easdem dissolvitur (4.), C. 27. q. 2.Homily 32 on Matthew (in the Opus imperfectum). Cf. the canon Omnis res: Through whatever causes [a thing] is born, through the same it is dissolved (§ 4), Decretum, C. 27, q. 2.
- 2Cfr. C. Cum sis praeditus (4.), X. de Conversione coniugatorum (lib. III. tit. 32.).Cf. the decretal Cum sis praeditus (§ 4), in the Liber Extra, On the Conversion of Married Persons (Bk. III, tit. 32).
- 3Epist. 1. Cor. 7, 39: Mulier alligata est legi, quanto tempore vir eius vivit etc. Cfr. Rom. 7, 2. seq. — Superius pro animorum edd. aliorum.[The] Epistle, 1 Cor. 7:39: The woman is bound by the law, as long as her husband lives etc. Cf. Rom. 7:2 f. — Above, for animorum [of souls] the editions [read] aliorum [of others].
- 4Cfr. supra a. 2. q. I. in corp. et ad 2.Cf. above, a. 2, q. I, in the body and in the reply to [objection] 2.
- 5Vide 1. Cor. 7, 3. seq. — Cfr. supra pag. 567, nota 4.See 1 Cor. 7:3 f. — Cf. above, p. 567, note 4. ---