# Roman Catholic doctrine of sacramental marriage



## Me Died Blue (Jan 14, 2008)

I just started back in school today after eight months, at a small Catholic liberal arts college in Cincinnati. I'm taking a religion course on "The Theology of Human Sexuality and Marriage," and since the school is RC, the class is naturally being taught from an RC perspective; although the professor has made it clear that there will definitely be open discussion and constant room for critical analysis from all points of view. The only text for the class is a brief book, _Marriage and Sacrament: A Theology of Christian Marriage_ by Michael G. Lawler, himself a married Catholic theologian.

I'm looking for help finding articles and any material (particularly online) that looks at and interacts with a RC view of marriage (including its alleged sacramental nature) from a Reformed (or even Protestant at large) point of view, be it more through an emphasis on the nature of marriage itself, or more on the nature of sacraments, or both.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 14, 2008)

Calvin deals with it in Institutes 4.19.34-37, Ursinus in his commentary, pg. 354, Vanderkemp in his commentary on the Heidelberg, vol 2, pg. 19, Turretin IET, vol 3, pp. 559-560, Sproul, volume 3 of his new layman's guide to the WCF, pp. 100-101, Ridgeley's commentary on the Larg Catechism, volume 2, pg. 489, Boston's works, volume 2, pg. 473, and Dabney's ST, pg. 734.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 14, 2008)

Thanks...I have the McNeill edition of Calvin, I'll check that section. Do you know if parts of any of the other materials are online (like the _Institutes_ are, incidentally)?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 14, 2008)

Chris -- See Ursinus here, Ridgley here and Dabney here.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 14, 2008)

The only one online I know of (besides Calvin) is the Turretin...in Latin. This is the volume in question.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 14, 2008)

I knew somehow that Andrew would have a lot more answers than I have!


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 14, 2008)

So, if you're still interested in the Turretin quotation, I'll give you the algebraic reference: 19th topic, question 31, sections 40-44.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 14, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> I knew somehow that Andrew would have a lot more answers than I have!



From from it, brother, just trying to provide a little assistance as a follow-up to your helpful tips. 

An additional resource worth consulting is Thomas Vincent's sermon, _The Popish Doctrine, which Forbiddeth to Marry, is a Devilish and Wicked Doctrine_, in _The Morning Exercises at Cripplegate_, Vol. 6, p. 337ff, which is available online here.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 14, 2008)

Thomas Boston, _Works_, Vol. 2 (p. 473) is available online here:



> Matrimony has nothing of a sacrament in it, since it has no visible sign appointed by Christ, no promise of saving grace annexed to it, and is common to all the world as well as the church. It is misgrounded on Eph 5:32, where their corrupt translation reads a great sacrament.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 14, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> An additional resource worth consulting is Thomas Vincent's sermon, _The Popish Doctrine, which Forbiddeth to Marry, is a Devilish and Wicked Doctrine_, in _The Morning Exercises at Cripplegate_, Vol. 6, p. 337ff, which is available online here.



Also in the same volume is Matthew Sylvester's sermon, _There Are But Two Sacraments Under the New Testament_, in which he states (pp. 435-436):



> (3.) _As to matrimony_. -- Who made it a sacrament under the New Testament? Or what is there in the ordinance to make it answerable to the thing? And if it be a sacrament, yet it is but economical. And it is no more divine than as it is an instituted relative state by God; and so is the covenant betwixt masters and servants; and thus the inauguration of a king may be a civil sacrament. But a sacrament of the covenant of grace is made compatible to all believers; but this is not so, but the priest must be barred from this sacrament, lest it impair his purity. But they allege, "It is called 'a mystery.'" (Eph. v. 32.) And have not the woman and the beast the same name? (Rev. xvii. 1, 5, 7.) Yea, doth not Cajetan affirm this place no argument that matrimony is a sacrament? Aware, it is likely, he was of that which follows closely in the text; namely, "I speak of Christ," &c. What trifling subtleties do they (the Papists) use to amuse the world! as if they did design to be more studious to walk in darkness, than to prevent or heal the wounds and breaches of the church.


----------

