Eucharist: Real Presence

INTRODUCTION

1. THE EUCHARISTIC REAL AND LIVING PRESENCE

1.1 The victim in a glorified state

1.2 Eucharistic presence: real but also symbolic

1.3 Foreshadow of real presence in the O.T

2. TRANSUBSTANTIATION (CCC 1376 AND C. TRENT 1545-65)

3. The manifold presence of Christ

4. CHRIST’S TRANSFIGURED EUCHARISTIC BODY

5. EUCHARISTIC PRESENCE IS PERSONAL PRESENCE

5.1 Personal presence – Subject to growth

INTRODUCTION

Eucharist comes from the Greek word, euchapistias which means “thanksgiving.” The Eucharist is “the Great Thanksgiving” in which we meet God in the ordinary substances of bread and wine. On the night before Jesus died he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body broken for you.” He then took the cup of wine and after giving thanks, gave it to them saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the new covenant poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mat 26:26-28). We come to the Lord’s Table and as his followers, eat and drink his body and blood.

            The early Christian community remembered and recalled the celebration of the Eucharist. 1 Cor 11:23-26 is but one of the evidence to testify the fact how reverently the church kept the remembrance of what had taken place at the Last Supper and how faithfully those early Christians repeated it following Jesus’ command. Eventually the extreme popular piety shown in the Eucharistic celebration often gave rise to mere devotional practices and superstitious beliefs rather than to an understanding of the sacrament as an encounter with Christ giving rise to abuse of the sacrament as well. The reformers criticized the church for the abuses, but in doing so they landed up in propagating heretic beliefs, such as; communion is merely symbolic, denial of real change and real presence, sacrificial nature of the mass. The council of Trent discussed greatly on the sacrament of Eucharist, which was again affirmed by the Vatican II especially in the Dogmatic constitution of the church (LG 11).

1. THE EUCHARISTIC REAL AND LIVING PRESENCE

1.1 THE VICTIM IN A GLORIFIED STATE

In the sacrament we do have the victim of Calvary really present, no doubt, but —and we can never emphasize this sufficiently—it is a glorified, transfigured victim. In a certain way the very term "victim" is highly misleading, for in Christian literature it is usually associated with blood, suffering and sacrificial death.  A victim seems to evoke primarily the idea of a bleeding individual, a person that is given over to God after having passed through the crucible of suffering. Yet this is only partially correct, for the essential aspect in a victim is not suffering but self-surrender, which usually, it is true, is inextricably bound up with suffering and even death, but this immolative dimension of the victim is rather a preparatory step to that essential self-commitment which constitutes the core and kernel of the victimal state. In the Eucharist we have Jesus in a victimal condition, as the pure victim that gave himself over to God, but it is definitely no longer a suffering victim. This is one of the essential differences between the Eucharistic presence at the Last Supper and the Eucharistic presence today.

Ø  At the last supper: Then  the Jesus present under the veils of bread and wine was a person still subject to suffering and death, and the entire setting was strongly suggestive of the figure of the Suffering Servant;

Ø  At the Eucharistic altar: whereas now we have in the Eucharist the very same person, but no longer subject to the clutches of death; it is a triumphant, transfigured person, resplendent in heavenly glory, with his face shining "like the sun, and his garments. . . white as light" (Mt 17, 2).

The Eucharistic presence of the glorified Christ turns the altar into a new Tabor. Jesus continues to be the victim, to be sure, but he is a glorified victim permanently given over to God, not in the suffering of his passion but in the splendours of an eternal Easter.

1.2 EUCHARISTIC PRESENCE: REAL BUT ALSO SYMBOLIC

The Church has always stoutly defended the real character of this presence as opposed to a merely metaphorical or symbolic presence.  Jesus’ Eucharistic presence is real, no doubt—but it is also symbolic. It would be a mortal wound in the body of the Church to reduce the Eucharistic presence to a mere symbol, for the Eucharist is more, much more than a symbol. But it is also a symbol. We should not neglect this most essential dimension of the Eucharistic reality. It is a calm, comprehensive consideration of this symbolic aspect of the Eucharist that will unveil before us two essential dimensions hidden in it: unity and love.

i. Symbol of Unity: The Eucharistic body, really present, is a symbol of the unity of the ecclesial Body.  One Bread leads to one Body. The glorified Eucharistic Christ, besides being really present, symbolizes the internal unity of the Church. (1 Cor 10, 17)

ii. Symbol of Love: But over and above this symbol of unity, the Eucharistic body is also the sign or symbol of love.

·         At the Last Supper Jesus gave the Church even his body as the supreme symbol or manifestation of love, as we saw above. The martyr surrenders his or her body to God as the maximum gift of self, as a sign of total and complete dedication;

·         The young married virgin similarly surrenders her tender body to her new husband, and in giving him her body she gives herself to him totally. Martyrdom and marriage are profound and beautiful because they both signify the total commitment of self. In a similar manner, the Eucharistic Jesus surrenders to "her beloved spouse" even his body as the supreme symbol of love.

1.3 FORESHADOW OF REAL PRESENCE IN THE O.T

Obviously the presence of God to his people did not start with the Eucharist. But the strong conviction of Israel was that Yahweh’s presence was ALL-PERVADING, PENETRATING, ENCOMPASSING the whole earth. No one can reasonably expect to escape the searching gaze of God, his personal presence. (Gen 3: 8.  Ps 139, 7-12)

i. In the tent meeting (Ex 33: 7-11)

ii. In the pillar of cloud (Ex 29: 42, 34:29, Num 12: 5-8). The pillar of cloud covering the Tent, the splendour of God enveloping it: both visible signs of the Lord's presence, a presence, however, that, though intense, is only transitory, not yet permanent.

iii.The Ark of the Covenant (Ex 25: 8.17. 21.22) (Ex: 40: 34-38)

iv.Placing the Ark in the JLM Temple: Once the wearisome trek through the desert comes to an end and the Promised Land is reached, the Ark is placed in the Jerusalem Temple, built by Solomon. Now the cloud fills the Temple as it had before filled the Tent. (Deut 12, 5). The magnificent Jerusalem Temple is the place of the shekkmah, the dwelling place of Yahweh, which is meant to express God's benevolence to his people. By comparison the splendours of the Tent, the Ark and the Temple fade into insignificance and outshone by the reality of the Eucharistic presence.

For 1000 years: For nearly a full millennium nobody ever disputed the doctrine of Jesus' real presence in the Eucharist. no opposition, no contradictions, no doubts, but calm acceptance and ready acquiescence.

2. TRANSUBSTANTIATION (CCC 1376 AND C. TRENT 1545-65)

            At the council of Trent (1545-1563) the Roman Catholic Church reiterated the position on the Holy Communion it had defined and refined during the middle ages. Three positions in particular had become controversial during the era of reform. First, the Roman Catholic Church taught that the mass is a sacrifice during which Christ sacrifices himself to God the father bloodlessly under the signs of bread and wine. This sacrifice is intended to represent the sacrifice of the cross to the congregation and apply its saving power to them. Second, employing a distinction borrowed from Aristotle and put to Christian use by medieval theologians, the Roman Catholic Church taught the doctrine of transubstantiation, according to which the “accidents” of bread and wine, the things determining its appearance and the human perception thereof, remained that of bread and wine, while its “substance” the internal nature of bread and wine, became Christ’s body and blood. Third, Roman catholic practice withheld the cup from the laity who was permitted to receive only the bread. Protestants consistently rejected both the sacrifice of the mass and the doctrine of transubstantiation. Protestants also consistently maintained the privilege of the laity to receive both bread and wine in the Holy Communion.

            The council of Trent in general explained the sacrifice of the mass entirely in terms of its reference to memorial and this memorial sacrifice draws it value from the cross and it intended to apply the merits of that sacrifice ND 1555-1563. The discussion on the Eucharist began as early as 1547; the decree on the Eucharistic presence could be published only by the council’s 13^th session in 1551. The council of Trent devoted separate session to the sacrament of the Eucharist and sacrifice of the mass. The doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass is among the most beautiful document issued by it. We find the Council speaks about the real presence; the institution; the primacy of the Eucharist; transubstantiation; the cult of the sacrament; the reservation of the sacrament; the preparation  and reception of the sacrament; Mass: holy sacrifice; (see the text in Christian Faith 1512 to 1563). The council affirmed the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist. This is not directed against Luther, who never denied the real presence, but against Zwingli who said Christ is present in the Eucharist “in sign” only, and also against the theory of Calvin, Christ’s dynamic presence by his power. Martin Luthar believed in the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine and he based his belief in the NT accounts of the institution and of John chapter 6. He accepted the words "this is my body, this is my blood" as a real identification. He did not accept the doctrine of transubstantiation. He proposed a new term “consubstantiation”. Luther develops the idea of "ubiquity" ie. the capacity to be in many places at once (belongs to the divine nature of Christ is communicated to the human nature of Christ). Hence Christ is not confined to a physical space but can be present in many places in the sacrament of the altar. He also taught that the sacramental presence is limited to the celebration; it is an event confined by certain time, so as soon as the communion is over, presence of Christ in the elements too is over. He rejected the Eucharistic devotion or preservation of the sacred species.

Council of Trent affirmed that Christ is sacramentally present to us in the Eucharist. ND 1513, 1514.

·         “By the consecration of the bread and wine, there takes place a change of the The whole substance of bread in to the substance of the body of Christ Our Lord, and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of his blood.” ND 1519. 1527.

·         In the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, the whole of Christ is truly, really and substantially contained. ND 1526.

·         The worship and veneration shown to the most holy sacrament is because of the belief in the real presence. ND 1520.

·         One of the most ancient customs of the Catholic Church reserving the holy Eucharist in a sacred place was upheld. ND 1532, 1521.

·         Eucharist is the sign of unity, bond of charity. “May all Christians have so firm and strong a faith in the sacred mystery of his body and blood, may they worship it with such devotion and pious veneration. ND 1524.

·         In the consecrated hosts which are preserved or left over after communion the true body of the Lord remains. ND 1529.

·         Christ the only begotten son of God is adored in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, thus special festival celebration, solemnities precessions, public exposition are upheld.

·         Christ present in the Eucharist is eaten, sacramentally, spiritually and really as well. ND 1533.

3. The manifold presence of Christ

It has been said for a long time that Jesus is present in heaven and in the tabernacle. Catholics certainly did not thereby deny that Christ is present in the Church in other ways too. It is Vatican II that, speaks of many forms of Christ presence. Soon after the council, Pope Paul VI expanded the doctrine still further.

Four forms of Eucharistic presence

The council had spoken of four different forms of Christ presence and the Pope added three more. Anyhow, the number is immaterial, for even Paul VI's longer list could still be lengthened.

1.      Presence in the prayerful community

Christ is present in the midst of a prayerful community, in virtue of Jesus's promise, (Mt 18:20 ) It is not only bread and wine that are the vehicles of Christ's presence, but the Christian community as well. This particular form of presence is stressed nowadays in the contemporary charismatic movement and the prayer meetings, pervaded by a deep realization of Christ's presence in the midst of the prayerful assembly.

2.      Christ’s presence in the poor and afflicted

Furthermore, Christ is also present in the poor and afflicted, with a form of presence so intense that it almost borders on identification between Christ and the poor: (Mt 25:35-40)

3.      Christ’s presence through living Faith

Moreover, Christ is also present in the heart of the baptized Christian through living faith. Paul prays for his Christians at Ephesus: (Eph 3: 14.17)

4.      Christ’s presence in the Word of God

Jesus is also present through the instrumentality of the word, the scriptural word, which is preached in the name of Christ, by the authority of Christ and with the assistance of Christ, the Incarnate word of God. The word of God becomes then another vehicle of Christie presence.

5.      Presence in the pastors

Christ is also present in the Church's pastors who govern in the name of Christ, in keeping with Jesus' promise to the Eleven immediately before his ascension, "I am with you always to the close of the age" (Mt 28, 20).

6. In the Sacraments

He is present in the sacraments too, and present when the sacrificial memorial of his redemptive work is offered on the altar.

7. EUCHARISTIC PRESENCE – A SPECIAL PRESENCE

Yet in the midst of this rich, variegated presence of Christ, there is one particular form of presence that stands out far above all others: his Eucharistic presence, which outshines them all. Christ's Eucharistic presence is almost like the sun, with all the other forms of Christic presence like satellites turning around that central star. All the six satellites enumerated are magnificent, no doubt. But the Eucharistic presence is so special, so peculiar and rich.

a)      Christ presence through faith in the heart of the believer explained

As the result of baptism or the sacrament of reconciliation, Christ is present through faith in the heart of the believer. It is not easy to explain satisfactorily this form of presence which implies a vital link between the Christian and the glorified Christ.

Unborn baby and its mother

In order to convey this absolutely unique type of presence, Paul compares it to that connecting the unborn baby to its mother. The mother is in physical contact with the baby, supplying it with life and sustenance. The link between mother and baby is probably the most intimate type of union that can exist between two living persons, holding and nourishing the other. The baby's dependence on the mother is absolute, total, but it is certainly not reciprocal. This is the pattern that to some extent clarifies the unique relationship between the Christian and the transfigured, glorified Jesus. They are both intimately connected — through faith. The faith acts almost like an umbilical cord.

Yet not physical or substantial presence: This closeness is not to be identified with the Eucharistic union, for in itself it is a type of presence that precedes and in a way leads to the Eucharistic presence. It is a baptismal link, not a Eucharistic link. It is intimate, personal and all-absorbing, it is an enveloping presence and yet, it is not even quasi-physically present in the person of the Christian. The Christian, even if endowed with living faith, does not carry within himself the glorified humanity of Jesus, as if he were a sort of personal, living tabernacle. And here lies precisely the profound mystery of this presence through faith. The union is certainly most intimate, it is almost physical — and yet the glorified humanity of Jesus is not substantially present in the Christian, for this form of substantial presence is exclusive to the Eucharist.  The Eucha­ristic form of presence is of a superior kind, there is something in the Eucharist which goes well beyond the baptismal presence through faith, a 'surplus' which even living faith cannot supply. The Christian, through faith, is intimately connected with the Lord of Easter, like the vine is united to the branches, but properly speaking he is not the temple of Christ.

b)     Christ presence through the Word of God explained

Christ is also present through the word of God when it is read and preached with authority and received in faith. Christ makes himself present in the preacher and the hearer alike. The scriptural word is like the vehicle through which Christ makes himself present or intensifies his presence if he was already present in the heart of the believer through living faith. (Heb 4:12)

Faith is indispensable: In a way faith is the indispen­sable receptacle of both, for it is only if the word of God and the bread of life are received in faith that word and bread will nourish the receiver. A faithless hearing of the word is as ineffectual as a faithless reception of the bread. The word is like a seed that will sprout and fructify, will convey the presence of Christ only if it falls into a heart rendered soft and receptive through living faith. (Is 55, 10-11). We are usually so dazzled by the splendours of Jesus' Eucharistic presence, so taken up by this incredible reality, as to be almost blinded to certain essential elements surrounding it. The real presence is brought about in the midst of a worshipping community where Christ was already present through faith; and it is effected in a sacramental action by the efficacy of the word. The three forms of Christic presence, in the community, through faith and through the word, conspire, as it were, to bring about the climax of this Eucharistic presence.

c)      Twofold Eucharistic Presence

In reality it is a twofold Eucharistic presence that we encounter at the altar: (i) the past salvific event of Christ's death and resurrection is rendered present sacramentally, through signs, since the worshipping community is celebrating the memorial of that event. (ii).And in the midst of this presence of the saving event, Jesus himself becomes personally present and sacramentally present. Our usual terminology is not particularly commendable. Unreflectively we go on speaking of Christ's 'real presence' in the Eucharist, reserving this expression exclusively to his Eucharistic presence, as if the other forms of presence were not real. In reality all the seven different forms of Eucharistic presence in the Church are real, very real; they are not at all imaginary. Yet the Eucharistic presence stands supreme, for besides being real and personal, it is also substantial. Through his word and through faith Christ is present in the individual and he is also present in the community, but this is a twofold presence through his power only, not a substantial presence; whereas in the Eucharist — and only in the Eucharist — he is present also substantially, viz., with his own glorified humanity.

d)     One single Presence in various degrees of intensity

Yet, let us not complicate matters unnecessarily: rather than a manifold presence of Christ, what we have in reality is one single presence in various degrees of intensity. These forms of presence mentioned above are but the various degrees of actualization of Christ's single and undivided presence in the ecclesial community. The vehicles of his presence are certainly varied (word, sacraments, faith, community, the poor and destitute) but his presence is only one. He is present to the Church, and this single presence admits of various degrees of intensification, for the presence of Christ, just like any other form of personal presence, can grow indefinitely, it can become more intense and it can diminish in intensity, but the presence is always one. Eucharistic presence in the body of the communicant does not last long. It soon vanishes, in fact, but not before having caused an intensification of Christ's presence through faith in the heart of the communicant. Christ's Eucharistic presence in the body of the communicant is no more, but his presence through faith does continue, marvelously deepened and intensified. The familiar biblical episode of Jesus' appearance to two of his disciples on their way to Emmaus on that eventful Easter Sunday is a clear embodiment of most of these forms of presence.

a). The two disciples were walking along when "Jesus himself drew near and went with them" (Lk 24,15), thereby fulfilling, as it were, his own earlier promise that he would be in the midst of those gathered in his name.

b). After joining them, Jesus began to explain to them the meaning of the messianic prophecies. (Lk 24, 27). In other words, he showed them that Christ was present in the word of God.

c). At the end of the episode all three sat at table and then Jesus "took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened and they recognized him" (Lk 24, 30-31). Their faith has finally grasped the presence of Jesus, they recognize him through faith in the breaking of the bread, which on this occasion is probably but a Lucan symbol of the Eucharistic presence. Luke is deliberately using Eucharistic language ("took, blessed, broke, and gave") to tell his readers that at their own 'breaking of the bread' they too can encounter the Risen Christ as the two disciples did at Emmaus.

4. CHRIST’S TRANSFIGURED EUCHARISTIC BODY

This is an exceedingly obscure question, yet of consider­able importance to understand correctly in all its riches the reality of Eucharistic communion. Once again it is not idle speculation, but rather a better grasp of the biblical datum that will throw some light, however limited, on the nature of Christ's Eucharistic body. Already in the Old Testament we encounter three realities intimately linked together: glory or splendour, power and Spirit, all three connected with the presence of God, and later on, in the fullness of the New Testament, also with the body of Jesus. Yahweh's awe-inspiring theophanies are often characterized by the effulgence of his presence; he makes his presence manifest through light. (Ex 24:16-17) It should be recalled that the presence of the Lord was often manifested by means of effulgence, a brilliance that radiated from the Tent of meeting or from the Ark of the Covenant.

New Testament: Furthermore, Paul often associates glory or effulgence with power, to the extent of almost identifying them. Thus he speaks of "the glory of his power" (2 Thes 1,9), or reverting the terms, of "the power of his glory" (Col 1,11). Transfiguration, glorification, body, power: four suggestive musical notes that produce a most delightful symphony in the ear   attuned   to    biblical harmony.    The   theme   of   the resurrection seems to hold an irresistible attraction for Paul. In a famous passage which describes the qualities of our future risen body, he states succinctly: 

Ø  1 Cor 15:43-44: "So it is with the resurrection of the dead, (the body) is raised in splen­dour ... it is raised in power... it is raised a Spirit-filled body". Splendour, power, Spirit: three unbreakable links in one and the same chain. This, according to Paul, will be the future reality of our glorified body.

      Not only the power of the person but the person steeped in splendor

It is not that we have in the Eucharist only the power of a distant person, of a person that is physically absent. It is the person himself that is present, steeped in splendour, penetrated by power, possessed by the Spirit. The Ark of the Covenant now pales into insignificance, for the altar has become a permanent Tabor. The Tent of meeting was but a distant foreshadowing of the Eucharistic reality, for the transfigured, glorified Christ is now permanently present in the midst of the Church, comforting her with his presence and enveloping her in his brilliance.

5. EUCHARISTIC PRESENCE IS PERSONAL PRESENCE

Jesus did not bestow on the Church the wondrous gift of his Eucharistic presence just to be there, right in the middle of the Church and very close to her, but rather in order to give himself over to her. The real presence is the presence of a sacrificial victim, and victim means a total self-gift to another. The Eucharistic Christ is given over to the Church; or, to express it differently, he is a person given-for, with an outward bent and a strong personalistic connotation. His is a personal presence. Jesus’ Eucharistic presence is obviously not merely spacial, it is strictly and warmly personal. The Eucharistic Christ, precisely because he is and will always be a victim, is a person given over to another. He gave himself over to his Father on the cross ("Father, into your hands...") and he gives himself over to the Church in the Eucharist.

      The two beneficiaries of that total self-gift of Jesus are the two persons that were all along the real obsession of his life: his Father and his Church.

Between the Eucharistic Lord and "his beloved spouse the Church," (to use once again the beautiful expression of the council of Trent) there is intimacy, there is warmth, there is mutual self-gift. Christ is given over to the ecclesial community and the ecclesial community (as well as each and every individual Christian within the community) gives itself over to the Lord really present within it. There is a mutual current of affectivity and love binding the Church and Christ to each other. This is a mutual penetration of love, of reciprocal self-surrender, and this surrender of self is based upon the deeper layers of mutual openness and freedom. At the Supper Jesus chose this Eucharistic self-donation to the infant Church with the utmost freedom, nobody forced him into it, for forced gifts are not gifts at all. Jesus was certainly free and he was and remains essentially open to his spouse. Hopefully this double attitude of openness and freedom on the part of Jesus is reciprocated by the Church. Both of them give freely and both receive freely, the ultimate reason — the deepest layer of their mutual personal presence — being the granitic foundation of their mutual trust and reciprocal faithfulness.

5.1 Personal presence – Subject to growth

            This mutual presence is not only real but also personal, and if it is personal it is subject to growth, like any other personal relationship. The Church's self-commitment to her Lord, in openness and freedom, should grow until her pilgrim condition gives way to the definitive, beatifying state. For the Eucharistic presence has an inbuilt dynamism that thrusts the Church forward towards her final destiny.

Eucharistic presencei s preparatory to reach the heavenly presence. “Eucharistic presence is personal and substantial independant  of the faith. To bear fruits, the faith is necessary”

For Reference

CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES OF THE REAL PRESENCE OF THE EUCHARIST IN THE MIDDLE AGES (19^TH CENT)

Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist remained, properly speaking, unquestioned down to the time of the heretic Berengarius of Tours (d. 1088), and so could claim even at that time the uninterrupted possession of ten centuries. In the course of this dogma's history there arose in general two great Eucharistic controversies.

1.1 The First Controversy -RADBERTUS AND RATRAMNUS.

Charles had come to power as king of the West Franks. He assumed the responsibility of promulgating to his subjects the teaching on the Eucharist. So he encouraged the monks to write about Eucharist. Radbertus wrote a book entitled  De Corpore et Sanguine Domini (On the Body and Blood of the Lord) and dealt with the presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist.

In his writings De Corpore et Sanguine Domini,

1. He taught a complete identity between the historical body of Christ, born of Mary, and the Eucharistic body of Christ, because that is the only body that can give salvation and that can be the Head of the Body of the redeemed which is the Church.
2. Radbertus asserted that Christians are saved by a kind of natural union formed between the recipients of the supper and the Body of the risen Lord. For this reason, he also insisted that the Body of Christ present in the Eucharist was the same Body as that which was born of Mary.
3. It is eaten mystically and not in a way that is perceptible to the senses

                                             

The question was how can the same Christ be present at different altars at the same time?

1) The flesh of Christ is multiplied miraculously at different altars as bread and fish are multiplied.

2) Because of divine omnipotence.

3) Holy Spirit which works at Incarnation also works here.

v  In short, Radbertus attempted to strongly affirm the reality of the flesh of Christ present in the Eucharist and to connect our salvation to the literal eating of this divine/human body.

Rabanus Maurus

The position of Paschasius seemed novel and exaggerated to Rabanus Maurus (+ 856), though he had no doubt about the real presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine.

But he questioned the simple identification of what was eaten in the Eucharist with historical body of Christ. He thought that this would suggest that Jesus Christ actually died each time the Eucharist was celebrated.

Ratramnus

1. He refused to identify the Eucharistic body with the historical body of Christ. What is offered to Christians in the sacrament is not the body of Christ that appeared on earth.
2. For Ratramnus, therefore, to hold the view that Christ is present according to the natural mode of flesh and blood would destroy the very notion of a sacrament.
3. But he also did not deny that something real and objective happens to the bread and wine in the celebration of the Eucharist. Nevertheless, he argued that the manner in which this happens is properly called sacramental.
4. In other words, the Eucharistic body of Christ is the sacrament of His historical body. Therefore the two are not the same. The central concern for Ratramnus was the question of faith in the sacrament rather than the issue of material realism.

He employs St. Augustinian’s concepts of Veritas and Figura. Veritas refers to the physical body of Christ and it is in heaven. The change is taking place only figuratively.

I.       Ratramnus explained that "bread and wine of the Eucharist are not changed corporally in the sacrament, but are changed figuratively under the cover of the corporeal bread and of the corporeal wine. Christ's spiritual body and spiritual blood do exist." There is no literal or empirical change. The body and blood is eaten spiritually.

The Second Eucharistic Controversy - BERENGAR against LANFRANC

A) Berengar of Tours (998-1088)

The tradition represented by Radbertus Paschiasius received some popularity. The idea of a physical miracle in the mass gained increasing ground in popular piety. In fact this was the reason why Berengar of Tours (998-1088) protested. The central issue in the controversy was that of the substantial conversion. Berengar rejected the doctrine of substantial conversion because it was contrary to the evidence of the senses and contrary to the principles of nature. His basic position was the denial of the Eucharistic change: one may after the consecration refer to the Eucharistic gifts as Christ's body and blood but they in reality remain bread and wine.

Principles of nature

He assumed that the reality of a thing was known by its appearances, and therefore that thing must really be what is seemed to be in appearance. If what was on the altar seemed to be bread it must be bread.

No miracle

HE says, no miracle can be accepted with regard to the Eucharist. By bread and wine, one may refer to body and blood after consecration, but in reality they remain bread and wine. He employed same argument i.e., Christ cannot be subjected to death again.

1. The nature, or substance of bread and wine is not changed in the Eucharist, but they signify an invisible reality, heavenly reality, the body and blood of Christ.  

Influence: He was influenced by the empirical approach, which was gaining popularity – what can be touched and seen is only real.

B). Lanfranc of Le Bec (1005-1089), the later Archbishop of Canterbury

• He accused him of denying the substantial change. So, they said Berengar was not confessing the faith of the Church. As a result, Berengar was summoned to a series of councils (between 1047-1054) where he was forced to give his assent to statements concerning the Eucharistic presence of a strongly realistic manner.
• The most extreme was the confession of faith forced on him by the Synod of Lateran in 1059 which reads thus: “The bread and wine which are placed on the altar are after consecration not only a sacrament but also the real body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in a tangible way not just sacramentally but in truth they are held and broken by the hands of the priest and are crunched by the teeth of the faithful".

Berengar rejected this statement when he returned, later on and in 1079 he had to sign a second formula (Christian Faith 1501).

A year later Berengar died in peace with the Church.

Basing himself on those teachings of Ambrose, Lanfranc affirmed:

[i] That God has the power to change what already existed into something else, and [ii] that such a change occurs at the moment of consecration of the bread and wine. He argued further, that God's infinite power can and does cause such a change to happen in the Eucharist. The earthly elements are changed into Christ's Body and Blood.

Fr. Albert Leo
Precious Blood Missionaries

Nature of Christian Marriage

     

           Describe the Nature and Ends of Christian Marriage? (1055)

What are the Essential Properties of Christian Marriage? (1056)

What are Ratified and Consummated Marriages? (Can. 1061)

Introduction

Marriage in Christian understanding is basically a vocation, a call, an invitation with a solid purpose and effect. Therefore, before one enters into marriage one has to find out whether one can live a marital life. Christianity values marriage very highly and that union of man and woman in holy matrimony is seen as representing the union between Christ and the church (Eph 5:22-33). The love of the couple brings them closer to God and closer to an understanding of God’s love for his creation.

Christian Marriage

In the light of CIC 1015 &CCEO 776 a canonical definition of marriage can be formulated thus: “Marriage between the baptized is a covenant, which has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament, by which a man and a woman, by their personal consent, establish between themselves partnership of their love whole life, and which of its own nature is ordered to the well being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children.  The provision of CIC 1015 & CCEO 776 are based on the sources of LG 11, 41; GS 48; AA 11; and Humane Vitae 8

I. Nature of Christian Marriage

1. Marriage between the Baptized

It refers to Christian marriage, a marriage between a Christian man and a Christian woman. It is distinct from a natural marriage, a social institution, with its own civil effects.

Marriage is a human reality, a secular one. In one form or another it existed always. But for the believers in Christ it has a new dimension, as He raised it to a sacrament. It signifies and brings grace, it is a marriage “in the Lord” (I Cor 7:39).

Christian marriage is between the baptized man and woman. However, the fact of baptism alone is not enough. They must really believe in Christ and in the sacramentality of marriage. We cannot simply assume that all baptized are believers in Christ and in His teaching. The parish priest or his delegate must verify it. He should see if the proposed couples are actual believers. He should instruct them about various aspects of Christian marriage and prepare them for Christian marriage.

2. Marriage as a Covenant

Vat. II and CIC 1983 describe Christian marriage as a covenant. Marriage is enduring and exclusive covenant of love between a man and a woman. The notion of covenant describes the theological dimension of marriage. It is relationship, which recognizes the spiritual quality of the spouses, and their capacity to enter into an agreement which demands the gift of the whole person to each other.

It is biblical expansion. We have the theology of covenant, which is based on the biblical concept of covenant. All through the bible, God’s relationship with mankind is expressed in terms of covenant, a solemn treaty of love and fidelity, which God makes with His people. By this covenant God pledges himself irrevocably to love His people and never to desert them. They, in turn, are asked to pledge themselves to Him with a covenant. God will never change His love for them, no matter how they behave towards Him.

He loves them with a love, which has all the characteristics of married love; “even if a mother forgets her children, I will not forget you” (49:15). God loves mankind with a love which is faithful, dependable, unconditional, and irrevocable; a love which if patient and full of pity; a love which is tender yet strong, passionate but constant; a love which forgives to the point of foolishness and never ceases to welcome home the unfaithful partner.

(Cf. Hos.2:16-17; Jer. 2:2, 31:3; Isa 54:4-10, 49:15; song of Songs 8:6-7; Dt. 16:17; Jos. 24:19-20; Jer. 31:34; Mal 2:14…..)

A covenant is also a form of contract; but in it the details are not fixed at once. The rights and duties are not carefully outlined from the beginning. Fundamentally they are formal legal terms. Legalistic prescription of rights and duties are secondary the basic commitment of person’s infidelity and spontaneity is the essence of a covenant. It is primarily a personal relationship and mutual commitment. However, from the human point of view, it must be specified by legal terms and prescriptions together with warnings of what will happen if the covenant is violated. Thus, in the covenant the aspects of a legal contract are present, but they do not exhaust it.

®    Marriage Covenant is based on Love

Love is the basis of marital covenant. Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Casti Connubi wrote the love of husband and wife which pervades all the duties of married life hold pride of place in Christian marriage. GS 49 says “Love is and must be the strength and the basis of the whole of married life.

The best example for the husband-wife relationship in Eph 5:21-33. It uses the Christ Church relationship as the model for marriage. As the church is devoted to Christ, so are the wives to their husbands (Vv 22-24). It is not given as lordly authority but is admonished to love his wife according to the example of Christ (v 25). The total surrendering love of Christ for this church is a model and measure for the mutual love of man and wife in marriage. The attitude of the husband towards his wife should not be that of self assertion but self sacrifice.

The love of the husband for the wife should be sanctifying love (vv 26-27). It is expressed in terms of love. Love one another means accepting the other as a person. The self-sacrifice love of husband and wife becomes the source of sanctification of each other as Christ’s self-sacrifice resulted in the sanctification of the church, his Bride.

In the same way, husbands should love their wives as their own bodies (v. 28), as part of their total self. For no man ever hates his own flesh but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church” (v 29). In the Semitic language, the one who hates is the one who loves someone less than another. Naturally treating one with indifference is equal to hate the other whom he ought to love. The husband should have a caring love for his wife as he takes care of his own body. It implies a love for his wife, which is unselfish, and a relationship is care and trust.

3. Marriage is a Partnership for their Whole Life

The council teaches, “The intimate partnership of life and love constitutes the married state of life (intima communitas vitae consortium” GS 48. “Totius vitae consortium” is the Latin expression used in the canons CIC 1015 & CCEO 776, in order to formulate the council teaching on this matter.

“communitas”, “communion”, “societas”, “coniunctio”, and”consortium” are words that could be juridically used in this regard. The code commission however, preferred the word consortium, since it is a much used term in relation to marriage. The Romans in fact called marriage a consortium.

The word consortium literally means a close association, partnership, connection and company of persons sharing the same fortune, fate and destiny. It is less than Communion, which is the closest of intimate relationship.

Marriage, as an intimate partnership of life and love, has its basis in the Bible (Gen 2:18). The Bible presents marriage in terms of “two becoming one flesh”, Jesus as a natural institution ordered to partnership and procreation.

Studies have been made on consortium. In his study of the term Coniunctio, communion and consortium, J. Huber concludes that the concept of coniunctio denotes the union of both bodies and minds that is matrimonium consummatum. Communion on the other hand, is a term used in the new code to described theological relations and it includes the totality of rights and duties of marriage, common living, communion of minds excluding communion of bodies.

The concept underlying consortioum stands for marriage itself and for the totality of the rights and duties obligations of marriage. It includes two things (a) communion of bodies, that is, the exclusive and perpetual right over the body for acts which are naturally apt for the generation of offspring; in this communion are included, Bonum Prolis,Bonum Fidei, (unity and exclusivity), bonum Sacramenti (indissolubility), and also to some extent bonum coniugis; (b) communion of souls (of persons) that is the right of mutuum adiutorium understood in its more profound Biblical sense.

CIC 1015.1/ CCCEO 776.1 refer to consortium without “coniugalis” while CIC 1098/CCEO 821 speaks of “consortium coniugalis vitae.” The three elements that have been consistently highlighted as being essential to the consortium vitae are the following:

1.      The consideration of the other as ‘a person’-a subject having his own identity, an autonomous centre of spirituality etc, towards whom one must display a certain degree of sensitivity.

2.      A decision or a willingness to establish a relationship of love with this other person which involves a certain degree of ‘understanding (appreciation) and caring’ (wanting the good of the person) and of ‘oblative love’ (offering oneself to build up the other).

3.      A willingness to share responsibility in the generation and upbringing of children.

‘Consortium Vitae’ is distinguished from mere cohabitation. It does not mean a mere sharing of bed and board of being under the same rood, but the right and the corresponding obligation of an all-embracing union-sexual, corporeal, spiritual, moral and intellectual.

4. Marriage as a Sacrament

The church teaches that marriage is a sacrament. The first Canon on marriage states that for the baptized “This institution has been raised by Christ our Lord to the dignity of a Sacrament.” (1055) The Second Vatican Council document Gaudium et Spes states “God himself is the author of marriage” (no.48).

The church sees marriage as a Sacrament because it wants to show that this occasion when two people say  ‘yes’ to each other has something to do with God. When the church gives blessings to marriage it declares it holy and whole, for it has placed it under God’s blessing. Under God’s blessing they will embark on the experience of mutual openness, understanding and love. 

In the east, the sacramental character of marriage was accepted and emphasized from the 5^th century onwards in the West, it was fully recognized only after a long period of time. It was early Christian writers referred to marriage as ‘sacramentum”, “mysterion.”  However, only in the 13^th century marriage was defined as one of the 7 sacraments. This was universally declared only by the council of trend in 16the century.

In the N.T we have no direct reference to the institution of marriage by Christ as a sacrament. The basic text to reference to it is Eph 5. The sacramentality of marriage is grounded in Christ’s saving work. It reflects the union of Christ with his church. Christ raised marriage to the sacramental dignity because it can be a means for growth in true charity, in unselfish love, mutual service for the spouses. When marriage is contracted between two baptized persons, by the very fact makes it a sacrament (CIC 1055.2).  Thus, persons, catholic or not, who baptized validly are capable of a sacramental marriage. If baptism takes place after marriage, the sacramentality is acquired then.

4.1 Reformer’s View

Reformers denied sacramentality of marriage because according to them there was no direct and explicit scriptural evidence that Christ established the sacrament of marriage. Consequently they rejected church’s juridical function in matrimonial matters. Luther: matrimony is not the sacrament of the new law because it lacks divine promise. , Calvin: Matrimony is not the sacrament in the full sense of the word.

4.2 Catholic Teaching

The General Council of Florence in its Decree for the Armenians in 1439 affirms the sacramentality of Christian marriage. The seventh (sacrament) is the sacrament of matrimony which is the sign of the union of Christ and the church. (ND 1803)

Since, because of the grace of Christ, matrimony under the law of the Gospel is superior to the marriage unions of the old law, the Holy Fathers, the councils and the universal church have with good reason always taught that it is to be numbered among the sacraments of the new law (ND 1807).

If anyone says that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven sacrament of the new law of Gospel instituted by Christ the Lord, but that it was devised in the church by men and does not confer grace, anathema sit (ND 1808).

5. Marriage as a Vocation

God calls a person to the vocation of Christian marriage as He calls a young man to be priest or brother or a woman to be a sister. The dignity and holiness of the married state had been recognized ever more clearly in 20^th century. It is truly a sacred calling, which has an important place in the church. Thus, marriage is special vocation. It is not just something, which is suitable for some people but a necessary for full presentation of the message of salvation. It is God’s invitation to the majority of men and women to achieve love and union with him through a life of dedicated service.

6 Marriage as an Institution of New Law of Christ

Marriage is also a Sacrament and therefore an institution of the new law of Christ. The church ought to regulate Christian marriage by its own laws for the good of the Christian spouses, of the children born in the Christian family, and of the entire Christian people in order that all may attain that supreme bunum animarum of all church law which is sanctity.

II. Ends of Marriage

®    Gen.1:28 says “and God blessed them and said to them, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.” By generating children, the couples are cooperating with the divine will and plan.

®    Gen. 2:18 says “It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him a helper”. Adam calls Eve, flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone” (Gen 2:23), because they both constitute one being together. And the scripture completes, “therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and leaves to his wife, and they become one flesh’ (Gen 2:23ff). The expression of ‘one flesh’ asserts in a very concrete and vivid manner the mutual completion of man and woman effected through marriage.

®    The code of Canon Law 1917

Can 1012.1&2; 1013.1 and 1081.2 employed strictly juridical languages to describe marriage as contract than as a covenant. In clear terms this code stated that primary end of marriage is procreation and education of children and the secondary ends are mutual assistance of the spouses and remedy of concupiscence.

®    Casti Connubii - Pius XI (1930)

Pope Pius XI makes a distinction between primary ends and secondary ends of marriage.

      Primary ends - procreation and education of children

      Secondary ends - mutual love and remedy for concupiscence.

®    Vatican II- strikes a balance

The Vatican II has brought about a new understanding of the ends of marriage notion in hierarchical manner but as complementing each other.

The Vatican II in G.S 48 says, ‘by its very nature, the institution of marriage and conjugal love is ordered towards the begetting and educating of children and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.

G.S. 49 says “conjugal love is an eminently human love because it is affection between two persons rooted in the will and it embraces the good of the whole person”

1. Spousal Well Being

In marriage the good of the spouses is of paramount importance and the good of both parties is wrapped up in the goodness of one. Christ’s love and gift to the church and those of the church become the model of the mutual love and the self-giving of man and woman (Eph 5:22-32). This divine plan of love and self-giving between two people joined in sacramental marriage, has to be permanent and indissoluble. Thus through the sacrament of marriage the husband and wife are enabled to help each other to live spiritually good lives, and to live together in harmony under the fatherly care of God, ultimately enabling their mutual sanctification in the marital vocation.

The importance end obtained through marriage covenant is mutual assistance and completion in love of the two spouses. In marriage man and woman ‘render mutual help and service to each other through an intimate union of their persons and their actions (G.S 48). Man and woman with their different gifts and abilities complete each other in this covenant in the most perfect way.

2. Procreation and Education of Children

Just as God’s love was so fruitful in the creation of mankind, so is the deepest union of man and woman in marriage is aimed at procreation. Thus with God the couple become co-creator. They partake of the call of God “to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28) as a serious responsibility attached to their vocation to marital life. For this end He created them social beings and naturally inclined to each other and filled them with physically capacity to join together and beget children. This invitation or command therefore includes mutual help and nourishment for each other and to implant in their children the highest virtue of love. Therefore husband and wife are not only intimate companions in life and in love, but also producers and promoters of new lives. In God’s plan marriage is for the spreading and the expansion of human race through taking part in the procreative mission. The Bible places a high value on having children as one of the prime blessings of marriage, the decision to procreate is highly weighed in relation to the other intrinsic of marriage.

Marriage is basically a vocation to have children. On the natural plane the indissolubility exists ultimately to serve the good of children. Just as the child before birth needs the womb of his m other for protection and nurture, so as a young child and adolescent he or she needs the environmental womb of the family. Marriage has as its purpose not merely the procreation but also the education of children. In this direction G.S. (Gudium et Spes) states “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents…Hence, while not making the other purpose of matrimony of less account, the true practice of conjugal love, and the whole meaning of the family life which result from it, have this aim: that the couple be ready with stout hearts to cooperate with the love of the Creator and Saviour, who through them will enlarge and enrich His own family day by day. Parents should regard as their proper mission the task of transmitting human life and educating those to whom it has been transmitted. (G.S 50)

Catechism of the Catholic Church therefore affirms this responsibility of the parents in the following statement: “Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God. Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life, and to educate their children: they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility.” (CCC 2367)

III.            The Essential Properties of Marriage

Can. 1056 says, “The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness in virtue of the sacrament. Therefore in the juridical setup these two elements are absolutely essential. To be more realistic the love between the spouses is expressed in all the aspects of their marital life and all the more in their sexual relationship. Sexual relationship between the couples expresses and nurture love and these results in procreation of children who are to be brought up in love. Love in marriage is genuine only in so far as the spouses strongly decide to carry on their union until death and to defend it from every attack from without. Though they may look silly, four words –only you forever—are the cornerstones of the edifice of marriage. So much so without these foundational values of unity and indissolubility there cannot be true marriage. Since Christian marriage is not only a symbol but also a participation in Christ’s covenant of unconditional fidelity and unbreakable union with his church. In Christian marriage the essential properties acquire a distinctive firmness and yield to no exception. Therefore, we can firmly hold that these unitive and permanent aspects of marriage are two sides of the same coin.

1. Unity of Marriage

Unity means that marriage by its nature consists of the union of one man with one woman. This notion therefore categorically rules out the concepts of polygamy which can be either polyandry, which is one woman having several husbands, or polygamy, that is one man having several wives at the same time. Unity is one of the essential features of every marriage, whether Christian or non-Christian. But as a matter of fact, in virtue of the sacramental dignity of Christian marriage, unity acquires a special significance.

The Catholic Church, throughout the centuries, has adhered to monogamous marriage as prescribed by the Lord. At the same time the prohibition of polygamy for Catholic is a dogma defined at the council of Trent. The second Vatican Council sums up the notion in the following statement: “Firmly established by the LORD, the unity of marriage will radiate from the equal personal dignity of wife and husband, a dignity acknowledged by mutual and total love (G.S 93)

Unity means the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Thus it is very important to understand that the juridical bond which is the foundation of marriage can arise only between a man and a woman, because this exclusively belongs to the very nature of marital unity. That is to say that a man and a woman conjugally unite themselves with each other, and with no one else. Another point to be noted here is that the foundation of marital unity is the equality of dignity between man and woman; however the sexual difference is to be a means by which one compliments and fulfills the other. This enables them to work together as spouses in accord with the dignity which belongs to them as persons. In fact this unity does not mean that it destroys the individuality of the neither couples nor does it merge them into one. Though ontologically united, each of them maintains their individuality, yet they belong to each other and become co-owners with a mutual and solitary purpose. This is how the biblical understanding of marriage as the union of two in one flesh becomes a reality in marriage. So much so, their intimacy is such that this particular man and woman alone are united as husband and wife in a marriage partnership for their whole life, which is the crux of the unitive aspect of marriage in the Christian understanding.

1.1 Monogamy in Scripture

It was true that polygamy was the order of the day among the patriarchs and kings. It was indeed a sign of affluence and prestige. Although prophets and the wisdom literature treated polygamy as an existing condition, they held monogamy as an ideal. Marriage was cited as an existing reality and as an example of fidelity to the covenant. Genesis 1,2, has it that man tells of woman, “she is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bones”, which is a clear indication that marital union in for the two and the two alone. Genesis 5:7 gives us a chronology of monogamous union on patriarchs. In the NT monogamous marriage was taken for granted,.. “what God has joined together , let no man put asunder (Mk 10:6-9; Mt 19:1-9).

1.2 The Teachings of the Church

Down through the centuries the Magisterium has consequently held marriage to be monogamous. Council of Trent clearly states: “If anyone says that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time and that it is not forbidden by the divine law anathema sit” (ND.1809).

Casti Connubii - 12 speaks “marriage will never be profaned by adultery or divorce. Firmly established by the Lord, the unity of marriage will radiate from the equal personal dignity of wife and husband, a dignity acknowledge by mutual and total love.

Familiaris Consortio 10 say, “by virtue of the covenant of married life, the man and the woman are no longer two but one flesh”. They are called to grow continually in their communion through day to day fidelity to the marriage promise of mutual self-giving.

1.3 Reasons for Unity

Christian marriage is a life of love and mutual sharing. The spouses exist for each other. The husband cannot live out his sex nature without existing for the sex nature of his wife and vice-versa. In fact, monogamy is the supreme expression of agape, a lifelong living for one another. Christian marriage is a covenant entered into by a man and woman of the whole of their life: it is a call to a life of mutual offering one another without any reserve every moment of their life.

Polygamy not only affects seriously the mutual love and personal love and unity of the spouses but also disrupts their mutual co-operation in education of their children. Polygamy even affects the propagation of human race as well. Legitimacy of children becomes difficult to be determined.

2. Indissolubility

Can.1141 says, “A marriage which is ratified and consummated cannot be dissolved by any human power or by any cause other than death. Indissolubility of marriage means that the event of marriage cannot be dissolved at will neither with the consent of the contracting parties nor by an extrinsic human authority except through the death of one of the parties. “The indissolubility is an essential point in catholic doctrine concerning marriage. With it stands or falls the significance of the sacrament of marriage as an image of the faithful love between Christ and his church. Thus it was Jesus who first, clearly expressed the view that marriage was intended by God to be permanent, and the Catholic Church has always retained this value and set it before its members as an ideal. The official teachings of the catholic church on marital indissolubility is that once a marriage is validly witnessed in a ceremony and consummated physically it cannot be dissolved by any human power, either by one of the partners or by any other individual. In this view, the marriage bond may ordinarily be dissolved only by the death of one of the partners.

It is because husband and wife become one flesh in sexual union, marriage is indissoluble. What therefore God has joined together let no man put asunder (Mt 19:6). For Jesus, indissolubility of marriage corresponds to God’s original and therefore to the nature of the marital relationship between husband and wife. They can make this binding commitment only if they trust that God will bless this marriage and enable the two partners to remain loyal to each other. Marriage does not derive from human intentions alone but, as a sacrament, calls on the grace of God, who alone makes a lasting union possible.

Indissolubility is in no way an option open to the free choice of the couples. It flows from the very nature of the love they pledging to each other. This is clearly stated by Vatican II: “As a mutual gift of two persons, this intimate union, as well as the good of the children, imposes total fidelity on the spouses and argued for an unbreakable oneness between them.” Therefore indissolubility is not something independent of the couple themselves. Their children, other people, the church and society may expect it from them but its reality lies in them.

2.1 Scriptural Evidence

A. Old Testament: As we read in Genesis, in the beginning God created woman from man and so she is the flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and Jesus adds what God has put together let not man put asunder. Hence, intention of the creator was that this bond between the man and woman be indissoluble.

Prophets spoke marriage as a covenantal relationship. This covenantal relationship calls for fidelity and oneness. It is persons to person relationship. This relationship does not cease even in the consent of covenant is withdrawn by one on these parties. Hosea and Jeremiah also affirm the indissolubility of marriage and condemn infidelity or being unfaithful to such relationship.  Malachi 2:16 says, “I hate divorce, says Yahweh, the God of Israel (Jer 3:8, 50:1).

B. New Testament: Mk 10:11-13, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.

This text clearly shows a couple of elements:

1.      No exception to indissolubility

2.      Jesus categorically asserts that marriage is absolutely indissoluble. He made it amply clear that creator’s intention as found in Genesis 1&2. Hence, there is no legal ground for divorce. Civil authority would go against divine will if it dissolved marriage. Jesus means to say that indissolubility is the very nature of marriage.

The meaning of the phrase ‘except for unchastity’ is widely disputed. A theory championed by H.Baltenweilor and R.Schnackenburg elucidate that (unchastity) in Greek refers to illegal or illegitimate marriage between relatives. At the time of Jesus there were many gentile converts called proselytes. The Jews had given concession to them and if they married close relative, it was tolerated. But when they become Christian, the church held that if they had such unchaste relationships before becoming Christian they must give up even that i.e. separation of marriage of close relatives. Hence it is not an exception to indissolubility of a valid marriage but a separation commanded by the law of the people who are married illegitimately. We find a reference to it in Acts 15:20.

According to second theory except for unchastity is an actual exception to the norms of indissolubility. But then unchastity is understood variously. Its correct meaning depended on what precious little we can gather from the practices of the infant church. Scripture scholars are most unanimous on the fact that the phrase except for unchastity is an interpretation as it is conspicuously absent in the other synoptic gospels.

2.2 Reasons for the Indissolubility of Marriage

The stability and happiness of a marriage can more easily be attained if there is genuine love between the partners, if they are mature, if they understand that they must sacrifice for each other and for their children, and if they realized that marriage, by its very nature, must be permanent. The following are the few reasons why this marital indissolubility is very essential in marriage.

1. Biblical Reason for the Indissolubility of Marriage

The biblical reason for the indissolubility of marriage can be drawn from the words “what therefore God has joined together let not man put asunder (Mk 10:9; Mt 19:6). These passages mentions the mind of God without exception there is an emphasis from God that they need to live an indissoluble life. Here God does not grant any exemption or exception. Male and female He called them to live one flesh. Therefore there is no indissolubility. We know that God created human being in His image and likeness as male and female and He blessed them saying increase and multiply (Gen 1:27-28). So in this sense not only man and woman are important here but also the third party i.e. God himself who made them and inaugurated the marriage. Therefore God is an active agent in the process of marriage. When the man and woman make the promises of marriage God unites them. Therefore they cannot break it. Thus from Bible perspective all marriages are indissoluble By Divine Law.

2. Theological Reason for the Indissolubility of Marriage

It is true that Christ’s love is an unbreakable love. That is the reason St. Paul tells us that Christian marriage is the symbol of Christ’s union with the church and therefore it is a mystery (Eph 5:21-23). In fact Paul, by giving us the notion of a ‘great mystery,’ says that the Christian marriage is great, holy and sacred, because it reproduces the union of Christ with the church. Christians, as members of this church, must model themselves after this pattern. The union of Christ with His church, of which natural marriage represents and reproduces all the principles, thus becomes the ‘type’ of Christian marriage. Paul shows how this union is fully realized in the mystical bond between Christ and the church, of which Christian marriage is an image and reflection. Therefore we can say the law of marriage is nothing other than that which shines forth in the union of Christ with his church, and this union is definitive, faithful, fruitful, holy and sanctifying. As Christ loved the church unconditionally, the love that exists between the spouses should also be unconditional.

3. Social Reason for the Indissolubility of Marriage

If we trace out the root causes of all the evils that exist in the society we reach to a platform where we realize that it is because of the broken families. Everyone those who are engaged in the immoral activities like stealing, murder, rape and any kind of unsocial activities will have a very pathetic story to tell about their families. Since the number of broken families is increasing day by day the crimes and all the immoral activities also will increase in an alarming rate. So it is clear that good citizens come only from the good families. So when we look indissolubility of marriage from a social point of view it is a must for building up a good society.

4. The Ultimate Reason for the Absolute Indissolubility

All marriages are intrinsically indissoluble. Extrinsic indissolubility was provided for under the Mosaic Law through the legislation of Dt 24. Under the Christian dispensation all marriages are extrinsically dissoluble, at least in theory, with the exception of one that is ratun and consumatum. A ratified (ratum) marriage, i.e., a valid marriage between two validly baptized persons, is a sacramental marriage. The baptism of both parties can be either prior to contracting the marriage or subsequent to it. If one or both of the parties were not baptized at the moment of marriage, they contracted a natural bond of marriage. With valid reception of baptism by both parties this natural bond becomes sacramental, and the marriage which until that moment was natural becomes ratified, i.e. sacramental.

A consummated marriage is one in which the parties have performed after their marriage in a human manner the conjugal act. A sacramental marriage which has been consummated cannot be dissolved by any human power, not even the Roman Pontiff as the head of the church has the power to do so. When a ratified but non consummated marriage is dissolved by pope, the dissolution takes place not by merely ecclesiastical law or even by divine law that is natural or positive but antecedent to the use of the power of keys given by Christ to the church. The consummated marriages of Christian do not come under the power of the keys; by divine law they are exempt from it. And therefore they are absolutely indissoluble. So it is clear that a ratified and consummated marriage is by divine law absolutely indissoluble and was in no way completed in the power of loosing or dispensing that was grated to peter and his successors.

IV.             Dissolution of Marriage under Canon Law

The Catholic Church holds that a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved. However her power to dissolve a marriage which is ratified and but not consummated is affirmed by the magisterium and several centuries of practice of the church. Thus notion of absolute and relative indissolubility has been in her canonical tradition. Likewise, a ratified but non-consummated marriage can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff, using his vicarious power as Vicar of Christ, for a just reason at the request of the parties. The following are the four occasions when the church gives concession to dissolve a marriage bond.

1. Dissolution of Ratified but Non-Consummated Marriage

A non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and an unbaptized party can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just reason, at the request of both parties or of either party, even if the other is unwilling. This canon contemplates two requirements: (a) it must be established with moral certainly that the marriage has not been consummated and (b) there must be just reason. A marriage is consummated when the partners have met in the act of sexual intercourse after marriage contracted. Intercourse prior to consent is not considered to be consummation and therefore has no effect on marriage consent.

Canons 1697 to 1706 provide for dispensation from a ratified but non-consummated marriage. However, since this process takes time as recourse must be had to the Apostolic See the petitioner may also try for a decree of nullity of marriage at the diocesan tribunal level. For there is every chance that such a marriage might have been invalid on some canonical grounds. This is based on the rule of thumb according to which one need not ask authority to dissolve a marriage which is already null. However, a dispensation for the dissolution of a marriage bond is a special concession grated by the Holy Father in person. The other occasion where the special concession can be grated is in the case of a marriage contracted between a baptized and an unbaptized person or even between two unbaptized persons in favor of faith.

2. Dissolution of Marriage as per Pauline Privilege

Pauline privilege is a privilege whereby a legitimate marriage between two unbaptized persons, one of whom, after the marriage, had been converted to Christianity and baptized is dissolved in favor of the faith. It is based on an answer given by St. Paul regarding these types of cases. The problem was that the partner, not converted to Christianity, did not want to stay with the Christian spouse in peace, St. Paul stated that in such cases the Christian partner was free : I Cor 7:12-15. Did St. Paul mean ‘free to live separately’ or ‘free to remarry? The interpretation accepted and followed in practice in the church since 4^th century is that he meant free to remarry but among exegetes there is no complete agreement on this point. It certainly appears to be the most logical explanation.

Those who do not accept this interpretation do not thereby deny the value of what is called the Pauline privilege. They base the dissolution of such marriages on the power in the church to dissolve such a marriage and not on a ruling given by the Apostolic. In short, this covers the case of marriage entered into by two non-baptized persons in which one of them still unbaptized is unwilling to live with the other at all or at least in peace without offence to the creator i.e., let does not the other spouse follow the Christian religion. This is a concession made in favor of the faith i.e., to show the partner, who seeks baptism in. catholic church, to be baptized and remarry or who has already become a catholic, to remarry and thus live a full Christian life in Catholic Church.

3. Dissolution of Marriage in Petrine Privilege

A natural marriage can be dissolved “in favor of faith” when one of the parties is not baptized. The term Pauline privilege is used because this privilege derives its authority directly from the power of the pope as the successor of Peter. The pope exercises his power as Vicar of Christ and the universal shepherd in this case. Accordingly, any other marriage which is not ratified and consummated and it not covered under the general concessions explained earlier could be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff in favor of faith

®    The cases which fall under these norms are:

1.      A marriage contracted between a baptized and unbaptized persons

2.      A marriage contracted between two unbaptized persons but to which none of the general concessions of the privilege of the faith apply because the requirement for their operation are not fulfilled.

3.      A marriage contracted between two unbaptized persons neither of whom seeks baptism in favor of faith of a third person.

®    In order that dissolution may be validly granted, the following three conditions are absolutely necessary

1.      Lack of baptism of one of the two spouses during the whole time of their married life.

2.      Non-use of the marriage after the baptism perchance received by the party who was not baptized

3.      That the person who is not baptized outside the Catholic Church yields freedom and ability to the catholic party to profess his own religion and to baptized and educate the children as Catholics: this condition must be safeguarded in the form of a promise.

Pauline privilege requires interpellation similar to those used in a Pauline privilege case: besides, while the Pauline privilege cases can be decided at the local level, the Petrine privilege cases are to be sent to Rome as the Pope alone has power to dissolve such marriages.

Conclusion

Christian marriage is an unconditional commitment to each other. One grows in that union of love and fidelity which results in indissoluble unity. It is definite surrender to one another without calculation for the future. Certainly, it is a human manifestation of man’s total surrender to God since it is consecration to marriage for life. This nature of Christian marriage demands that everyone who is entering into such a marital covenant should sufficient knowledge of the essential ends and proper ties of marriage.

  Fr. Albert Leo, CPPS

Precious Blood Missionaries