The Novus Ordo Rite of Marriage—Revisiting the Eldest Child of the Reform (Part 1)

Postconciliar reformers made several changes to the rite of marriage, deemphasizing the sacrament’s legal reality and its primary purpose

The Marriage of the Virgin (1640) by Nicolas Poussin (source)

In the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, three paragraphs are devoted to marriage. The section begins by declaring that

the rite of celebrating marriage in the Roman book of rites is to be revised, and made richer, in such a way that it will express the grace of the sacrament more clearly, and emphasise the duties of wife and husband.¹

Similar to the document’s proposed reform of the Roman Mass,² the vagueness of this sentence opened up the traditional Roman rite of marriage to an indefinite amount of change.³ A priest was still required to “ask for and obtain the consent of the parties contracting” the marriage,⁴ but nothing else was obviously off the table. Before the Council was over, the Vatican would publicly issue two documents with further instructions for the revision of the rite, but neither of them offered any more clarity on how far-reaching those changes could be.⁵

The degree of transformation was left up to the commission known as the Consilium,⁶ in consultation with Pope Paul VI. Groups 22 and 23 of the Consilium were tasked with crafting a new rite of marriage, which they did in just two years (1966–1968). By the end of the process, it had changed so much that Archbishop Annibale Bugnini (whom Paul VI appointed secretary of the Consilium) felt justified in calling it “a firstborn.”⁷ This was in part because, of all the sacraments that the Consilium operated on, it was “the first to be studied and the very first to be published.”⁸ However, it is striking that in describing the new rite, Bugnini did not choose to use a word associated with organic development. Instead, the word “firstborn” suggests that the postconciliar rite of marriage (and by extension, the siblings that would follow it corresponding to the other six sacraments) was their own intellectual offspring—a new being.

Lest anyone suspect me of reading too much into a single word, I will let Bugnini speak for himself. Indeed, this was not the first time the new rite’s architect had described his project in radically innovative terms. In 1967, while the postconciliar marriage rite was still taking shape, Bugnini bluntly revealed the perspective that would give birth to the entire reform:

The liturgy is in the midst of a period of transition. . . . It is not only a question of touching up a work of art of great value, but sometimes it is necessary to give new structures to entire rites. It is indeed a question of a fundamental restoration, I would almost say of a recasting and, for certain points, of an actual new creation. Why this fundamental work? Because the image of the liturgy given by the Council is completely different from what it was before.⁹

Bugnini, suffice to say, was eager for the opportunity to recreate the Roman rite, and he justified his zeal by appealing to the often-vague prescriptions for change in Sacrosanctum Concilium (the drafting committee of which he had steered prior to the Council).¹⁰ On the other hand, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger lamented the approach described above insofar as it was also applied to the new Missal and, by extension, the new Rituale (which was produced by the same commission and included the new rite of marriage). He expressed his dismay on multiple occasions and tried to correct the Conciliar narrative Bugnini had asserted:

The problem of the new Missal lies in its abandonment of a historical process that was always continual, before and after St. Pius V, and in the creation of a completely new book, although it was compiled of old material, the publication of which was accompanied by a prohibition of all that came before it, which, besides, is unheard of in the history of both law and liturgy. And I can say with certainty, based on my knowledge of the conciliar debates and my repeated reading of the speeches made by the Council Fathers, that this does not correspond to the intentions of the Second Vatican Council.¹¹

The new Missal was published as if it were a book put together by professors, not a phase in a continual growth process. Such a thing has never happened before. It is absolutely contrary to the laws of liturgical growth, and it has resulted in the nonsensical notion that Trent and Pius V “produced” a Missal four hundred years ago. The Catholic liturgy was thus reduced to the level of a mere product of modern times.¹²

It is one thing to read such a judgment from an eminent liturgical scholar who would become Pope Benedict XVI, but it is quite another to see the liturgical reduction unfold before one’s own eyes. Lived experience is one way to gain that vision; a close examination of the historical record is another. A renaissance of Catholic publishing in recent decades has shed needed light on the differences between the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar sacraments of the Roman rite, helping young and old to understand what changed and why.¹³ Most importantly, these resources have drawn people into a deeper appreciation of their liturgical inheritance and love for Christ. The present essay aims to contribute to that growing literature, specifically with reference to the rite of marriage.

In a letter dated March 17, 1969, Pope Paul VI set the date for the promulgation of the new rite of marriage and expressed his “hopes that when explained in suitable instructions it will help spouses better to understand the profound meaning, the inexhaustible spiritual riches, and the serious obligations of Christian marriage.”¹⁴ Suitable instructions, as many Catholic spouses can attest, are by no means guaranteed when a couple decides to marry within the Church. After all, some priests, marriage prep programs, or books on marriage are less suitable than others.

Moreover, even the best instruction can only supplement the rite of marriage itself, which has its own formative power. Thus, the text of that rite merits careful consideration, particularly for engaged Roman rite couples with an important choice before them: to be wed using the Vetus Ordo (“old older”) rite of marriage or the Novus Ordo (“new order”) one?¹⁵ Answering this question is made easier by examining the differences between those rites. This will shed light on whether the new rite truly helps spouses better understand the meaning, riches, and obligations of marriage. As a result, the degree to which the rite can facilitate their reception of sacramental grace, both on their wedding day and every day of their marriage, will come into focus.

Preliminary Notes

It is important to emphasize two points from the start. First, there is not one rite of marriage that is absolutely superior to all others. The Roman rite is one of many rites in the Catholic Church, so marriage rituals that are very different from ours (such as the Byzantine Mystery of Crowning ceremony) can be just as venerable and in harmony with tradition. Furthermore, the rite of marriage has always been the sacrament most adaptable to local customs, as the Council of Trent made clear.¹⁶

This makes sense, as even before Christ elevated it to a sacramental level, marriage was “the principle and foundation of domestic society and therefore of all human association,”¹⁷ in the words of Pope Pius XI. As a result, the Church recognizes the value of retaining its relation to social custom and leaves room for doing so in the rite’s rubrics. However, the existence of legitimate liturgical diversity does not imply that all marriage rites are equal in every way.

The second point worth mentioning is that since both a Vetus Ordo marriage and a Novus Ordo marriage are valid Catholic sacraments (assuming no canonical impediments to marriage exist), they both offer access to union with Christ, who is Himself an infinite font of grace. In a certain sense, Christ is the substance of every sacrament. However, since God chose to convey the sacraments as material realities in accord with human nature, they involve certain accidents that comprise the rituals themselves and mediate that grace to human beings. This is where we must begin.

Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo, The Marriage of Frederick Barbarossa and Beatrice of Burgundy. Source.

Sacramental Substance and Accidents

In the material world, substance and accidents are always united, and, as Dr. Peter Kwasniewski notes, “outside of the Holy Eucharist, we never get one apart from the other.”¹⁸ In fact, “we perceive substance through its accidents. . . . Accidents are precisely what give us access to substance, purchase on it, insight into it, awareness of its depths.”¹⁹ In the Summa theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas describes the intellect’s power to “read the interiors of things” on the basis of what the senses perceive: “within the accidents lies hidden the substantial nature of the thing; within words lie hidden the meanings of words; within likenesses and symbols lies hidden the symbolized truth; and effects lie hidden in causes, and vice versa.”²⁰ Thus, as Dr. Kwasniewski puts it, “the non-essential opens on to the essential. . . . For this reason―that the externals are meant to tell us something about the reality to which they are in service, and draw us toward it―it is important that they harmonize”²¹ with the interior. In other words, “the surface should correspond to the thing’s nature and lead us directly into it.”²²

This harmony between substance and accidents applies to the sacramental rites and affects the faithful, as is well attested by Catholic tradition. For instance, the Council of Trent proclaimed,

As human nature is such that it cannot easily raise itself up to the meditation of divine realities without external aids, holy mother church has for that reason duly established certain rites . . . ; and it has provided ceremonial such as symbolic blessings, lights, incense, vestments and many other rituals of that kind from apostolic order and tradition, by which the majesty of this great sacrifice is enhanced, and the minds of the faithful are aroused by those visible signs of religious devotion to contemplation of the high mysteries hidden in it.²³

Likewise, St. Thomas writes,

The human mind, in order to be united to God, needs to be guided by the sensible world, since “invisible things . . . are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,” as the Apostle says (Rom. 1:20). Wherefore in the divine worship it is necessary to make use of corporeal things, that man’s mind may be aroused thereby, as by signs, to the spiritual acts by means of which he is united to God.²⁴

Thus, the accidental features of a sacrament exist to facilitate the fruitful reception of the graces occasioned by that sacrament, all of which are ultimately ordered to union with Christ. It follows, then, that accidental features would facilitate that reception of graces and union with Christ to varying degrees, according to the harmony of those features with the substance of the sacrament in question. This is not a matter of validity or liceity, but of fittingness (and, to some extent, of authenticity).²⁵

Ritual Differences Considered

The question, then, can be helpfully narrowed: Compared to those in the old rite of marriage, are the accidental features introduced in the new rite more or less in harmony with the substance of marriage?

The reform of the marriage rite affected every part of it, including its placement relative to the celebration of Mass, the official options for readings and prayers, and the text of the nuptial blessing —which was “the oldest and most continuously used blessing in Christendom,”²⁶ from before the 500s until it was redacted and recast in 1969.²⁷ None of these changes are insignificant, and they deserve thorough examination—particularly by someone with an appreciation for the Vetus Ordo rite of marriage—but such a project would require a book-length treatment.²⁸

My primary aim here will be much more modest: to examine the degree to which the solemn legal reality of marriage, together with its primary end, is communicated through the words of the rite. The limited scope of this essay thereby provides a window into some of the most significant changes to the rite, striking at the heart of the theology of the sacrament as well as human psychology. After all, the legal character of the sacrament pertains to its indissolubility, an aspect of one of the three fundamental goods or blessings of marriage as outlined by the Catechism of the Council of Trent and Pope Pius XI.²⁹

Let us briefly examine some of the most conspicuous changes, then review the Consilium’s rationale undergirding them. First, consider the questioning prior to the marriage vows, in response to which the bridegroom and bride express their consent. In the Vetus Ordo rite, the priest separately asks both the bridegroom and bride:

N., do you take N., here present, for your lawful wife/husband according to the rite of our holy mother, the Church?³⁰

In the Novus Ordo questioning, the priest instead addresses them as a couple and asks,

N. and N., have you come here to enter into Marriage without coercion, freely and wholeheartedly? Are you prepared, as you follow the path of Marriage, to love and honor each other for as long as you both shall live? Are you prepared to accept children lovingly from God and to bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?³¹

As Daniel Graham points out, in addressing each person individually, the Vetus Ordo rite emphasizes their separateness prior to the completion of the sacrament, which will soon unite them as one flesh—a new mode of relation to one another, with a new set of obligations. Further, the word lawful and the unique reference to the rite of our holy mother, the Church emphasizes the legally binding character of the marriage and the Church’s authority to witness it. This fittingly corresponds to the rite that has just begun, wherein “one man and one woman stand before the authority of the Church to enter sacramentally into a lawful, binding contract.”³²

At the questioning in the Novus Ordo rite, law and Church authority are mentioned only in the question that refers to raising children, which “may be omitted, if circumstances suggest this, for example, if the couple are advanced in years.”³³ The use of the word take in the Vetus Ordo rite, which reappears later in the vows of both old and new rites, also “connotes binding oneself as in taking an oath,”³⁴ a reinforcement of the solemn legal character of the sacrament.

The questioning at the beginning of the rite brings attention to the understanding of marriage conveyed by the rite in its entirety. As Dr. Michael Foley observes, the phrase referring to the rite of the Church in the Vetus Ordo prepares all who hear it for catechesis, since it “implies that the whole service, not just the sermon, is designed to celebrate and teach the essence of marriage.”³⁵ After the exchange of rings, the Vetus Ordo rite revisits that essence with theological clarity and precision. The priest prays,

We beg you, Lord, to look on these your servants, and graciously to uphold the institution of marriage established by you for the continuation of the human race, so that they who have been joined together by your authority may remain faithful together by your help. Through Christ our Lord.³⁶

This rich prayer contains a treasure trove of insights. It acknowledges that the spouses are servants of the Lord before all else, that marriage is not a mere formality but a venerable institution, that it comes into being between the spouses by divine authority, that their obligation to conjugal fidelity is lifelong, and that fulfilling this obligation is only possible with divine assistance. Many of those points reinforce the legally binding character of marriage, which we have already seen the rite keen on doing.

While the prayer is evidently very rich in content, its unique value consists in its succinct statement of the primary purpose of the sacrament of marriage: “the continuation of the human race” (propagatiónem humáni géneris). There are, of course, additional purposes of marriage, which Pope Pius XI referred to as “secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end.”³⁷ In 1944, Pope Pius XII affirmed a decree requiring Catholics to profess that “the primary end of marriage is the generation and education of children,” and that secondary ends are “essentially subordinate to the primary end.”³⁸

The ends of marriage are fundamental to the substance of the sacrament, and this prayer after the exchange of rings stands out for its bold reminder that procreation is at the top of that hierarchy, regardless of whether God blesses the spouses with children. Tragically, the prayer was completely deleted by the Consilium and does not have a replacement in the Novus Ordo rite of marriage. Its unique catechetical value disappeared along with it, despite some of its themes (such as the spouses as servants of God and the lifelong nature of marriage) appearing elsewhere in the new rite.

Overall, with respect to both the solemn legal reality of marriage and the primary end of that union, the Vetus Ordo rite of marriage allows the characteristic substance of the sacrament to shine forth with greater clarity and precision than its postconciliar counterpart.

This leaves us with a troubling question. If the accidental features of the Vetus Ordo rite of marriage are in greater harmony with the substance of the sacrament, why did the members of the Consilium insist on its transformation?

Answering that question—and reflecting on how Catholics should respond—will be our focus in Part 2.

1. Ritus celebrandi matrimonium, qui exstat in riuali romano, recognoscatur et ditior fiat, quo clarius gratia sacramenti significetur et munera coniugum inculcentur (Sacrosanctum Concilium 77, in Norman P. Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2 [Georgetown University Press, 1990], 834).

2. See Peter Kwasniewski, “Sacrosanctum Concilium: The Ultimate Trojan Horse,” in idem., Close the Workshop: Why the Old Mass Isn’t Broken and the New Mass Can’t Be Fixed (Angelico Press, 2025), 3–26.

3. This is exactly what was intended by Annibale Bugnini, who steered the drafting committee of Sacrosanctum Concilium before the Council began. To guard against the document’s defeat on the floor of the Council, he warned the committee to “tread carefully and discreetly,” ensuring that that their proposals would be “formulated in such a way that much is said without seeming to say anything” (Cited in Yves Chiron, Annibale Bugnini: Reformer of the Liturgy, trans. John Pepino [Angelico Press, 2018], 82).

4. . . . excipiatque contrahentium consensum . . . (Sacrosanctum Concilium 77, in Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2, 834).

5. Paul VI, Sacram Liturgiam, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, January 25, 1964; Consilium, Inter Oecumenici Instruction on Implementing Liturgical Norms, Adoremus, 70–75.

6. This is the abbreviated name of the commission to which Paul VI assigned the reform of the liturgy in January 1964—the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia. To learn more about this commission, see Christiaan W. Kappes, “The Chronology, Organization, Competencies and Composition of the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia” (master’s thesis, Sant’Anselmo, 2009).

7. Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: 1948–1975, trans. Matthew J. O’Connell (The Liturgical Press, 1990), 699.

8. Bugnini, Reform of the Roman Liturgy, 696.

9. Annibale Bugnini, “Press Conference,” January 4, 1967, translated into French in DC, 1967, col. 829, cited in Réginald-Marie Rivoire, Does ‘Traditionis Custodes’ Pass the Juridical Rationality Test?, trans. William Barker (Os Justi Press, 2022), 30, emphasis added.

10. See Roberto de Mattei, The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story, trans. Patrick T. Brannan et al. (Loreto Publications, 2012), 155–61. For more on the vague prescriptions of the Constitution on the Liturgy, see Christopher Ferrara, “Sacrosanctum Concilium: A Lawyer Examines the Loopholes,” Shawn’s Traditional Catholic Web Site, n.d..

11. “Letter to Prof. Wolfgang Waldstein, 1976,” in Wolfgang Waldstein, “Zum motuproprio Summorum Pontificum,” Una Voce Korrespondenz 38/3 [2008], 201–214, emphasis added.

12. Joseph Ratzinger, The Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy, trans. Graham Harrison (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), 86, emphasis added.

13. For just a small sampling, see Peter Kwasniewski, The Once and Future Roman Rite: Returning to the Traditional Latin Liturgy After Seventy Years of Exile (TAN Books, 2022); Lauren Pristas, The Collects of the Roman Missals: A Comparative Study of the Sundays in Proper Seasons Before and After the Second Vatican Council (Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013); Michael Davies, Pope Paul’s New Mass (Angelus Press, 2009); Daniel Graham, Lex Orandi: A Comparison of the Traditional and Novus Ordo Rites of the Seven Sacraments (Loreto Publications, 2017); Pietro Leone, The Destruction of the Roman Rite (Loreto Publications, 2017).

14. Cited in Bugnini, Reform of the Roman Liturgy, 698.

15. Although I use the terms Vetus Ordo and Novus Ordo in this essay with reference to two discrete rites, the history of each side of the 1960s divide is a bit more complex. The rite of marriage in force immediately prior to the Second Vatican Council was almost entirely identical to the one first promulgated by Pope Paul V in the Rituale Romanum of 1614. The Latin and English of this rite can be found here, and it is what this essay refers to as the Vetus Ordo rite of marriage. In 1964, however, a new version of the rite of marriage added a ring exchange between both the husband and wife (as opposed to only the husband giving the wife a ring) and a completely new series of blessings from the priest at the end of the rite. In 1969, Pope Paul VI published the Ordo Celebrandi Matrimonium, which almost completely reconstructed the rite. It appeared in English in 1970 under the title Rite of Marriage, but in 1991 the Vatican issued a second edition of the Latin text, which did not appear in American English until the Vatican approved The Order of Celebrating Matrimony (OCM), which went into effect at the end of 2016. Compared to the 1970 Rite of Marriage, OCM is contained several new features (summarized here) and an adjusted style of expression, in line with the translation model set forth in Liturgiam Authenticam, a 2001 instruction from the Congregation for Divine Worship. Since this second edition is now nearly ubiquitous and is mostly identical to the first (especially when comparing the Latin versions), it is what this essay refers to as the Novus Ordo rite of marriage. For anyone who might dispute the terminology itself, note that the phrase “Novus Ordo” was applied to the reformed Mass by Pope Paul VI in a 1976 magisterial document, which naturally extends to the other post-conciliar rites as well, including that of marriage (cf. Peter Kwasniewski, “Are We Justified in Calling Paul VI’s Rite the ‘Novus Ordo’?,” in idem., Close the Workshop: Why the Old Mass Isn’t Broken and the New Mass Can’t Be Fixed [Angelico Press, 2025], 383–85).

16. After the spouses express consent, Trent directed the priest to say, “Ego vos in matrimonium conjiungo, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, vel aliis utatur verbis, uxta receptum uniuscuiusque provinciae ritum” (“I join you together in marriage, in the name of the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, or use other words according to the accepted rite of each province”) (Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 1, in Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2, 756). Consider also Rome’s official rite of marriage promulgated after Trent, which contained the prescription, “Cæterum, si quae Provinciæ aliis, ultra praedictas, laudabilibus consuetudinibus, & cæremoniis in celebrando matrimonii Sacramento utuntur, eas Sancta Tridentina Synodus optat retineri” (“However, if any Provinces use other, laudable customs and ceremonies in celebrating the Sacrament of Matrimony, beyond those mentioned, the Holy Council of Trent wishes them to be retained”) (Rituale Romanum [Rome, 1617], 237).

17. Casti Connubii 1.

18. Kwasniewski, Once and Future Roman Rite, 25.

19. Kwasniewski, 25.

20. Summa theologiae II-II, Q. 8, art. 1.

21. Kwasniewski, Once and Future Roman Rite, 25–26.

22. Kwasniewski, 27.

23. Council of Trent, session 22, chapter 5, in Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2, 734.

24. Summa theologiae II-II, Q. 81, art. 7.

25. See Peter Kwasniewski, “The Four Qualities of Liturgy: Validity, Licitness, Fittingness, and Authenticity,” New Liturgical Movement, November 9, 2020.

26. Michael P. Foley, Wedding Rites: A Complete Guide to Traditional Vows, Music, Ceremonies, Blessings, and Interfaith Services (William B. Eerdmans, 2008), 107. See also Kenneth Stevenson, Nuptial Blessing: A Study of Christian Marriage Rites (Oxford University Press, 1983).

27. While the second edition of the reformed rite of marriage, issued in Latin in 1991 and in English in 2016, added options of certain prayers that are closer to those in the Vetus Ordo rite (such as the blessing for the spouses at the end of Mass), it also instituted changes that merit critical analysis, such as the direction that the penitential act is to be omitted in a Nuptial Mass (“Omittitur actus pænitentialis” [OCM 53]). Is it not eminently fitting (and spiritually impactful) for a couple to publicly renounce sin, acknowledge their lowliness, and beg God for forgiveness in conjunction with the sacrament of marriage, since a similarly humble attitude will be essential for a healthy married life? Marriage is a joyful occasion, but it is not bereft of penitence for wrongdoing and pleas for forgiveness, perhaps even on a daily basis, as any married person will affirm. Thankfully, the penitential rite is a given in the Vetus Ordo Nuptial Mass.

28. Some of that work has been done by Daniel Graham in his book Lex Orandi: A Comparison of the Traditional and Novus Ordo Rites of the Seven Sacraments (Loreto Publications, 2017), as well as by Fr. Paul Turner in Inseparable Love: A Commentary on the Order of Celebrating Matrimony in the Catholic Church (Liturgical Press, 2017). Although Turner’s book does not show appreciation of the unique value of the Vetus Ordo rite of marriage, it does offer valuable insight into why the liturgical reformers wanted to change the rite, both in 1969 and 1991/2016.

29. “The Three Blessings of Marriage,” in Tradivox, vol. 7: Council of Trent, ed. Aaron Seng (Sophia Institute Press, 2021), 373–74; Casti Connubii 31–36.

30. N., vis accípere N. hic præséntem in tuum legítimum marítum juxta ritum sanctæ matris Ecclésiæ?

31. N. et N., venistísne huc sine coactióne, sed líbero et pleno corde ad Matrimónium contrahéndum? Estísne paráti, Matrimónii viam sequéntes, ad vos mútuo diligéndos et honorándos, totíus vitae decúrsu? Estísne paráti ad prolem amánter a Deo suscipiéndam, et ad eam secúndum legem Christi eiúsque Ecclésiæ educándam? (OCM 60).

32. Graham, Lex Orandi, 132.

33. Interrogatio . . . omitti potest si adiuncta hoc innuunt, ex. gr. si nupturientes sunt ætatis provectæ (OCM 60). While the legality of the marriage is not mentioned in the questioning of the Novus Ordo rite, the phrase “lawful wife/husband” does appear in one of the alternative forms of the declaration of consent in the English edition of OCM (62). It does not appear in the Latin edition.

34. Graham, Lex Orandi, 132.

35. Foley, Wedding Rites, 65.

36. Réspice, quæsumus, Dómine, super hos fámulos tuos: et institútis tuis, quibus propagatiónem humáni géneris ordinásti, benígnus assíste; ut qui te auctóre jungúntur, te auxiliánte servéntur. Per Christum Dóminum nostrum.

37. Casti Connubii 59.

38. Finem primarium matrimonii esse prolis generationem et educationem . . . fines secundarios fini primario . . . esse essentialiter subordinatos (Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, “Decretum de Finibus Matrimonii,” April 1, 1944, in Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, Acta Apostolicae Sedis: Commentarium Officiale 36, no. 2/11 (1944): 103. For a historical account of the effort among some Council Fathers to undermine this teaching about the hierarchical order of the ends of marriage—just a few years before the Novus Ordo rite of marriage was created—see de Mattei, The Second Vatican Council, 392–97.