Dist. 42, Art. 3, Q. 2
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 42
Quaestio II. Utrum secundae nuptiae sint sacramentales.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum secundae nuptiae sint sacramentales sive habeant rationem Sacramenti. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Quia Sacramentum matrimonii efficit consensus animorum expressus per verba exteriora inter legitimas personas5; sed talis est in secundis nuptiis: ergo etc. Quod istae personae sint legitimae, probatur, quia nullo iure a matrimonio prohibentur.
2. Item, coitus excusatur in secundis nuptiis, alioquin non concederet eas Apostolus6; sed coitus in matrimonio excusatur ratione medicinae sacramentalis: ergo etc.
3. Item, secundae nuptiae sunt inseparabiles sicut et primae; sed inseparabilitas in matrimonio non venit ex parte boni fidei nec prolis: ergo ex parte boni, quod est Sacramentum7.
4. Item, qui cognoscit secundam coitu fornicario non efficitur irregularis, qui autem secundam cognoscit, cum qua contraxit, efficitur irregularis8: ergo amplior est hic unio quam ibi; sed non nisi sacramentalis: ergo etc.
Contra: 1. Qui iterat Sacramentum facit ei contumeliam, et ideo nihil facit iterando1; sed in secundis nuptiis iteratur matrimonii Sacramentum: ergo non est ibi Sacramenti susceptio, sed contumelia.
2. Item, vinculum matrimonii contrahitur ex mutuo consensu; sed consensus est vinculum animorum, et matrimonium est vinculum, quod non solvitur, manentibus extremis: ergo cum animae sint incorruptibiles, semper manet vinculum primi matrimonii. Sed alligatus uni sacramentaliter non potest alteri sacramentaliter obligari2: ergo etc.
3. Item, in secundis nuptiis est carnis divisio ex parte viri vel mulieris; sed Christus est indivisus3, et Ecclesia similiter indivisa et unius solius sponsa, et humana natura a divina est indivisa: ergo non manet significatio: ergo etc.
4. Item, Sacramentum est dignum benedictione, quia sacrum est et sanctificans4; sed secundae nuptiae non benedicuntur: ergo non videtur ibi esse Sacramentum.
Conclusio
Secundae nuptiae in se sunt Sacramentum, sed in comparatione ad primas nuptias habent minus complete rationem significationis sacramentalis.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod dupliciter est loqui de secundis nuptiis, aut in se, aut in relatione ad primas. Si in se; sic, cum sit ibi consensus expressus inter legitimas personas, sunt utique Sacramentum, nec est ibi carnis divisio, sed unio carnis viri et mulieris. Si autem loquamur5 in comparatione ad praecedentes; sic manet in eis Sacramenti ratio incompleta propter carnis divisionem, quia in primis carnem suam univit cum uno, in secundis cum alio; et talis divisio tollit de plenitudine significationis.
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod Sacramentum iteratur; dicendum, quod Sacramentum iterari non dicitur, nisi primo manente; sed primum est solutum, uxore mortua6.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est vinculum animarum, quae sunt perpetuae; dicendum, quod anima et est anima et est spiritus; et non est vinculum animarum, nisi in quantum coniunctae corporibus; ordinatur enim hoc vinculum ad carnis commixtionem: ideo solvitur, cum anima separatur et desinit animare7.
3. 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod secundae nuptiae carnem dividunt; dicendum, quod hoc est per accidens, quia primo uniunt, et per consequens dividunt; et sunt Sacramentum ratione unionis, non ratione divisionis. Tamen quia divisio concomitatur unionem nec est de perfectione Sacramenti; ideo non debetur ei tanta solemnitas; et quia benedictio est ad solemnitatem, ideo tales nuptiae non benedicuntur8. — Et sic patet sequens. — Sed attendendum, quod nuptiae possunt esse secundae ex parte viri et primae ex parte mulieris, vel e converso, vel ex parte utriusque. In primo casu plus salvatur ratio Sacramenti — Christus enim unitur pluribus animabus et sibi eas desponsat — in secundo casu minus9; in tertio minime. Et ideo in primo casu, cum mulier est virgo, quamvis vir sit bigamus, nuptiae benedicuntur10.
---
Question II. Whether second marriages are sacramental.
Secondly it is asked whether second marriages are sacramental, or have the character of a Sacrament. And that they do, it seems:
1. Because the Sacrament of marriage is effected by the consent of minds expressed through outward words between legitimate persons5; but such [consent] exists in second marriages: therefore etc. That these persons are legitimate is proved from the fact that by no law are they prohibited from marriage.
2. Likewise, intercourse is excused in second marriages, otherwise the Apostle would not concede them6; but intercourse in marriage is excused by reason of a sacramental remedy: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, second marriages are indissoluble just as the first are; but indissolubility in marriage does not come from the good of fidelity nor of offspring: therefore from the good which is the Sacrament7.
4. Likewise, one who knows a second woman by fornicating intercourse is not made irregular, but one who knows a second woman with whom he has contracted [marriage] is made irregular8: therefore this union is greater than that one; but [it is not greater] except sacramentally: therefore etc.
Contra: 1. One who repeats a Sacrament does it an outrage, and therefore accomplishes nothing by repeating1; but in second marriages the Sacrament of marriage is repeated: therefore there is no reception of a Sacrament there, but an outrage.
2. Likewise, the bond of marriage is contracted from mutual consent; but consent is a bond of minds, and marriage is a bond which is not dissolved while the extremes remain: therefore, since souls are incorruptible, the bond of the first marriage always remains. But one bound to one person sacramentally cannot be sacramentally bound to another2: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, in second marriages there is a division of the flesh on the part of the man or the woman; but Christ is undivided3, and the Church likewise is undivided and the spouse of one alone, and human nature is undivided from the divine: therefore the signification does not remain: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, a Sacrament is worthy of blessing, because it is sacred and sanctifying4; but second marriages are not blessed: therefore there does not seem to be a Sacrament there.
Conclusio
Second marriages are in themselves a Sacrament, but in comparison to first marriages they have less completely the character of sacramental signification.
Respondeo: It must be said that there is a twofold way of speaking of second marriages, either in themselves, or in relation to the first. If in themselves; then, since there is there a consent expressed between legitimate persons, they are indeed a Sacrament, nor is there a division of the flesh, but a union of the flesh of man and woman. But if we speak5 in comparison to the preceding [marriages]; then there remains in them the character of the Sacrament incomplete on account of the division of the flesh, because in the first she united her flesh with one, in the second with another; and such division takes away from the fullness of the signification.
1. To that, therefore, which is objected, that the Sacrament is repeated; it must be said that a Sacrament is not said to be repeated except while the first remains; but the first is dissolved, the wife having died6.
2. To that which is objected, that it is a bond of souls, which are perpetual; it must be said that the soul is both soul and spirit; and it is not a bond of souls except insofar as they are joined to bodies; for this bond is ordered to the commingling of the flesh: therefore it is dissolved when the soul is separated and ceases to animate7.
3. 4. To that which is objected, that second marriages divide the flesh; it must be said that this is per accidens, because they first unite, and consequently divide; and they are a Sacrament by reason of union, not by reason of division. Yet because division accompanies union and is not part of the perfection of the Sacrament; therefore so great a solemnity is not owed to it; and because blessing pertains to solemnity, therefore such marriages are not blessed8. — And thus the following is clear. — But it must be noted that marriages can be second on the part of the man and first on the part of the woman, or conversely, or on the part of both. In the first case the character of the Sacrament is more fully preserved — for Christ is united to many souls and espouses them to himself — in the second case less9; in the third least of all. And therefore in the first case, when the woman is a virgin, although the man be twice-married, the marriage is blessed10.
---
- 5Vide supra d. 27. a. 2. q. 1. seq. et dub. 1.See above, d. 27, a. 2, q. 1 and following, and dub. 1.
- 6Epist. 1. Cor. 7, 39.First Letter to the Corinthians 7:39.
- 7Cfr. supra d. 31. a. 1. q. 2. et d. 39. a. 1. q. 2.Cf. above, d. 31, a. 1, q. 2, and d. 39, a. 1, q. 2.
- 8Vide supra d. 25. a. 2. q. 3. ad 1. et 2.See above, d. 25, a. 2, q. 3, in reply to 1 and 2.
- 1Cfr. supra d. 6. p. I. q. 6.Cf. above, d. 6, p. 1, q. 6.
- 2Codd. F G aa alligari.Codices F, G, aa read alligari.
- 3Epist. 1. Cor. 1, 13: Divisus est Christus?First Letter to the Corinthians 1:13: Is Christ divided?
- 4Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 2. seqq.Cf. above, the text of the Master, d. 1, c. 2 and following.
- 5Codd. G L supplent de eis.Codices G, L supply de eis ("concerning them").
- 6Rom. 7, 2. seq. et 1. Cor. 7, 39.Romans 7:2 and following, and First Corinthians 7:39.
- 7Cfr. supra d. 27. a. 3. q. 1. — Superius verbis et non cod. F interserit matrimonium.Cf. above, d. 27, a. 3, q. 1. — Above, at the words et non, codex F inserts matrimonium.
- 8Cfr. C. Capellanum (1.) et C. Vir autem (3.), X. de Secundis Nuptiis (lib. IV. tit. 21.), et supra d. 28. dub. 3.Cf. the canon Capellanum (1) and the canon Vir autem (3), in the Decretals (X), On Second Marriages (book IV, tit. 21), and above, d. 28, dub. 3.
- 9Vide supra d. 25. a. 2. q. 3. in fine.See above, d. 25, a. 2, q. 3, at the end.
- 10Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion to the preceding question. ---