Married Couples Recorded in the Roman Martyrology, with a Litany for Private Use

Saints Aquila and Priscilla

As I was reviewing page proofs for the book Are Canonizations Infallible? Revisiting a Disputed Question, I was struck once again by the account that was given during John Paul II’s pontificate of why so very many people “had” to be beatified and canonized starting in 1983. The rationale was this: the Church taught at Vatican II that holiness is everyone’s calling. And since the Church always remains faithful to Christ, there must therefore be a whole lot of saints in every category, especially from recent times, that need to be accelerated through the process in order to provide lots of examples and encouragement.

Now, this is a curious mixture of truths and falsehoods. It is of course true that the Church will always produce sanctity; no age is without saints. But it is not true that we can, as it were, crank up the factory and simply make more saints while maintaining the most rigorous standards of what constitutes publicly venerable holiness, or Christian perfection in charity. Nor is it by any means guaranteed that any particular age will be more fruitful than, or even equally fruitful as, any other age in verifiable saints. It could well be that modernity erects more barriers to the achievement of beatifiable and canonizable holiness. Indeed, this seems to be implied in Leo XIII’s letter Testem Benevolentiae.

One claim I have frequently seen in the literature surrounding John Paul II’s pontificate is that he wanted to present lots of examples of married sanctity to the laity. In and of itself, and taking into account the caveats of the preceding paragraph, we can say this is a laudable intention. For instance, we can rejoice in Louis and Zélie Martin, the parents of St. Thérèse of Lisieux, who, living relatively near to us in history, make spousal and parental holiness more vivid to our eyes. One also occasionally meets with cynical interpretations of hagiography that accuse the Church of denigrating marriage and promoting only a celibate model of sanctity. While some writers over the centuries doubtless had an axe to grind with marriage, this is by no means an operative assumption, nor is the dogmatic teaching that virginity consecrated to Christ is a more perfect state of life incompatible with a generous estimation of the good of sacramental marriage.

A way to see that the Church has not, in fact, been slow to recognize the sanctity of married couples and parents is to become more familiar with the traditional Roman Martyrology, which, as I have grown familiar with it over the years, has placed before me daily after Prime a remarkable procession of spouses, parents, and widows who have been part of our collective memory and liturgical worship for untold centuries. I continue to believe that it is highly valuable to read the Martyrology daily, for it furnishes a fuller picture of the models of sanctity venerated by the Catholic Church than the vastly smaller number of saints who are venerated in the Mass itself can give us by itself.

When we look more closely, we find in fact quite a good number of married saintly couples listed in the traditional Martyrology. By this, I mean something very specific: an entry that lists both the husband and the wife as saints. There are, as one would imagine, many more that list a saintly man or woman, husband or wife, without making mention of the other spouse or parent; and there are times when the whole family is martyred but only the husband is named. These have also been listed, because they too bear witness to the sanctity achievable in the married state and in the responsibilities of parenthood. (I have also included a few entries that speak of continent marriages, but these are few in number compared to the other categories.) It should also go without saying that plenty of other saints in the Martyrology would, in fact, have been married and/or parents, but here I am listing only those where the text itself includes such a description.

This article concludes with a litany in the usual style, for devotional use.

Saints Daria and Chrysanthus 

1. Saints who were married to each other

At Rome, blessed Dafrosa, wife of St. Flavian, Martyr, and mother of SS. Bibiana and Demetria, Virgin-Martyrs, who after the slaying of her husband was first sent into exile, and afterwards beheaded under the same prince. (Jan. 4)

At Sebaste, in Armenia, St Peter, Bishop, the son of SS. Basil and Emmelia, and brother also of SS. Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Bishops, and of Macrina, Virgin. (Jan. 9; cf. Mar. 9 and Jul. 19)

At Rome, on the Via Cornelia, the holy martyrs Marius and Martha his wife, and their sons Audifax and Abachum, Persians of noble birth, who came to Rome to pray in the time of the Emperor Claudius. After they had borne scourging, the rack, fire, iron hooks and the amputation of their hands, Martha was slain in the Nympha, and the others beheaded, and their bodies burnt. (Jan. 19)

At Caesarea in Mauritania, the holy martyrs Severian and Aquila his wife, who were burnt to death. (Jan. 23)

At Ostia, the holy martyrs Maximus and Claudius, brothers, and Praepedigna, the wife of Claudius, with their two sons, Alexander and Cutias; who, though they were of very noble birth, were at Diocletian's command all put to the test, and sent into exile. Later they were burned to death, offering themselves to God as a sweet sacrifice of martyrdom. Their relics were cast into the river, but discovered by the Christians, and buried near the same city. (Feb. 18)

At Nicomedia, the birthday of the holy martyrs Victor and Victorinus, who for three years were tormented by many tortures, together with Claudian and his wife Bassa; and, being cast into prison, they fulfilled there their life's course. (Mar. 6)

At Nicomedia, the birthday of the holy martyrs Macedonius, Patricia his wife, and his daughter, Modesta. (Mar. 13)

In Illyria, SS. Philetus, a senator, Lydia his wife, and his sons Macedo and Theoprepes; and also Amphilochius, a captain, and Chronides, a notary, who endured many torments for their confession of Christ and obtained the crown of glory. (Mar. 27)

At Milan, St Valeria, Martyr, wife of St Vitalis, and mother of SS. Gervase and Protase. (Apr. 28)

At Attalia in Pamphylia, the holy martyrs Exuperius, his wife Zoe, and Cyriac and Theodulus their sons; they were the slaves of a certain Paganus, and in the reign of the Emperor Hadrian, by order of their master, on account of their outspoken profession of the Christian faith, were scourged and severely tortured. Finally they were cast into an oven and so gave up their souls to God. (May 2)

In the Thebaid, the holy martyrs Timothy and Maura, his wife, whom, after many torments, the prefect Arian ordered to be fixed to a cross, whereon they hung alive for nine days, confirming each other in the faith, and achieved their martyrdom. (May 3)

At Rome, blessed Calepodius, Priest and Martyr, whom the Emperor Alexander had slain with the sword, and his body dragged through the city and cast into the Tiber. Pope Callistus buried it after it had been recovered. Palmatius the consul was also beheaded, with his wife and children, and forty-two others of his household, of both sexes; likewise Simplicius the Senator with his wife and sixty-eight of his household; and also Felix with Blanda his wife, whose heads were suspended at different gates of the City as a warning to the Christians. (May 10)

At Rome, St. Artemius, with his wife Candida, and his daughter Paulina. Artemius, at the preaching and miracles of St. Peter the Exorcist, believed in Christ, and was baptized with all his household by St. Marcellinus, Priest. He was scourged and slain with the sword by command of the judge Serenus: while his wife and daughter were driven into a crypt and buried beneath stones and debris. (Jun. 6)

At Rome, on the Via Salaria, the passion of blessed Getulius, a most famous and learned man (the father of the seven holy brethren, whom his wife Symphorosa bore him), and his companions Cerealis, Amancius and Primitivus. At the command of the Emperor Hadrian they were arrested by the governor Licinius and first of all scourged, then cast into prison, and lastly delivered to the flames: but since they were in no wise hurt thereby, they fulfilled their martyrdom by their heads being broken sticks. Symphorosa, the wife of blessed Getulius, gathered up their bodies and buried them with honour in a sand pit in her villa. (Jun. 10; cf. Jul. 18)

At Rome, St. Zoa, Martyr, wife of the blessed martyr Nicostratus, who, while praying at the Confession of blessed Peter the Aposde, was taken by the persecutors under the Emperor Diocletian, and cast into a dark prison. Then she was tied to a tree by the throat and hair, and a horrible smoke produced beneath her, and so she gave up the ghost, confessing the Lord. (5 July) [To which is related an entry two days later:] At Rome, the holy martyrs Claudius, a notary, Nicostratus (chief secretary, and the husband of blessed Zoa the Martyr), Castorius, Victorinus and Symphorian. St. Sebastian brought them all to the faith of Christ and the Priest blessed Polycarp baptized them. While they were busied in recovering the bodies of the holy martyrs, the judge Fabian ordered them to be apprehended, and after he had tempted them for ten days with threats and flatteries, and could not move them in the least, he ordered them to be thrice tortured and then cast headlong into the sea. (Jul. 7)

In Asia Minor, SS. Aquila and Priscilla, his wife, of whom mention is made in the Acts of the Apostles. (Jul. 8)

At Cordova in Spain, the holy martyrs George, a Deacon, Aurelius and his wife, Natalia, Felix and his wife, Liliosa, in the Arab persecution. (Jul. 27)

At Tomi in Pontus, the holy martyrs Marcellinus, a tribune, his wife Mannea, and their sons John, Serapion and Peter. (Aug. 27)

At Adrumetum in Africa, SS. Boniface and Thecla, who were the parents of twelve sons, blessed Martyrs. (Aug. 30)

At Caesarea in Cappadocia, SS. Theodotus, Rufina and Ammia; the first two of these were the parents of St. Mamas the Martyr, to whom Rufina gave birth in prison and whom Ammia educated. (Aug. 31)

At Rome, on the Via Appia, blessed Cornelius, Pope and Martyr; in the persecution of Decius, after being exiled, he was commanded to be beaten with leaden scourges, and was beheaded with twenty-one others of both sexes. And Cerealis also, a soldier, with his wife Sallustia, whom the same Cornelius had instructed in the faith, were beheaded on the same day. (Sep. 14)

At Rome, the passion of the holy martyrs Eustace and Theopistis, his wife, and their two sons Agapitus and Theopist, who were condemned to the beasts, under the Emperor Hadrian but by the help of God were uninjured by them. They were then enclosed in a heated brazen bull and consummated martyrdom. (Sep. 20)

At Damascus, the holy martyrs Paul and Tatta his wife, and their sons Sabinian, Maximus, Rufus and Eugene, who, accused of professing the Christian religion, were tortured by stripes and other punishments, and in torment gave up their souls to God. (Sep. 25)

In Persia, the holy martyrs Dadas, a kinsman of King Sapor, Casdoa his wife, and Gabdelas his son, who were deprived of their honours, wounded by various tortures and, after long imprisonment, slain by the sword. (Sep. 29)

At Jerusalem, SS. Andronicus and Athanasia his wife. (Oct. 9)

At Rome, the holy martyrs Chrysanthus and his wife Daria, who, after many sufferings which they endured for Christ, under the prefect Celerinus, were commanded by the Emperor Numerian to be set in a sand-pit on the Via Salaria, and there, while still living, to be covered with earth and stones. (Oct. 25)

St. Zachary, Priest and Prophet, the father of blessed John the Baptist, the Precursor of the Lord. Also St. Elisabeth, the mother of the same most holy Precursor. (Nov. 5)

At Emesa in Phoenicia, the holy martyrs Galatio and Epistemis his wife, who in the persecution of Decius were beaten with scourges, their hands, feet and tongues mutilated, and finally achieved martyrdom by beheading. (Nov. 5)

On the same day, St. Natalia, the wife of blessed Adrian, Martyr, who for a long time ministered to the holy martyrs held in prison at Nicomedia under the Emperor Diocletian; and when their battle was over she went to Constantinople, and there rested in peace. (Dec. 1)

At Rome, the holy martyrs Claudius, a tribune, and his wife Hilaria, and their sons Jason and Marus, with seventy soldiers. Of these the Emperor Numerian commanded Claudius to be bound to a huge stone and cast headlong into a river, while the soldiers and sons of Claudius were condemned to death. Blessed Hilaria, after burying the bodies of her sons, was arrested by the heathen a little while after while praying at their tombs, cast into prison and passed to the Lord. (Dec. 3)

At Rome, the finding of the holy martyrs Nemesius, a Deacon, Lucilla, a Virgin, his daughter, Symphronius, Olympius a tribune, Exuperia his wife, and Theodulus his son, whose commemoration is made on August 25. (Dec. 8; cf. Aug. 25.)

In the same city, St. Flavian, an ex-prefect, who was the husband of blessed Dafrosa, a martyr, and the father of the holy virgin martyrs Bibiana and Demetria. He was condemned under Julian the Apostate to be branded for Christ's sake and sent into exile at Bagni-di-Ferrata in Tuscany, where he gave up his spirit to God in prayer. (Dec. 22)

On the same day, St Melania the Younger, who left Rome with her husband Pinian and went to Jerusalem; she led a religious life among the holy women, and her husband among the monks, and both died a holy death. (Dec. 31)

St. Henry and St. Cunegund

2. Married saints who lived a life of continence

At Antioch, under Diocletian and Maximian, the birthday of St. Julian, Martyr, and of Basilissa, Virgin, his wife, who kept her virginity while with her husband, and ended her life in peace. But Julian (after a crowd of priests and ministers of Christ's Church, who fled to them because of the cruel persecution, had been burnt with fire) was tortured with many torments at the command of the governor Marcian and condemned to death. With him suffered also Antony, a priest, and Anastasius. The latter, after he had been raised from the dead, Julian himself had made a sharer of Christ's grace. Celsus, a boy, with his mother Marcionia, and his seven brothers, and many others, suffered martyrdom. (Jan. 8)

At Bamberg, St. Cunegunda, Empress, who was married to the Emperor Henry I, but preserved her virginity with his consent. Enriched with the merit of good works, she rested in a holy death and thereafter was famous for her miracles. (Mar. 3)

Solemnity of St. Joseph, Workman, Husband of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Confessor, Patron of Artisans. (May 1)

At Bamberg, St. Henry I, Emperor of the Romans and Confessor. He led a life of perpetual virginity with his wife St. Cunegund, and brought St. Stephen, King of Hungary, and almost all his people, to embrace the faith of Christ. (Jul. 15)

3. Wives and widows, mentioned as such

Wives: St. Joanna (May 24), St. Clotilde (Jun. 3), St. Perpetua (Aug. 4), St. Serena (Aug. 16), St. Tryphonia (Oct. 18).

Widows: St. Paula (Jan. 26), St. Marcella (Jan. 31), St. Louisa Albertoni (Jan. 31), St. Joan de Lestonnac (Feb. 2), St. Juliana (Feb. 7), St. Frances of Rome (Mar. 9), St. Louisa de Marillac (Mar. 15), St. Lea (Mar. 22), St. Grata (May 1), St. Corona (May 14), St. Rita of Cascia (May 22), St. Margaret of Scotland (Jun. 10), St. Elisabeth of Portugal (Jul. 8), St. Athanasia (Aug. 14), St. Jane Frances Fremiot de Chantal (Aug. 21), St. Cyriaca (Aug. 21), St. Margaret (Aug. 27), St. Eutropia (Sep. 15), St. Catherine of Genoa (Sep. 15), St. Galla (Oct. 5), St. Bridget (Oct. 8), St. Hedwig (Oct. 16), St. Elisabeth of Hungary (Nov. 19), St. Olympias (Dec. 17), St. Begga (Dec. 17).

4. Husbands, mentioned as such

St. Craton (Feb. 15), St. Palmatius (May 10), St. Simplicius (May 10), St. Euthymius (Aug. 29), St. James Intercisus (Nov. 27), St. Venustian (Dec. 30).

5. Mothers or fathers, mentioned as such

Fathers: St. Richard, King of the English (Feb. 7), Theusetas (Mar. 13), St. Quirinus (Mar. 30), St. Pudens (May 19), St. Philip the Deacon (Jun. 6), St. Tranquillinus (Jul. 6), St. Thomas More (Jul. 6), St. Joachim (Aug. 16), St. Simplicius (Aug. 26), St. Marcellus (Oct. 30).

Mothers: St. Macrina (January 14), Queen Matilda (Mar. 14), St. Monica (Apr. 9), St. Plautilla (May 20), St. Marcella (Jun. 28), St. Mary (Jun. 29), St. Anne (Jul. 26), St. Theodota (Aug. 2), St. Nonna (Aug. 5), St. Helen (Aug. 18), St. Bassa (Aug. 21), St. Philippa (Sep. 20), St. Sophia (Sep. 30), St. Tryphonia (Oct. 18), St. Mary Salome (Oct. 22), St. Denise (Dec. 6), St. Fausta (Dec. 19).

Saints Joachim and Anne

A Litany of Married Saints

(For private use)

Lord, have mercy on us. Lord, have mercy on us.
Christ, have mercy on us. Christ, have mercy on us.
Lord, have mercy on us. Lord, have mercy on us.
Christ, hear us. Christ, hear us.
Christ, graciously hear us. Christ, graciously hear us.
God the Father of heaven, have mercy on us.
God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy on us.
God the Holy Ghost, have mercy on us.
Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy on us.
Holy Mary, pray for us.
Holy Mother of God, pray for us.
Holy Virgin of virgins, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Zachary and Elisabeth, pray for us.
Saints Aquila and Priscilla,
Saints Flavian and Dafrosa,
Saints Basil and Emmelia,
Saints Marius and Martha,
Saints Severian and Aquila,
Saints Claudius and Praepedigna,
Saints Claudian and Bassa,
Saints Macedonius and Patricia,
Saints Philetus and Lydia,
Saints Vitalis and Valeria,
Saints Exuperius and Zoe,
Saints Timothy and Maura,
Saints Felix and Blanda,
Saints Artemius and Candida,
Saints Getulius and Symphorosa,
Saints Nicostratus and Zoa,
Saints Aurelius and Natalia,
Saints Felix and Liliosa,
Saints Marcellinus and Mannea,
Saints Boniface and Thecla,
Saints Theodotus and Rufina,
Saints Cerealis and Sallustia,
Saints Eustace and Theopistis,
Saints Paul and Tatta,
Saints Dadas and Casdoa,
Saints Andronicus and Athanasia,
Saints Chrysanthus and Daria,
Saints Galatio and Epistemis,
Saints Adrian and Natalia,
Saints Claudius and Hilaria,
Saints Olympius and Exuperia,
Saints Melania and Pinian, pray for us.

Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, spare us, O Lord.
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, graciously hear us, O Lord.
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.

Let us pray. Grant, we beseech Thee, O almighty God, that the intercession of Holy Mary, Mother of God, St. Joseph, her most chaste Spouse, and all holy husbands and wives, fathers and mothers now reigning in Thy Kingdom, may everywhere gladden us, so that, while we commemorate their merits, we may experience their protection. Through our Lord Jesus Christ Thy Son, who livest and reignest with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God for ever and ever. Amen.

Correlations between the Sacraments and the Readings for the Octave of Pentecost

Photo by Fr. Lawrence Lew, O.P.

If I had a perfect memory, I would be able to remember where, in the vast forest of online postings, someone first pointed out this beautiful correlation. Whoever you are, thank you for sharing it to begin with, and giving me the opportunity to flesh it out here.

In the traditional Latin rite’s Octave of Pentecost — present since at least the late sixth century but tragically excised by a liturgical reform bent on hypersimplification, in spite of a professed love of ancient things — we find a sequence of readings that, by the sweet arrangement of the Holy Ghost, bring to mind each of the seven sacraments of the Church, through which, in this “Age of the Spirit” that stretches from Pentecost until the Parousia, the members of Christ are sanctified. Each year, the “Time after Pentecost” reminds us of the gifts and opportunities of our present condition, suspended, as it were, between creation ex nihilo, when only God’s righteousness reigned, and the creation of a new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness will be at home (cf. 2 Pet 3:13).

During the week of Whitsuntide, the Mass readings exalt the sacraments. In fact, multiple sacraments are exalted each day, in an intertwined manner that I will not here be able to expound fully (see Guéranger, Parsch, and Schuster).

In Monday’s Epistle (Acts 10:42–48), the Holy Spirit falls on all who heard Peter, and he commands that they receive baptism. The Gospel (John 3:16–21) is taken from the discourse where Jesus speaks to Nicodemus. the offertory antiphon continues the theme: “The Lord thundered from Heaven, and the Highest gave His voice; and the fountains of waters appeared, alleluia” (Ps 17:14,16).

Tuesday’s Lesson shows Peter and John laying hands on the baptized, strenghtening them in the Holy Ghost: confirmation. “In those days, when the apostles that were in Jerusalem had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John; who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: for He was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost” (Acts 8:14–17).

Pentecost Ember Wednesday’s Gospel gives us part of the Bread of Life discourse (John 6:44–52), highlighting the Eucharist: “If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is My flesh for the life of the world.”

Thursday’s Gospel (Luke 9:1–6) describes the authority of the priesthood to cast out devils, cure the sick, and to preach the Gospel: “At that time, Jesus calling together the twelve apostles gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. And He sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.”

In the Gospel of Pentecost Ember Friday, Christ forgives the sins of the man lowered down on a pallet (Luke 5:17–26), a power exercised in Confession. The verse of the Introit highlights the liberation won through the sacrament of penance: “In Thee, O Lord, have I hoped, let me never be put to confusion: deliver me in Thy justice, and rescue me” (Ps 70:23).

In the Gospel of Pentecost Ember Saturday, Christ is shown healing the sick (Luke 4:38–44), reminding us of the power of extreme unction. “At that time, Jesus rising up out of the synagogue, went into Simon's house: and Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever, and they besought Him for her. And standing over her He commanded the fever, and it left her: and, immediately rising, she ministered to them. And when the sun was down, all they that had any sick with divers diseases, brought them to Him: but He laying His hands on every one of them, healed them.” The offertory antiphon begins with the words: Domine, Deus salutis meae… O Lord, the God of my health/salvation.

But where is holy matrimony?

We might offer a practical and a speculative reason why marriage is not featured in this series. The practical reason is that there are only six days to work with: Monday through Saturday. The next Sunday is the feast of the Most Holy Trinity and, as it were, the octave day of Pentecost. (It is, however, interesting to note parallels between the Introit and Communion antiphons from Tobias on Trinity Sunday and the Introit from Tobias of the Nuptial Mass.)

The speculative reason is that marriage, uniquely among the sacraments, is already a natural institution existing from the time of creation, which Christ elevated to the dignity of a sacred sign that effects in the spouses what it signifies, namely, the union of Christ and His Church. Unlike matrimony, the other six sacraments, while they had prefigurations in the Old Law, had no proper existence before their institution by the Lord. They are altogether new — like the newness of the atonement that canceled out our debt, like the newness of the resurrection of Christ that abolished death in the new supernatural Head of the human race, the second Adam. The Pentecost octave stresses the newness of the gifts of Christ: His six “ex nihilo” sacraments, through which the grace and charity of the Holy Spirit is poured out into our hearts.

I had almost said: May we never take these sacraments for granted. But the strange Coronatide though which we have passed, and from which we are still suffering, has purged many Catholics of this fault: we do not take for granted what is taken away from us for a time. May that deprivation come to an end, and may our longing for these ineffable mysteries never end until we draw our last breath.

Visit Dr. Kwasniewski’s website, SoundCloud page, and YouTube channel.

A little humor, courtesy of Dom Hubert van Zeller

A New Online Resource for Researching and Preparing a Latin Mass Wedding

A young, enterprising, very organized and well-informed lady named Sharon Kabel has put together a fantastic website dedicated to “the Latin Mass Wedding.” This is a resource that has long been urgently needed, with the growing number of “Benedict XVI” and “Francis Effect” Catholics who are interested in tying the knot with a ceremony and Nuptial Mass in the usus antiquior or Extraordinary Form. Years ago (as when my wife and I got married with a Missa Cantata on the feast of St. John, December 27, 1998), this was still fairly far-out, in the misty fringes of possibility, but nowadays one reads about it happening pretty often, and pictures and videos are abundant. Nevertheless, it should be much more frequent than it is, and I wonder if the lack of easily accessible information is part of the problem.

After all, there are a LOT of differences between the Novus Ordo approach and the traditional approach. In the Novus Ordo, the vows are sandwiched into the Mass between the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, in a pattern that Nicola Bux complains about as depriving both the Mass of its integrity and the inserted item [sacrament, commissioning, exercise, etc.] of its own dignity. In the old way of doing things, in contrast, the bride and bridegroom exchange their vows at the foot of the altar prior to the start of Mass — almost, you might say, their own version of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar — and then they assist at Mass for the first time as husband and wife. (I remember how special it was at my own wedding to kneel with a ring newly on my finger, with my wife next to me, and hear the priest say: “In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen. Introibo ad altare Dei...,” knowing that we were going unto the altar of God, united by the God of Israel about whom the schola was singing: “Deus Israel conjungat vos.” As always, the timing of things in the traditional liturgy is magnificent.)

This preceding matrimonial ceremony is usually more elaborate, with some very beautiful prayers (though these have varied and still vary a great deal from country to country, and from century to century); for its part, the ancient Nuptial Mass is extremely rich in its antiphons, readings, and prayers — all of which are required, none optional.

The Nuptial Mass, especially in the form of a Missa Cantata or a Solemn Mass, can be a particularly splendid and festive way to introduce family and friends to the traditional Roman liturgy, a real opportunity for “evangelizing through beauty.” If a young man and woman are serious Catholics, they will already seem strange to many of their relatives and acquaintances, so they might as well go all out rather than trimming the liturgy down to the imagined expectations or tolerance threshold of attendees. You can count on there being many more guests who afterwards say they were moved by the beauty and solemnity of it than there will be grumblers and complainers. No matter what your congregation will be like, it is helpful to provide a missallette or a handout that helps those in attendance to have some clue about what is unfolding before their eyes and ears.

Sharon understands all these things, and she is thorough in providing resources and references. The page “Rite of Marriage” talks about the history of the ceremony and furnishes a full text of the rite found in the 1962 Rituale Romanum for the region of the United States. The page “Wedding Mass” gives in full the English texts of the Missa pro sponso et sponsa. Then comes the page “Resources,” which is fun to explore:

Note that Sharon provides ample information about and links to the text of the traditional Rite of Betrothal, which is also happily returning to the Catholic world after a long period of desuetude. (Just recently, NLM published a piece on it, with photos: check it out.) Betrothal can best be understood as a solemn promise to marry, made before God and His minister, and asking of the Lord the grace of a chaste engagement blessed by His favor. It is really worth doing; my fiancée and I, and many of our friends, and now the children of our friends, have done it. It fits into the general pattern of the Church wishing to bless all created realities: homes, fields, animals, equipment, wine, throats, candles, and the rest. In addition, it serves as a countercultural witness in our times of a serious intent to lead a life in accord with the commandments and virtues. (The U.S. bishops not long ago cobbled together and published a “blessing of an engagement,” but, like all postconciliar liturgical rites, its lameness beggars belief. It will deserve a proper dressing-down someday, not right now.)

Sharon provides a page of FAQs that assume no prior knowledge, so if you are new to all of this, you have found a good place to go.

The website will also be valuable to priests; among other things, Sharon has included Haydock and Catena aurea commentaries on the Scriptural texts of the antiphons and readings of the Nuptial Mass, which could be mined for homilies.

On the website Sharon says she wants feedback about any ways to improve her site, or any further resources to include. Please take her at her word! Let’s make this the single best go-to place on the web for traditional Roman-rite weddings.

(Other wedding-related articles that may be of interest to NLM readers:

• Problems with Weddings and How We Might Remedy Them
• Solemn Music for a Wedding
• The Velatio Nuptialis: An Ancient (and Forgotten) Part of the Latin Marriage Rite
• The New Lectionary and the Catholic Wedding
• When in Florida: The Priest Who Refused My Wedding
• The Wedding: How to Be a Catholic Music Patron, at Least Once)

Holy Matrimony, Sanctified Bodies, and Sacramental Grace

In our times we have seen the important work of Pope John Paul II on the “theology of the body” misunderstood and applied in a superficial and, at times, morally problematic way. One example is a claim I once heard, namely, that the very bodies of spouses are causes of grace, such that when they come together in the marital act, and assuming no moral impediment such as contraception, an increase of sanctifying grace is bestowed on each or both spouses. This claim, as it stands, is false—although something like it is true.

The only signs that effect or bring about the sanctifying grace they signify are the seven Sacraments of the New Law. In this sense, it is impossible that the spouse’s bodies, as such, should be causes of grace in a proper sense, such that when the cause (bodily action) is posited, the effect (increase of grace) follows. Rather, the bodily mutual self-giving, open to new life, is the outward sign of the Sacrament of Matrimony itself, which, present and operative in a mysterious way in the souls of the spouses, is the cause of an increase in sanctifying grace. Put more simply, the efficacious sign is not the bodily action but the sacramental union and state, which is represented and furthered by the bodily action.

On the other hand, any bodily act done out of charity is a cause of grace in the sense of being a moral cause of meriting an increase of such grace. In this way, the nuptial act is like an act of almsgiving, or clothing the poor, or instructing the ignorant—all of these are acts of a will animated by charity, performed with the help of the body and meriting an increase of grace.

We find many profound and inspiring passages in the writings of Pope John Paul II on these matters, such as the following, from the encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae:

Within this same [contemporary] cultural climate, the body is no longer perceived as a properly personal reality, a sign and place of relations with others, with God and with the world. It is reduced to pure materiality: it is simply a complex of organs, functions and energies to be used according to the sole criteria of pleasure and efficiency. Consequently, sexuality too is depersonalized and exploited: from being the sign, place and language of love, that is, of the gift of self and acceptance of another, in all the other’s richness as a person, it increasingly becomes the occasion and instrument for self-assertion and the selfish satisfaction of personal desires and instincts. Thus the original import of human sexuality is distorted and falsified, and the two meanings, unitive and procreative, inherent in the very nature of the conjugal act, are artificially separated: in this way the marriage union is betrayed and its fruitfulness is subjected to the caprice of the couple. Procreation then becomes the “enemy” to be avoided in sexual activity: if it is welcomed, this is only because it expresses a desire, or indeed the intention, to have a child “at all costs,” and not because it signifies the complete acceptance of the other and therefore an openness to the richness of life which the child represents. (n. 23)

The Pope chooses his words with care: the body is a “sign,” a sign of self-giving, a “place” and a “language,” but in and of itself it does not expressly signify sanctifying grace, nor directly confer it. This is what the Sacrament of Marriage or Matrimony is and does. If the spouse’s body were a cause of grace just by being what it is, namely, a sign of self-giving, it would follow that the body or the nuptial act is an eighth sacrament, a claim certainly contrary to the dogma of the Faith. I know a priest (he was married as an Anglican curate and was later ordained a Catholic priest) who refers to this kind of loose talk as “gamolatry,” that is, a sort of worship of things pertaining to marriage.

In our times, so given to vapid pseudo-mysticism, we do well to remember that Our Lord instituted the seven sacraments as the ordinary means of conferring His supernatural life and charity upon us. It is through the sacraments that we become “sons in the Son” and receive all that we need to grow in our sonship until the day of glory. (I do not engage here in the centuries-old debate over what precisely it means to say that Jesus Himself instituted all and each of the seven sacraments; various more or less convincing hypotheses have been proffered. In any case, Catholics are obliged to believe that which the Council of Trent defined as de fide dogma, namely, that Christ Himself instituted the seven sacraments of the New Law.)

Thus, even that which theologians have taken to calling the “primordial sacrament,” the very humanity of Christ, is effective among us in this world precisely through the seven Sacraments of the Church, and not somehow over and above and apart from them, as if it were an eighth sacrament that could be numbered alongside the other seven. The Church, too, may be called a “sacrament,” but in an analogous sense—for she, too, is built up from the seven sacraments, from which she derives her very existence and activity, as the Second Vatican Council teaches. The Eucharist, especially, is the root and the constant origin of the Church in this world. Without the Eucharistic Body, there would be no Mystical Body. This is why St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that the “reality” of the sacrament of the Eucharist is nothing other than the unity, or charity, of the Mystical Body itself (cf. Summa theologiae III, q. 61, a. 2).

How beautiful it is that spouses receive in marriage a new participation in the love of God and the Passion of Christ, as well as a new power to participate in creation and redemption by begetting children and offering them to God in baptism! The quasi-character imprinted in their souls by the marriage vows remains throughout their life as a constant claim before God of all the graces each needs to fulfil the duties of his or her state in life; it is a permanent mark of their mutual surrender to and “ownership” of one another; it is a likeness of the relationship that unites Christ to His Bride, and the Church in turn to her Bridegroom, in an unbreakable union of eternal fecundity.

A Wedding According to the Philippine Rituale

The Church has always embraced a wide variety of proper customs and rituals attached to the celebration of the Sacrament of Matrimony; as we have noted previously, the Philippine Islands has preserved in the local Rituale a number of customs which originated in the Mozarabic liturgy, then passed over into the Roman Rite, and were eventually brought there by the Spanish. The excellent blog Dei praesidio fultus recently published some photographs of a wedding celebrated in this tradition; you can see more photos and a complete explanation of the particular details of the ceremony over there. A post from 2013 gives links to the full text of the Philippine wedding rite in both Spanish and Latin; my thanks to reader RM for letting me know about this. Best wishes to the happy couple, and our thanks to Fr. Michell Zerudo, spiritual director of Una Voce Philippines, for helping to maintain these beautiful local customs. Ad multos annos!

The wedding itself is celebrated before the doors of the church, rather than inside.

The bride and groom are asked by the priest to give their consent to the Matrimony three times, rather than once as in the Rituale Romanum. In addition to the rings, the priest blesses 13 coins called arrhae, the Latin word for "pledges", which are then given by the husband to the wife. They symbolize temporal prosperity and fruitfulness, as well as the husband's promise to care for his wife materially.

Towards the end of the Epistle, the spouses receive lit candles which they hold for the chanting of the Gospel. After the priest reads the Offertory, he receives the candles from them, and then offers them a crucifix, and which they kiss while he gives them a blessing. (This would seem to be imitated from the Mass of the Purification.)

After the Sanctus, a veil is placed over the wife's head, extending over to the husband's shoulders. A cord in the form of a figure 8 is then laid over it upon the shoulders of them both, symbolizing the bond of matrimony. According to the notes on the original post, the original edition of the Philippine Rituale prescribed either a red or white veil, but the red fell out of use, and was only restored in the final pre-Conciliar edition in 1961. 

What Makes a Family Holy?

If the goal of the individual Christian is to become a saint, the goal of a married Christian couple is to become saints together, with one another’s aid, and the goal of a Christian family is to strive to be a holy family, in imitation of the model of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. Thus, it behooves us to think carefully about how to define family holiness.

In order to do so, we need to identify the causes of family holiness, lest we be arbitrary about the effects we should be looking for or prioritizing. One might, after all, skew in this or that direction because one is not holding oneself responsible to the root causes. It’s like defining man as risible, tool-using, linguistic, social, and religious, without saying that he is rational, which is the root of all of these things.

The teaching of the authentic Magisterium is of great help to us, because it shows again and again the primacy of prayer, the sacramental life, and the Holy Eucharist for the holiness of all Christians, whether single, married, religious, or clergy.

The liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows. . . . [T]he renewal in the Eucharist of the covenant between the Lord and man draws the faithful into the compelling love of Christ and sets them on fire. From the liturgy, therefore, and especially from the Eucharist, as from a font, grace is poured forth upon us; and the sanctification of men in Christ and the glorification of God, to which all other activities of the Church are directed as toward their end, is achieved in the most efficacious possible way. (Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium 10)

Participating in the Eucharistic sacrifice, the source and culmination of the whole Christian life, they [the faithful] offer the Divine Victim to God, and offer themselves along with It… (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 11)

Confirming this doctrine by their lives, all of the saints prioritize prayer over action, the interior life over the exterior apostolate, the Holy Eucharist over any other work of devotion or charity. In this respect they are simply taking their cue from Our Lord: “Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing” (John 15:4-5). In an age preoccupied with activism, engagement, and “results,” there is no truth as frequently neglected or even denied as this one, for which the perfect remedy was (and still is) Dom Chautard’s book The Soul of the Apostolate.

It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the Magisterium stresses the intimate bond between the sacrament of holy matrimony, the sacred liturgy, the Most Blessed Sacrament, and a holy family:

The sacrament of marriage is the specific source and original means of sanctification for Christian married couples and families … The gift of Jesus Christ is not exhausted in the actual celebration of the sacrament of marriage, but rather accompanies the married couple throughout their lives. … Just as husbands and wives receive from the sacrament the gift and responsibility of translating into daily living the sanctification bestowed on them, so the same sacrament confers on them the grace and moral obligation of transforming their whole lives into a “spiritual sacrifice.” (John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio 56).

“Fairest love” is learned above all in prayer. Prayer, in fact, always brings with it, to use an expression of Saint Paul, a type of interior hiddenness with Christ in God; “your life is hid with Christ in God” (Col 3:3). (John Paul II, Letter to Families 20).

Christian marriage, like the other sacraments, “whose purpose is to sanctify the people, to build up the body of Christ, and finally, to give worship to God,” is in itself a liturgical action glorifying God in Jesus Christ and in the Church” (John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio 56). 

The Eucharist inexhaustibly strengthens the indissoluble unity and love of every Christian marriage. By the power of the sacrament, the marriage bond is intrinsically linked to the eucharistic unity of Christ the Bridegroom and his Bride, the Church (cf. Eph 5:31-32). The mutual consent that the husband and wife exchange in Christ, which establishes them as a community of life and love, also has a Eucharistic dimension. Indeed, in the theology of Saint Paul, conjugal love is a sacramental sign of Christ’s love for his Church, a love culminating in the Cross, the expression of his “marriage” with humanity and at the same time the origin and heart of the Eucharist. (Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis 27)

This “community of life and love” extends outwards in works of charity (including the spiritual and corporal works of mercy), beginning with one's own children and radiating to one's parish, town, and larger society, according to the proper order of charity. Yet everything we do as Christians flows from and leads back to the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of which the Holy Mass is the supernatural re-presentation, and of which the Holy Eucharist is the supreme sign and mystical reality. We are pilgrims who live from and for the Bread of Life, until we gaze upon His divine and human face in the beatific vision.

We are entering into dark times, when fidelity to the integral teaching of Scripture, the witness of Tradition, and the fullness of the Church’s Magisterium will be met with increasing incomprehension, incredulity, mockery, ostracism, penalties, and eventually outright persecution. We must do our utmost not to lose sight of these authoritative guideposts, by which we can confidently walk, with God’s grace, along the path of holiness — as men and women, as husbands and wives, as parents and children, as priests and religious. Nor can we accept any substitutes, dilutions, or subterfuges. Christ and His Church have spoken clearly about who we are and what we are to do, if we would remain in the truth of Christ, and live the truth in love.

The Hypostatic Union as a Marriage

Continuing my series of articles on aspects of the theology of marriage, I would like to examine a beautiful patristic comparison that is relatively little known today, but was much in the mind of the scholastics and frequently comes up in the work of the Angelic Doctor—namely, the comparison of the hypostatic union with a nuptial union.

Here is how St. Thomas phrases it in one passage:

Marriage before fleshly embrace signifies the conjoining of Christ to the soul by grace, which [union of grace] is indeed dissolved by a contrary spiritual disposition, namely sin. But by the fleshly embrace marriage signifies Christ’s conjoining [of himself] with the Church, as to the assumption of human nature in the unity of his person, which [union] is altogether indivisible.[1]

In his Commentary on Matthew we read this:

The fourth thing set out is that they “went out to meet the bridegroom and the bride.” Who is the bridegroom, and who is the bride? It is explained in two ways, following two marriages. One, the marriage of divinity to flesh, which was celebrated in the womb of a virgin: “For he as a bridegroom coming forth from his bridal chamber” (Ps. 18:6). The bridegroom is the Son himself, the bride human nature; hence to go out to meet the bridegroom and the bride is nothing other than to serve Christ.
          Likewise, there is the marriage of Christ and the Church: “He who has the bride is the bridegroom” (Jn. 3:29). Therefore those who prepare the lamps intend to please the bridegroom, i.e., Christ, and the bride, i.e., Mother Church.[2]

In the Commentary on John, we see a wonderful synthesis:

In the mystical sense, marriage signifies the union of Christ with his Church, because as the Apostle says: “This is a great mystery: I am speaking of Christ and his Church” (Eph 5:32). And this marriage was begun in the womb of the Virgin, when God the Father united a human nature to his Son in a unity of person. So, the chamber of this union was the womb of the Virgin: “He established a chamber for the sun” (Ps 18:6). Of this marriage it is said: “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who married his son” (Mt 22:2), that is, when God the Father joined a human nature to his Word in the womb of the Virgin. It was made public when the Church was joined to him by faith: “I will bind you to myself in faith” (Hos 2:20). We read of this marriage: “Blessed are they who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Rv 19:9). It will be consummated when the bride, i.e., the Church, is led into the resting place of the groom, i.e., into the glory of heaven.[3]

Nevertheless, St. Thomas is not entirely comfortable with the comparison of the union of natures to a marriage, because marriage requires two persons who consent to each other; a nature, as such, is not the source of consent. Envisioning the human nature and the divine nature as centers of action or volition begins to sound fishily Nestorian. Consider his response to the rather obscure question: Whether it is fitting that Christ should receive a dowry?[4]

There are two opinions on this point. For some say that there is a threefold union in Christ. One is the union of concord, whereby He is united to God in the bond of love; another is the union of condescension, whereby the human nature is united to the Divine; the third is the union whereby Christ is united to the Church. They say, then, that as regards the first two unions it is fitting for Christ to have the dowries under the notion of dowries, but as regards the third, it is fitting for Him to have the dowries in the most excellent degree, considered as to that in which they consist, but not considered under the notion of dowries; because in this union Christ is the bridegroom and the Church the bride, and a dowry is given to the bride as regards property and control, although it is given to the bridegroom as to use.
          But this does not seem congruous. For in the union of Christ with the Father by the concord of love, even if we consider Him as God, there is not said to be a marriage, since it implies no subjection such as is required in the bride towards the bridegroom. Nor again in the union of the human nature with the Divine, whether we consider the personal union or that which regards the conformity of will, can there be a dowry, properly speaking, for three reasons. First, because in a marriage where a dowry is given there should be likeness of nature between bridegroom and bride, and this is lacking in the union of the human nature with the Divine; secondly, because there is required a distinction of persons, and the human nature is not personally distinct from the Word; thirdly, because a dowry is given when the bride is first taken to the dwelling of the bridegroom and thus would seem to belong to the bride, who from being not united becomes united; whereas the human nature, which was assumed into the unity of Person by the Word, never was otherwise than perfectly united.
          Wherefore in the opinion of others we should say that the notion of dowry is either altogether unbecoming to Christ, or not so properly as to the saints; but that the things which we call dowries befit Him in the highest degree.[5]

And later in the same article:

Human nature is not properly said to be a bride in its union with the Word, since the distinction of persons, which is requisite between bridegroom and bride, is not observed therein. That human nature is sometimes described as being espoused in reference to its union with the Word is because it has a certain act of the bride, in that it is united to the Bridegroom inseparably, and in this union is subject to the Word and ruled by the Word, as the bride by the bridegroom.[6]

Not wishing, however, to jettison the comparison of the hypostatic union to a marriage, St. Thomas finds a beautiful solution, inspired by St. Bernard of Clairvaux and earlier Fathers: God asks Mary, through his messenger, to give her consent to this “marriage” on behalf of the whole human race. In this way we have two persons, representing (as it were) two natures, consenting to a conjoining which then takes place in a single Person. Here is how he formulates this elegant doctrine in the Commentary on the Sentences:

In Christ’s conception a certain marriage was sealed through the indivisible conjoining of the divine and human nature[s]. But requisite for a marriage is consent, which is both requested and brought back through the words of messengers. Therefore it was proper that God, through his angel, should seek out the consent of the Virgin, from whom he would assume human nature.[7]

In the Summa theologiae, Aquinas places it last among the reasons why “it was fitting that it be announced to the Blessed Virgin that she would conceive Christ”:

Fourth, that there would be shown to be a certain spiritual marriage between the Son of God and human nature. And so by the Annunciation the Virgin’s consent was besought in lieu of [=on behalf of] the whole of human nature.[8]

NOTES

[1] In IV Sent. d. 27, q. 1, a. 3, qa. 2, ad 1.
[2] Super Matt. 25, lec. 1, n. 2014.
[3] Super Ioan. 2, lec. 1, n. 338.
[4] According to the scholastic definition, the dowry of the blessed is “the everlasting adornment of soul and body adequate to life, lasting for ever in eternal bliss.” There are three dowries of the soul: vision, love, and fruition; and four of the body: impassibility, agility, subtlety, and clarity.
[5] In IV Sent. d. 49, q. 4, a. 3.
[6] Cf. Super Ps. 18, n. 3.
[7] In III Sent. d. 3, q. 3, a. 1, qa. 1, sc 2.
[8] Summa theol. III, q. 30, a. 1.

Can Catholics Learn Today from the Continent Marriage of Joseph and Mary?

If you have not read my article from last week, it would make the most sense to start there, and then come back to this one.

In the mind of believers reflecting on the Holy Family, an obvious question ought to arise: Are we supposed to learn from the celibate marriage of Mary and Joseph a lesson that is actually applicable to married laypeople? Put differently, could their “Josephite marriage” have anything to say to us here and now?

St. Thomas answers in the affirmative: “By this example [of Mary and Joseph] the faithful are taught that if after marriage they remain continent by mutual consent, their union is still marriage and is rightly called such, even without intercourse of the sexes.”[1] Peter Lombard goes further: “without carnal commingling, marriage is holier, as is said in the text [of the Sentences].”[2] In two places Aquinas even formulates the view in his own words, albeit buried in objections as premises to which he does not take exception: “It is even better for spouses to restrain themselves than to make use of marriage”[3]; again, “those marriages are more perfect that are accompanied by a vow of continence (pari voto continentium).”[4] It is hard to know the extent to which Aquinas personally endorses this opinion, but there are many reasons to think he could not have rejected it altogether, and may even favor it.

This being so, we are left with matter for reflection. If, as occurred fairly often in former centuries, a Catholic couple today felt drawn by the Lord to a deeper life of prayer and contemplative intimacy with Him and were convinced that He had given them the desire and strength to remain perpetually continent, would we, as a friend or spiritual director, counsel them in favor of this choice or against it? Would we view it as a case of confused vocational identity, of mistaking for superior virtue what is in reality a retreat from the demands placed on Christians living in the world? A too-quick answer about “medieval Manichaeism” or “contempt of God’s good creation” or “staying in line with one’s state in life” might well bring to light a superficial spirituality that does not respect the divine initiative and the Spirit’s free giving of gifts, not to mention a failure to comprehend a rare but defensible application of ascetical-mystical doctrine.

The saints are given to the faithful as luminous exemplars of Christian life, practitioners of heroic virtue worthy of our prudent imitation. Now, it is well known that many saints in all periods of history have lived perpetual continence either for the whole of their married life or for a notable part of it.[5] We are bound, therefore, by our very trust in the Church’s recognition of sanctity, to see in this (admittedly atypical) path a genuine “vocation within a vocation,” a different mode of nuptial love to which the Lord has called and will continue to call some Christians.[6]

We could understand a Josephite relationship in this way: as Christian marriage, with its divinely graced bodily-spiritual intimacy, is the privileged earthly sign of that heavenly reality of which religious life is the superior anticipation and realization, so a Josephite marriage is the mutual and voluntary surrender or sacrifice of spousal rights in order that the spouses — precisely as representing the perpetual gift of self, total yet non-sexual, that subsists between the Bridegroom Christ and His bridal Church — may become for each other more transparent signs of the ineffable intimacy awaiting them in their final beatific destiny, an intimacy with God and with one another in Him that is more lofty and profound than any earthly communion they might enjoy. It would be, then, the renunciation and offering up of a way of life that is rooted in the sanctified and sanctifying but necessarily transitory and imperfect communion of man and wife, in order to achieve another kind of communion of brother and sister in the Spirit; and this for no other reason than that both may strive more wholeheartedly to attain, in their common life, an ever-fuller participation in the divine holiness and beatitude that knows neither beginning nor end.[7]

Such was indubitably the calling of Joseph and Mary and of certain saints who followed in their footsteps. We could not dare, for fear of sinning against Love, to state categorically that such a vocation is no longer possible or no longer given. The parents of St. Thérèse, Louis and Zelie Martin, are sometimes ridiculed for the vow of continence they made at the start of their marriage. But their very openness to renunciation, together with an ongoing discernment, was a crucial part of their sanctity, and when they came to see that it was God’s will for them to have children, they embraced that vocation without demur, giving to the Church the gift of five daughters who entered religious life, one of whom became the greatest saint of modern times.

In the midst of synodal confusion and chaos, this topic is more pertinent than ever, due to the flawed reasoning of certain leaders in the Church who seem to take for granted that chastity and continence within marriage are simply impossible, off the table.[8] If we adopt a broader perspective, we can see that history furnishes us with more than a few examples of the reality of such unions, which can be a solution for couples in adulterous unions who wish to be fully reconciled with God and the Church and thus able to receive our Lord in the Most Holy Eucharist.


NOTES

[1] Summa theologiae III, q. 29, a. 2, sc (quoting Augustine with approval).

[2] In IV Sent. d. 26, q. 2, a. 4, sc 2.

[3] In IV Sent. d. 32, a. 2, arg. 2.

[4] In IV Sent. d. 34, a. 2, arg. 1.

[5] See, for abundant examples, Ferdinand Holböck, Married Saints and Blesseds Through the Centuries, trans. Michael J. Miller (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002).

[6] Indeed, in any marriage that lasts over many decades, there will be a phase of it to which this description can and should apply.

[7] For the metaphysical and theological principles underlying this claim, see Peter Kwasniewski, “On the Ideal Basis and Fruition of Marriage,” Second Spring 12 (2010): 43–53.

[8] See Benedict Constable, "Chastity is Impossible: The Kernel of the Kasperite Position," published on September 23, 2015, at Rorate Caeli.

How is the Marriage of Joseph and Mary a True Marriage?

For those communities availing themselves of the 1962 Missale Romanum, October 11 is the modern feastday of the Divine Maternity or Motherhood of Our Lady. I say “modern” because it was instituted by Pope Pius XI in 1931 to commemorate the 1500th anniversary of the Council of Ephesus (431) where the Blessed Virgin Mary was declared to be Theotokos, the God-bearer, Deipara or Dei genetrix. Unlike Pius XI’s other new feast, that of the Kingship of Christ, this one did not survive the sharp scissors of the liturgical reform. As many have pointed out, it is particularly ironic that the day chosen by Pope John XXIII for the official opening of the Second Vatican Council, Thursday, October 11, 1962, was none other than this feast.

Whatever we may think of that, the feast of our Lady’s Motherhood reminds us of a truth of outstanding importance in this time of confusion about marriage and family: our Lady was not, as some ignorant preachers are fond of saying, an “unwed mother.” When expecting the child Jesus, she was betrothed to St. Joseph, which, in the Jewish context, gave her the legal right to be regarded and treated as his spouse. Her wifehood, in other words, was as real as the foster fatherhood of Joseph or the adoptive relationship of so many saints of the Old Covenant; she could not, with any justice, be referred to as a mere fiancée. (Cardinal Burke has utterly shredded the view of Mary as “having a baby out of wedlock”; see his talk here.)

But this truth must necessarily prompt another question: How can we say that Mary and Joseph were ever married at any point in their lives? Is not the consummation of a marriage part of its very definition? In fact, recently a couple of college students posed this very question to me, and suggested that maybe Mary and Joseph were “just friends” all their lives, engaged, but never married. I said: “No, that’s not right; the tradition of the Church (as we can see in the liturgy) always refers to Joseph as ‘the husband of Mary’ and to the three as ‘the Holy Family’ and always holds up Mary and Joseph as exemplars for spouses.”

But the argument from authority, although sufficient, can be unsatisfying, so here is a proper explanation (which, by the way, I also gave to the college students).

According to St. Thomas, Mary and Joseph “consented to the conjugal uniting, but not expressly to the fleshly uniting save on condition that it should please God”; hence their marriage really came into existence. Thomas concludes his discussion with a quotation from Augustine:

All the goods of marriage are fulfilled in these parents of Christ: offspring, fidelity, and sacrament. The offspring we know to have been the Lord Jesus himself; fidelity, because there was no adultery; sacrament, because there was no divorce. Only marital intercourse was not present there.[1]

A modern reader is tempted to say: “Only? If this is lacking, how can the rest of it be a true marriage?” Indeed, Aquinas himself raises the same objection in this context: “Where the final consummation is lacking, there is no true completion.”[2]

St. Thomas can argue the way he does because, in his view, the consent to marriage is not a consent to carnal intercourse, but a consent to the marital consortium or societas that implies such intercourse, or put differently, a consent to the mutual power of the spouses over each other’s bodies that is explicitated in the commixtio carnalis:

As fleshly uniting stands related to marriage, so likewise the consent that causes marriage stands related to consent to fleshly uniting. Now marriage, as was said above, is not essentially the fleshly conjoining itself, but a certain association of a man and a woman with a view to fleshly uniting and the other things that pertain, as a consequence, to the husband and wife, according as power is mutually given to them with respect to the fleshly uniting; and this association is called the conjugal union. Hence it is clear that those men spoke well who said that to consent to marriage is to consent implicitly to fleshly uniting, not explicitly. For the latter ought not to be understood [as given] except in the way that an effect is implicitly contained in its cause: for the power of fleshly uniting, to which one consents, is the cause of the fleshly uniting, as the power of using one’s own possession is the cause of its use.[3] 

And: “Although the act of fleshly uniting [itself] is not of the essence of marriage, still the power for this is of its essence; for through marriage power over the other’s body is given to both of the spouses with a view to fleshly uniting.”[4]

These things premised, Aquinas maintains it was not inconsistent for Mary and Joseph to know that God wanted them to remain virgins, and yet for them to keep their hearts so open to the divine will that they did not insist on maintaining this virginity “at all costs.”

She [Mary] planned on virginity, unless the Lord should arrange otherwise; hence she entrusted herself to the divine arrangement. To the idea that she consented to fleshly intercourse, one should say that she did not; she consented to marriage directly, but to fleshly intercourse implicitly, so to speak, if God should will it.[5]

Again:

While virginity is best in and of itself, nevertheless at that time [before Christ’s birth] marriage was preferred to it because of the expectation of a blessed offspring to come by way of generation; and thus the Blessed Virgin vowed virginity as the thing most excellent and most acceptable to herself, yet not simply speaking, but under a most noble condition—namely this: unless God should ordain otherwise.[6]

Hence Mary and Joseph, fully consenting to be each other’s spouses, thereby became spouses, but because it was the Lord’s will that they not unite sexually, they remained “in suspension” as regards the bodily exchange that normally follows upon this consent.[7] In fact, if Mary had not, in wedding Joseph, willed to remain open to the procreation of children by him if God wanted this, then their marriage would have been invalidated through her rejection of one of the essential goods of marriage, the bonum prolis.[8] It may be noted that this curious state of being “in suspension” with regard to legitimate earthly goods typifies the entire eschatological orientation of the Christian condition. For this reason, the marriage of Mary and Joseph is, paradoxically, an exemplar of religious life no less than it is of married life.

In at least one place Aquinas presents the objection that Joseph and Mary’s marriage was imperfect because it lacked children that were an effect of that marriage.[9] His response is that this good was partially present there due to the educatio prolis that took place, and that (to paraphrase) we ought to expect things to be unique in the family of the Son of God. This response helps us to remember that the classic catechisms and codes of canon law always said that the primary purpose of marriage is the “procreation and education of children.” Bringing children into the world is only the first step; the more important step is rearing them and educating them in the Catholic faith, moral virtues, and how to live in one’s society (as well as other subjects of instruction or apprenticeship, depending on circumstances). It is because we implicitly recognize this hierarchy of obligations that we regard adoptive parents as truly parents.


NOTES

[1] Summa theologiae III, q. 29, a. 2, citing On Marriage and Concupiscence I; see In IV Sententiarum, d. 30, q. 2, a. 2; Super Matt. 1, lec. 4 [Marietti ed., n. 92]). At In IV Sent. d. 31, q. 1, a. 3 we read: “From the very fact that through the conjugal pact the spouses hand over to each other, in perpetuity, power over one another, it follows that they may not be separated, and so it is that marriage is never found without inseparability; whereas it is found without fidelity and offspring, because the being of a thing does not depend upon its use.”

[2] In IV Sent. d. 30, q. 2, a. 2, arg. 3.

[3] In IV Sent. d. 28, q. 1, a. 4.

[4] In IV Sent. d. 34, q. 1, a. 2, ad 1.

[5] Super Matt. 1, lec. 4 (Marietti ed., n. 93).

[6] In IV Sent. d. 30, q. 2, a. 1, qa. 1.

[7] See In IV Sent. d. 30, q. 2, a. 1, qa. 1, ad 1–3.

[8] See In IV Sent. d. 30, q. 2, a. 1, qa. 2, ad 2.

[9] In IV Sent. d. 30, q. 2, a. 2, arg. 4.

Pictures of a Wedding in the Ordinariate Use

A reader in England, Mr James Turner, was kind enough to share with us some photographs of his solemn Nuptial Mass and wedding service, which was celebrated at St James’, Spanish Place, London, in the Use of the Anglican Ordinariate. The Mass was celebrated by Mgr Andrew Burnham, assisted by Fr Daniel Lloyd and Fr David Elliott, all priests of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. (All photos by Marcin Mazur)

The liturgy begins with the Admonition and Scrutiny, based on Thomas Cranmer’s famous words from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. The bride and groom having declared their freedom to marry, Mass begins with the Introit Deus Israel and the Kyrie, while the altar and celebrant are incensed. The Ordinary of the Mass was Mozart’s Spatzenmesse, with the propers sung in Latin from the Graduale.

After the homily, the bride and groom made their vows to each other in the traditional English translation. The bride consents to enter into matrimony with the following words: “I, N, take thee, N, to be my wedded husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse: for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health; to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part, according to God's holy law; and thereto I give thee my troth.”

Continue Reading this Article. . .

A Wedding according to the Use of the Philippine Islands

My thanks to reader JE for letting me know about a post on the blog Dei Praesidio Fultus, with pictures of a wedding celebrated according to the proper use of the Philippine Islands. There have always been a great many proper rituals attached to the celebration of the Sacrament of Matrimony; an earlier post from the same blog explains that in Spain, a number of customs from the Mozarabic liturgy passed over into the Roman Rite, and were then imported by the Spanish to the Philippines. On another post, there are pictures of another wedding, and links to the full text of the Philippine wedding rite in both Spanish and Latin.

The wedding itself is celebrated before the doors of the church, rather than inside.

The bride and groom are asked by the priest to give their consent to the Matrimony three times, rather than once as in the Rituale Romanum.

In addition to the rings, the priest blesses 13 coins called arrhae, the Latin word for "pledges", which are then given by the husband to the wife. They symbolize temporal prosperity and fruitfulness, as well as the husband's promise to care for his wife materially.

After the Pater noster, and before the Libera nos quaesumus, a veil is placed over the wife's head, extending over to the husband's shoulders. A cord in the form of a figure 8 is then laid over it upon the shoulders of them both.

Best wishes to the happy couple, and our thanks to Fr. Mitchell Zerudo, spiritual director of Una Voce Philippines, for heling to maintain these beautiful local customs. Ad multos annos!