← Back to Distinction 32

Dist. 32, Art. 4, Q. 2

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 32

Textus Latinus
p. 741

Quaestio II. Utrum matrimonium contractum in tempore indebito debeat separari.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum matrimonium contractum in tempore indebito debeat separari. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Causa trigesima tertia, quaestione quarta4: « Non oportet a Septuagesima usque ad Octavam Paschae et tribus hebdomadibus ante festum sancti Ioannis et ab adventu Domini usque post Epiphaniam nuptias celebrare; quod si factum fuerit, separentur ».

2. Item, hoc videtur secundum ius antiquum5, quod sic dicit: « Copulationem, quam contra ecclesiasticam regulam constat esse contractam, matrimonium non esse censemus ».

3. Item, ratione videtur: quia in foro ecclesiastico iudicandum est secundum statuta Ecclesiae: ergo si Ecclesia statuit, nuptias talibus temporibus non fieri, debent tales, si fiunt, iudicari pro non factis6: ergo debent separari.

4. Item, aliquis primo contrahit cum aliqua in clanculo et cum alia in manifesto; licet sit uxor prima secundum veritatem, tamen iudicatur uxor secunda in foro Ecclesiae, quia cum prima non servavit formam Ecclesiae, sicut cum secunda7: ergo si iste qui celebrat nuptias, non servat ecclesiasticam formam; patet, quod secundum iudicium Ecclesiae separandus est.

Contra: 1. Nihil est, propter quod debeat separari matrimonium, nisi desit aliquid, quod sit de eius substantia; sed de substantia matrimonii nihil est nisi consensus et persona legitima: si ergo nihil horum deficit in proposito, patet etc.

2. Item, matrimonium non debet separari in poenam, nisi sit criminis enormitas, maxime contra aliquod matrimonii bonum; sed hic nihil est tale: ergo etc.

3. Item, in quadam decretali de Matrimonio contracto contra Ecclesiae interdictum8 dicitur: « Non est conveniens, ut ob id solum Sacramentum coniugii dissolvatur ».

4. Item, non prohibetur, matrimonium contrahi, sed nuptias celebrari9; hoc autem accidit matrimonio: ergo nullo modo debent separari propter hoc.

Conclusio

Matrimonia tempore indebito contracta non possunt simpliciter separari, sed solum ad tempus in poenam peccati.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod iunctos matrimonialiter triplici modo separat Ecclesia: quosdam simpliciter quantum ad vinculum, ostendens, inter eos non fuisse matrimonium; et hoc est propter hoc, quod intervenit aliquod impedimentum, quod est contra substantiam matrimonii vel ex parte consensus, vel legitimitatis personarum; et illud dicitur impedire contrahendum et dirimere iam contractum10. Quosdam separat simpliciter quantum ad tempus in poenam; et hoc est propter aliquod crimen quod est contra matrimonii bonum. Quosdam separat ad tempus solum ad poenitentiam agendum; et hoc, quando intervenit aliquod impedimentum, quod non est contra matrimonium quantum ad substantiam nec quantum ad bonum, sed inducit peccatum; et tale est ecclesiasticum interdictum, et de tali separatione intelligitur auctoritas canonis, quam Magister adducit11. Et sic dicendum, quod tales non debent simpliciter separari, sed solum ad tempus in poenam peccati, quia contempserunt mandatum Ecclesiae; et hoc etiam fit ad aliorum terrorem.

Ad 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur secundo de ec-p. 742clesiastica regula, dicendum, quod Ecclesia dictat1, matrimonium debere contrahi sic et sic; et in illa sua institutione quaedam dictat ut necessaria, quaedam ut ad solemnitatem facientia; et canon dicit de his quae regula ecclesiastica dictat huic Sacramento necessaria.

Ad 3, 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de foro ecclesiastico, dicendum, quod in foro ecclesiastico nunquam iudicatur matrimonium non esse, nisi quando in facie Ecclesiae deest aliquid, quod est de substantia matrimonii; quod tamen non deest secundum veritatem, sicut in matrimonio clandestino, ubi non potest probari consensus; non sic est in proposito. — Et ideo patet illud ultimum2.

---

English Translation

Question II. Whether a marriage contracted at a forbidden time ought to be separated.

Secondly it is asked whether a marriage contracted at a forbidden time ought to be separated. And that it should, seems [to be the case].

1. Cause thirty-three, question four4: « It is not fitting, from Septuagesima until the Octave of Easter, and for three weeks before the feast of Saint John, and from the Advent of the Lord until after Epiphany, to celebrate nuptials; and if this has been done, let them be separated ».

2. Likewise, this seems [right] according to ancient law5, which speaks thus: « A union which is established to have been contracted against the ecclesiastical rule, we judge not to be a marriage ».

3. Likewise, it seems [so] by reason: because in the ecclesiastical forum judgment must be made according to the statutes of the Church; therefore if the Church has decreed that nuptials are not to take place at such times, then such [nuptials], if they do take place, ought to be judged as not done6: therefore they ought to be separated.

4. Likewise, someone first contracts with one woman secretly and with another openly; although the first is his wife according to the truth, nevertheless the second is judged to be his wife in the forum of the Church, because with the first he did not observe the form of the Church, as [he did] with the second7: therefore if this man who celebrates nuptials does not observe the ecclesiastical form, it is clear that according to the judgment of the Church he ought to be separated.

On the contrary: 1. There is nothing on account of which a marriage ought to be separated, unless something be lacking which is of its substance; but of the substance of marriage there is nothing except consent and a lawful person: if therefore none of these is lacking in the case proposed, it is clear, etc.

2. Likewise, a marriage ought not to be separated as a punishment, unless there be the enormity of a crime, especially against some good of marriage; but here there is nothing of the kind: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, in a certain decretal concerning a Marriage contracted against the Church's interdict8 it is said: « It is not fitting that on account of this alone the Sacrament of matrimony should be dissolved ».

4. Likewise, it is not marriage that is prohibited from being contracted, but nuptials from being celebrated9; and this [prohibition] pertains to the wedding-feast: therefore they ought in no way to be separated on account of this.

Conclusion

Marriages contracted at a forbidden time cannot be separated absolutely, but only for a time as a punishment of sin.

I respond: It must be said that the Church separates those joined in marriage in three ways: some absolutely, as to the bond, showing that there was no marriage between them; and this is on account of the fact that some impediment has intervened, which is against the substance of marriage, whether on the side of consent or of the lawfulness of the persons; and this [impediment] is said to hinder the contracting and to dissolve what is already contracted10. Some she separates absolutely as to time, as a punishment; and this is on account of some crime which is against the good of marriage. Some she separates for a time only, for the doing of penance; and this [happens] when some impediment intervenes which is not against the marriage as to its substance nor as to its good, but induces sin; and such is the ecclesiastical interdict, and it is of such a separation that the authority of the canon which the Master adduces is understood11. And so it must be said that such [persons] ought not to be separated absolutely, but only for a time as a punishment of sin, because they have despised the command of the Church; and this too is done for the terror of others.

To 2. To that, then, which is objected secondly concerning the ecclesiastical rule, it must be said that the Church prescribes1 that a marriage ought to be contracted in such and such a way; and in that institution of hers she prescribes some things as necessary, some as making for solemnity; and the canon speaks of those things which the ecclesiastical rule prescribes as necessary to this Sacrament.

To 3 and 4. To that which is objected concerning the ecclesiastical forum, it must be said that in the ecclesiastical forum a marriage is never judged not to exist, except when in the face of the Church something is lacking which is of the substance of marriage; which nevertheless is not lacking according to the truth, as in a clandestine marriage, where consent cannot be proved; it is not so in the case proposed. — And thus that last [argument] is clear2.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 4
    Can. 10. Fide codd. R S Z bb supplevimus et ab adventu Domini usque post Epiphaniam, quod etiam exhibet textus originalis et Magister, hic in lit. c. 4. Pro Non oportet plurimi codd. Non debet. — Post Ioannis cod. bb cum canone addit Baptistae.
    Canon 10. On the faith of codices R, S, Z, bb we have supplied et ab adventu Domini usque post Epiphaniam ("and from the Advent of the Lord until after Epiphany"), which the original text and the Master also give, here in the text, ch. 4. For Non oportet ("It is not fitting") very many codices [read] Non debet ("It ought not"). — After Ioannis ("John") codex bb, with the canon, adds Baptistae ("the Baptist").
  2. 5
    Cfr. Glossa supra pag. 740, nota 6. allegata.
    Cf. the Gloss cited above, on page 740, note 6.
  3. 6
    Regul. iuris, regul. 64: « Quae contra ius fiunt debent utique pro infectis haberi », in VI. Cfr. Iustinian., C. I. de Legibus et constitutionibus etc. (tit. 17.), lex Non dubium est (5.), ubi eadem regula occurrit.
    Rule of law, rule 64: « Things which are done against the law must indeed be held as not done », in [the Liber] Sextus. Cf. Justinian, Codex, Book I, On Laws and Constitutions etc. (tit. 17), the law Non dubium est (5), where the same rule occurs.
  4. 7
    Cfr. supra d. 28. q. 5. — Superius pro uxor prima et uxor secunda plures codd. et ed.; uxor primae et uxor secundae, a qua lectione Vat. in tantum discedit, quod substituit bis vir pro uxor.
    Cf. above, d. 28, q. 5. — Above, for uxor prima ("first wife") and uxor secunda ("second wife") several codices and an edition [read] uxor primae ("wife of the first [man]") and uxor secundae ("wife of the second"), a reading from which the Vatican [edition] departs so far as to substitute twice vir ("husband") for uxor ("wife").
  5. 8
    Extra lib. IV. tit. 16. C. Ex litteris Cantuariensis (2.). — Non pauci codd. hoc arg. omittunt; alii substituunt de Matrimoniis pro de Matrimonio contracto, ubi Vat. incongrue addit Ex litteris.
    In the Decretals (Extra), Book IV, tit. 16, the chapter Ex litteris Cantuariensis (2). — Not a few codices omit this argument; others substitute de Matrimoniis ("concerning Marriages") for de Matrimonio contracto ("concerning a Marriage contracted"), where the Vatican [edition] incongruously adds Ex litteris.
  6. 9
    Cfr. C. Capellanus tuus (4.), X. de Feriis (lib. II. tit. 9.).
    Cf. the chapter Capellanus tuus (4), in the Decretals (X.), On Feast-days (Book II, tit. 9).
  7. 10
    Vide infra d. 34. a. 1. q. 2. in corp., ubi etiam de tertio. De secundo cfr. d. 35. q. 1. — Mox post ad tempus edd. cum aliquibus codd. addunt solum.
    See below, d. 34, a. 1, q. 2, in the body, where also [there is treatment] of the third [mode]. On the second, cf. d. 35, q. 1. — Presently, after ad tempus ("for a time") the editions with some codices add solum ("only").
  8. 11
    Hic in lit. c. 4.
    Here in the text [of the Master], ch. 4.
  9. 1
    Cod. K (I a secunda manu) mandat, alii codd. hic et in seqq. dicit. Mox pro institutione codd. ostensione.
    Codex K (I by a second hand) [reads] mandat ("commands"), the other codices here and in what follows dicit ("says"). Presently, for institutione ("institution") the codices [read] ostensione ("showing").
  10. 2
    Vide scholion ad I. praecedentis articuli quaest.
    See the scholion on question I of the preceding article. ---
Cited by

1 place in the Opera Omnia citesthis question. Derived from Quaracchi’s own apparatus, never tagged by hand.

To what degree the impediment of consanguinity extends
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 40
supra d. 32. a. 4. q. 2.
← Dist. 32, Art. 4, Q. 1Dist. 32, Dubia→