← Back to Distinction 27

Dist. 27, Art. 3, Q. 2

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 27

Textus Latinus
p. 683

Quaestio II. Utrum matrimonium ratum sit insolubile.

Secundo quaeritur de insolubilitate illius matrimonii, quod solum est in coniunctione animorum. Et quod tale matrimonium sit insolubile, ostenditur:

1. Quia determinatum est in iure1, quodsi quis per verba de praesenti consentiat in aliquam, et post in aliam consentit et carnaliter cognoscit, quod ad primam revocandus est: ergo primum vinculum fuit insolubile, cum non solvatur per matrimonium consummatum.

2. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur per definitionem matrimonii praedictam2. Si sic dicas, quod ei non convenit; obiicitur per Hugonem, qui ita definit matrimonium: « Matrimonium est maris et feminae legitimus consensus, individuam vitae consuetudinem retinens ».

3. Item, quod Dominus dixit Matthaei decimo nono3: Quod Deus coniunxit homo non separet, aut intelligitur quoad coniunctionem animorum, aut corporum. Quod animorum, videtur, quia illa copula est sanctior: ergo si de illa intelligit, videtur, quod quoad illam sit inseparabile.

4. Item, matrimonium significat quantum ad coniunctionem animorum coniunctionem Dei et Ecclesiae4; sed Ecclesia semel Christo desponsata nunquam separatur nec separabitur: ergo nec illud matrimonium.

5. Item, cum vir consentit in mulierem, transfert potestatem sui corporis in potestatem mulieris, quia tunc ei alligatur: ergo si non habet potestatem sui corporis5, nec intrare religionem nec alii potest se copulare.

Contra: 1. Hieronymus6 dicit, quod Dominus Ioannem vocavit de nuptiis: ergo solvit eum ab uxore; sed non solvisset, si fuisset ligatus vinculo insolubili: ergo etc.

2. Item, sacri canones ante commixtionem carnalem dant liberam potestatem alteri ingrediendi religionem, et alteri nubendi post eius ingressum, sicut patet per multa, quae habentur in littera7; sed non posset nubere, nisi vinculum esset solutum: ergo etc.

3. Item, anima nunquam in hac vita sic Deo coniungitur, quin possit ab eo separari: ergo nec sponsus coniungitur inseparabiliter sponsae ante copulam carnalem.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur, si statim post ingressum in religionem est solutum tale vinculum. Et quod sic, videtur: quia alioquin mulier damnum sustineret, quia esset alligata, et vir non esset alligatus; quod non est conveniens, quia ad paria iudicantur. — Si autem statim solvitur; sed possibile est, ipsum egredi religionem: ergo potest nubere, esto quod uxor alteri nupserit, quod est contra canones8. — Propter hoc quaeritur: quando solvitur, et, quare solvitur per vinculum voti, non per vinculum matrimonii maioris?

Conclusio

> Matrimonium solummodo ratum est insolubile suo modo, cum tantum per solemne votum castitatis solvi possit.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod insolubilitas consequitur matrimonium non tantum consummatum, sed etiam ratum; et propter hoc etiam ratum est, quia quandam insolubilitatem habet, licet minorem quam matrimonium consummatum; habet tamen sibi competentem, sicut et illud. Sicut enim vinculum matrimonii consummati est insolubile, viventibus extremis vita corporali, nec solvitur nisi morte corporali9; sic nec matrimonium, in quo est coniunctio mentium et animorum, potest solvi, nisi homo moriatur spiritualiter huic mundo sive operi carnis; et hoc fit intrando religionem et emittendo votum castitatis solemne. Ex tunc enim solvitur tale matrimonium, ex quo spiritualiter moritur; et hoc probatur per illam decretalem Innocentii, de Conversione coniugatorum, Ex parte tua10. —

p. 684

Concedendum est igitur, matrimonium illud esse insolubile suo modo, cum sit Sacramentum, nec separatur ab homine, sed a Deo, cui solemne votum continentiae promittitur.

1–4. Et ex hoc patent obiecta praeter ultima.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de translatione potestatis, dicendum, quod potestas corporis non simpliciter transfertur in matrimonio rato, sed sub conditione utriusque, scilicet statu et vita manente. Unde dico, quodsi uxor peteret sibi statim debitum, non teneretur reddere; nec Ecclesia cogeret, quod statim redderet, sed saltem dat inducias usque ad duos menses11, ultra quod tempus tenetur aut mulieri debitum reddere, aut ad vitam aliam se transferre. Tunc ergo est vinculum solutum, cum homo ad vitam aliam est irregressibiliter translatus, et ideo dicitur mortuus.

Et ex hoc patet illud quod ultimo quaeritur, quando scilicet solvitur vinculum, videlicet quando ita ligatur, ut non possit redire ad saeculum; et si uxor instet, necesse habet unum sibi de duobus eligere infra duos menses secundum canones12. Et per hoc patet totum.

---

English Translation
p. 683

Question II. Whether a ratified marriage is indissoluble.

Secondly it is asked concerning the indissolubility of that marriage which consists only in the union of souls. And that such a marriage is indissoluble is shown:

1. Because it is determined in law1 that if someone consents by words of the present tense to one woman, and afterwards consents to another and knows her carnally, he is to be recalled to the first: therefore the first bond was indissoluble, since it is not dissolved by a consummated marriage.

2. Likewise, this same thing is shown by the aforesaid definition of marriage2. If you should say that it does not apply to it, the objection is raised through Hugh, who defines marriage thus: « Marriage is the lawful consent of a man and a woman, keeping an undivided common life ».

3. Likewise, [as to] what the Lord said in Matthew, chapter nineteen3: What God has joined together let no man separate, this is understood either with respect to the union of souls or [that] of bodies. That [it is understood] of souls seems [right], because that union is holier: therefore if He understands it of that [union], it seems that with respect to it [the marriage] is inseparable.

4. Likewise, marriage signifies, as to the union of souls, the union of God and the Church4; but the Church, once betrothed to Christ, is never separated nor will be separated: therefore neither [is] that marriage [separable].

5. Likewise, when a man consents to a woman, he transfers the power of his own body into the power of the woman, because then he is bound to her: therefore if he does not have power over his own body5, he can neither enter religion nor join himself to another.

On the contrary: 1. Jerome6 says that the Lord called John away from his wedding: therefore He loosed him from a wife; but He would not have loosed [him], if he had been bound by an indissoluble bond: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the sacred canons, before carnal intercourse, give free power to the one [party] of entering religion, and to the other of marrying after the other's entry, as is clear from many things which are had in the text7; but she could not marry unless the bond were dissolved: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the soul is never in this life so joined to God that it cannot be separated from Him: therefore neither is the betrothed joined inseparably to the betrothed before carnal union.

In connection with this it is asked whether, immediately after entry into religion, such a bond is dissolved. And that it is so seems [right]: because otherwise the woman would suffer harm, since she would be bound, and the man would not be bound; which is not fitting, since they are judged on equal terms. — But if it is dissolved immediately; yet it is possible for him to leave religion: therefore he can marry, granted that the wife has married another, which is against the canons8. — On account of this it is asked: when is it dissolved, and why is it dissolved by the bond of the vow, and not by the bond of the greater marriage?

Conclusion

> A merely ratified marriage is indissoluble in its own way, since it can be dissolved only by the solemn vow of chastity.

I respond: It must be said that indissolubility follows upon marriage not only [when] consummated but also [when] ratified; and on this account a [merely] ratified marriage too is [indissoluble], because it has a certain indissolubility, though less than a consummated marriage has; yet it has one befitting it, just as the other does. For just as the bond of a consummated marriage is indissoluble while the two parties remain alive in bodily life, and is not dissolved except by bodily death9; so neither can a marriage in which there is a union of minds and souls be dissolved, unless a person dies spiritually to this world or to the work of the flesh; and this happens by entering religion and by uttering the solemn vow of chastity. For such a marriage is dissolved from the point at which he dies spiritually; and this is proved by that decretal of Innocent, On the Conversion of the Married, Ex parte tua10. —

p. 684

It must therefore be granted that that marriage is indissoluble in its own way, since it is a Sacrament, and is not separated by man, but by God, to whom the solemn vow of continence is promised.

1–4. And from this the objections are answered, except the last.

5. To that which is objected concerning the transfer of power, it must be said that the power of the body is not transferred absolutely in a ratified marriage, but under a condition on both sides, namely while the state and the life remain. Hence I say that if the wife were to ask the debt of herself immediately, he would not be bound to render it; nor would the Church compel him to render it at once, but at least grants a delay of up to two months11, beyond which time he is bound either to render the debt to the wife, or to betake himself to another [way of] life. Then, therefore, the bond is dissolved, when the person has been irreversibly transferred to another life, and therefore is said to be dead.

And from this is clear that which is asked last, namely when the bond is dissolved: that is, when he is so bound that he cannot return to the world; and if the wife insists, he must choose one of two things for himself within two months according to the canons12. And through this the whole [matter] is clear.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Per Gregor. IX. in C. Si inter virum (31.), X. de Sponsalibus et matrim. (lib. IV. tit. 1.).
    By Gregory IX in the decretal Si inter virum (31), in the Liber Extra, On Betrothals and Marriages (bk. IV, tit. 1).
  2. 2
    Quaest. praeced. fundam. 3, ubi allegatur definitio matrimonii a Magistro, hic in lit. c. 2, data. — Definitio Hugonis habetur II. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 4. Cfr. supra pag. 679, nota 8.
    The preceding question, fundamentum 3, where the definition of marriage given by the Master is cited, [the one] given here in the text, c. 2. — Hugh's definition is found in On the Sacraments II, pt. XI, c. 4. Cf. above, p. 679, note 8.
  3. 3
    Vers. 6. Pro Quod edd. cum pluribus codd. Quos. — Inferius verbis animorum copula est sanctior exprimitur sententia August. supra d. 26. a. 2. q. 3. fundam. 3. proposita.
    Verse 6. For Quod [What] the editions, with several codices, [read] Quos [Whom]. — Lower down, by the words the union of souls is holier is expressed the opinion of Augustine set forth above, d. 26, a. 2, q. 3, fundamentum 3.
  4. 4
    Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XXVI. c. 6.
    See above, the text of the Master, d. XXVI, c. 6.
  5. 5
    Epist. I. Cor. 7, 4. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7.
    [Paul's] Epistle, 1 Corinthians 7, 4. Cf. the text of the Master here, c. 7.
  6. 6
    Hanc sententiam continet Prologus in Evang. secundum Ioannem, qui in antiquioribus edd. Bibliae impressus habetur, et apud Lyranum falso Hieronymo tribuitur: « Hic est Ioannes evangelista... quem de nuptiis volentem nubere vocavit Deus ». Occurrit etiam apud Bedam, Homil. 8. in die natali S. Ioan. evangel. Sed cfr. Baronius, I. ad an. 31. n. 30.
    This opinion is contained in the Prologue to the Gospel according to John, which is printed in the older editions of the Bible and is falsely attributed by [Nicholas of] Lyra to Jerome: « This is John the evangelist... whom God, when he wished to marry, called away from the wedding ». It occurs also in Bede, Homily 8 on the birthday of St. John the Evangelist. But cf. Baronius, vol. I, on the year 31, n. 30.
  7. 7
    Hic c. 6.
    Here, c. 6.
  8. 8
    Cfr. Glossa in C. Statuimus novitios (23.), X. de Regularibus etc. (lib. III. tit. 31.), in qua pro confirmatione huius sententiae allegatur C. Ex publico instrumento (7.), ibid. de Conversione coniugatorum (tit. 32.). — Mox post quando cod. F supplet vinculum, cod. bb legit solvitur matrimonium.
    Cf. the Gloss on the decretal Statuimus novitios (23), in the Liber Extra, On Regulars etc. (bk. III, tit. 31), in which, in confirmation of this opinion, the decretal Ex publico instrumento (7) is cited, ibid., On the Conversion of the Married (tit. 32). — Just after quando [when] cod. F supplies vinculum [the bond], cod. bb reads solvitur matrimonium [the marriage is dissolved].
  9. 9
    Ut ostensum est quaest. praeced.
    As was shown in the preceding question.
  10. 10
    Extra lib. III. tit. 32. c. 14. — Pro Innocentii, quod habet Vat., codd. et ed. I Alexandri, qui ibid., non in C. Ex parte tua, sed in C. Verum post legitimum (2.) et C. Ex publico instrumento (7.) idem decrevit.
    Liber Extra, bk. III, tit. 32, c. 14. — For Innocent, which the Vatican edition has, the codices and edition I [read] Alexander, who decreed the same thing there, not in the decretal Ex parte tua, but in the decretal Verum post legitimum (2) and the decretal Ex publico instrumento (7).
  11. 11
    Colligitur ex C. Ex publico instrumento in nota praeced. allegato. — In principio solut. post potestatis cod. K addit corporis, et pro quod potestas cod. F quod translatio.
    Gathered from the decretal Ex publico instrumento cited in the preceding note. — At the beginning of the solution, after potestatis cod. K adds corporis, and for quod potestas cod. F [reads] quod translatio.
  12. 12
    Cfr. canon in nota praeced. allegatus. — Cod. T addit vel castitatem vovere, vel ad uxorem redire. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    Cf. the canon cited in the preceding note. — Cod. T adds or to vow chastity, or to return to the wife. — See the scholion to the preceding question. ---
Cited by

9 places in the Opera Omnia citethis question. Derived from Quaracchi’s own apparatus, never tagged by hand.

Whether consent ought to be to carnal intercourse
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 28 · 2×
supra pag. 683, nota 6
Doubts concerning the text of the Master
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 28
supra d. 27. a. 3. q. 2.
Whether after carnal union a man may be continent, the wife being unwilling
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 32
supra d. 27. a. 3. q. 2.
Whether the reward of virginity is the aureole
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 33
supra pag. 683, nota 6
Whether betrothals contracted after the seventh year can be dissolved by mutual consent
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 36
supra d. 27. a. 3. q. 2.
Doubts concerning the text of the Master
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 36
supra pag. 683, nota 1
The text of the Master (Lombard), Distinction XXXVII
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 37 · 3× · via ibid.
ibid.
Whether the sacrament of marriage can be contracted between infidels
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 39 · 2×
supra pag. 683, nota 2
Whether affinity presents an impediment to marriage
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 41
supra pag. 683, nota 10

5 further references address the article or printed page this question belongs to, rather than the question itself.

← Dist. 27, Art. 3, Q. 1Dist. 27, Dubia→