Does the reality match the sign?

The readings on marriage and holy orders and their development in the Church over the centuries made it clear that Jesus had not organized his new church very carefully. Could he have consciously chosen to leave its future in the hands of his motley crew of followers, trusting that his Spirit would indeed be with them, and bring to their minds all that he had taught them? Did he trust that the Good News would insinuate itself into and transform from inside whatever culture became their home? I was particularly interested in the fact that apparently marriage was not considered a sacrament until Peter Lombard spoke of it in the 12th Century, and even then there was no officially recognized wedding ceremony that had to be observed (C&M 59). Traditional marriage rites were commonly used by Christians, whether of Jewish or Gentile descent. The Jewish rituals were very formal; marriages were arranged by the fathers of the bride and groom. I would think that modifications would have been made little by little over the centuries, particularly after Christians were expelled from the synagogues, but I haven’t yet found information on that. Perhaps common law marriages were the most common form. One indication might be that at the time of Ignatius of Antioch in the 2nd century, he advised Christian men and women to get the approval of the bishop before they married (Johnson 292). Another clear sign would be the copy of the nuptial Mass and Blessing which Pope Hadrian I sent Emperor Charlemagne in the 8th century (J 293-294). A fascinating aspect of the Hadrianum was that all of the many blessings proposed were oriented toward the woman, focusing on her chastity, fidelity, and need of God’s protection. Were these not equally needed by the man? In the 12th century, Peter Lombard insisted that marriage was a sacrament “that nature might be protected and sin repressed,” but also because “it is also a sacred sign … of the union of Christ and the Church” (quoted in J 296-297). The couple getting married were the ministers of the sacrament, not a church official, so if the external form was culturally acceptable, they were validly married. Calvin mocked the idea that marriage was a sacrament, but then blamed the mistake on a misunderstanding of the word used by St. Paul (J 297-298). The official Roman marriage ritual was not set until fifty years after the Council of Trent. In that ritual, apparently only the woman was given a ring, and the purpose of marriage was said to be “the propagation of the human race” (J 299-300); only after Vatican II did both parties give rings to one other. Love is the first stated reason for marriage. Fidelity and the acceptance of children come next (J 306). Cooke and Macy speak of purposes of marriage. Almost everywhere until relatively recently, marriage partners were chosen by the parents of the bride and groom, based on the background and respectability of the family. The motives were various: they wanted grandchildren to carry on the family line; they wanted to improve their social position; they wanted to secure a political advancement. There usually was a dowry or brideprice involved, according to the culture. Sometimes the partners did not even know each other before the marriage ceremony. It was, of course, hoped that they would be compatible, perhaps even love each other, but this was not the primary motive in the choice. In most cultures, a wife was/is considered the property of her husband, and he could have power of life and death over her. Wife-beating was/is common and accepted. If this was a sign of the union of Christ and the Church, maybe that helps to explain the fearsome image of God held by so many Christians! Vatican II and the Holy Spirit still have a long way to go before the reality behind the sign of marriage is understood.