www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Evangelicals Maintain Pagan Customs

Father Deacon Lance,

Sorry. Many times in the past years, I addressed clergy friends with their first name. After 20+ years, I forget that others I don't know as well might get offended. In the future I will make sure I address you with the proper title.

Joe

Alex,

Thank you! Maybe we make too many exceptions in our religion just as the Israelites did before God had them scattered by the Assyrians ... and Babylonians. Its not about religion and faith, but about personal sentiments. Pay the priest; get the bubble gum.

Joe

Dear Tim,

Yes, but those aren't the only explanations!

To be "married" in that sense is a much later linguistic invention.

At best, "maritus" relates to "marital" status.

Don't see how this really relates to the idea of "married."

The above is contained in a book entitled "Now you know" which is a listing with explanations of various terms used in the English language.

Another is "dead-line."

During your Civil War, when POW camps could not be constructed, POW's had a line drawn around them in the sand or earth.

They were told not to cross over the "dead-line" or they would be shot.

"letting the cat out of the bag" comes from the time when people bought a pig or other foodstuff at market - and when unscrupulous merchants would put a cat in their bags instead . . .

When the hapless victims got home and opened their bags - they would "let the cat out of the bag" and knew they were had.

Have a great weekend, O Journalist Without Equal!

Alex

Dear Joe,

Whichever you chews . . .

A great weekend to you!

Did you see the way Tim Cuprisin is always so quick with his Webster's when it comes to me?

I'm happy I provoke him to post!

Alex

Thanks for your postings, Dr. Roman.

I find them to be creative and entertaining.

--tim

Dear Theist Gal you said:

"I was protected and cared for by my mother and my father, so why is only the father recognized in this way? Why not let both parents give her away? (A practice which, I understand, is actually becoming more common."

I say:

Let's not allow our present way of life, and the rights that woman have attained in our present day, blind us as to the past. I recall when I read the first book of the 'Godfather', that a Hollywood executive asked if a certain girl had a father. It seems that his only concern towards that girl was if she had a father.

Also in our revolution, it was the orphans that were the 'drummer' boys because they were the one's that would be at risk and shot first. Their life and suffering was of no concern because they had no parents and siblings to take care of.

Also Saint Joseph's purpose was to protect and take care of Mary and Jesus, and Saint Nicholas was known to have secretly given his wealth as dowries so that poor girls would not fall into prostitution...and we could go on and on.

We can't take what exists in this country during the past two decades, and disregard what has been going on for thousands of years of history.

Zenovia

Doctor Alex Roman,

I was going to call you the Provoker Extraordinaire, but the proper "Doctor" is more appropriate to your status amongst us sinners.

Would you say that our comingling of Christian practices with Roman and/or Civil practices is a factor leading to our demise as a particular church in the West?

As a cantor, I find value and meaning in our clergy escorting our bridal couple into the church. So much theology there. Hard to find music to fit the action (property exchange) if it isn't in the books or isn't a part of our Eastern Christian marriage.

If we accept such foreign practices, we should also mandate and teach other foreign or non-Christian concepts - like matrimonial obedience to the husband in the 'traditional' (not necessarily Christian) sense: the wife must subject herself to her husband in all things. She must be there for HIS pleasure. Her sole day of being on the pedastal is when her daddy rids of her in church by handing her over to her new master.

Just kidding.

As many find it all sentimental (for reasons unknown), others who find beauty in Christian marriage find it offensive. Husbands and wives are invited to enter into their new lives together shoulder to shoulder, not merely tossing the property to the new guy in town.

Our clergy should know better.

In fact, several Latin Catholic dioceses are contemplating ridding of that damnable practice from the Christian rites of marriage. Like 'good Catholics' I would imagine all our sentimentals will follow suit simply because the Latins are donig it and not because they fully understand the meaning of Christian rites of marriage in lieu of Christian marriage.

Unlike Charlemagne, we don't crown ourselves 'in marriage' by first walking down the aisle without a candle (renewal of Baptism?) and the priest. We don't do it at Baptism nor do we do it during ordination. Unless our deacon and presbyteral candidates escort themselves into church for ordination.

I am fully cognizant of how this non-Christian practice means so much to the sentiments of Western Christians and non-Christians (it is also a rite in non-Christian marriages). But it doesn't have to be taught or promoted. People can do whatever personal thing/rite they want outside the liturgy. Let the Church marry its Christian believers the best way IT knows how. If a bride really needs to be "handed over" like property, why not ask for it to be done at home like the Roman pagans did and not in the Temple of our Lord?

What are your thoughts on this matter Doctor Alex Roman? I await for your erudite and deep, penetrating insight.

Joe

I'd like to share with you part of the marriage tradition in the Latin Rite in Mexico regarding the "handing over" of the bride (and groom)(I'm not sure if it is the same all around the Country, but certainly in many parts, Memo and Mexican can correct me if I'm wrong).

Down here not only the bride is "handed over" but also the groom. It is a tradition that in the entrance procession, behind the priest, the groom enters the Church together with his mother, then the bride enters togehter with her father, and when getting before the alter, the bride and groom finally, get together.

I believe it interesting for the topic we are treating here.

God bless

Dear Joseph,

Your inquiring post in fact teaches more than I could ever do in any inane response of mine.

I'm going to download it and use it as a basis for my next religion class discussion.

Your post highlights the fact that our Church's pure marriage traditions stand in stark contrast to the pagan carry-overs that really take away from the Christian (and democratic) values we hold.

Our Bishop, Isidore Borecky, crowned my wife and I (with seven priests ) on June 6, 1981.

At the last moment, my wife insisted that her father at least march with her up the stairs where she was "given" in marriage to me.

As they say in Ukrainian, that "matched like a punch in the nose."

At her cousin's marriage some years later, the same Bishop placed the wedding bands on the couple's right hands. Then, in front of the hapless hierarch, they kissed, removed the bands and placed them on their LEFT hands!

Another punch in the nose . . .

This shows that we do not cherish our Church's traditions because we are largely ignorant of them and how they differ from Western traditions in EVERY respect.

At best, we go for a hybridization that cuts to shreds the continuity of spiritual meaning that the Mystery of Crowning is intended to manifest.

And what we insist on including in this hybrid ceremony are precisely (as you have insightfully shown) the very aspects of a pagan ceremony that definitely disparages the status of women.

As our old parish priest, Fr. Bohdan Lypsky used to say, "This shows we are not thinking with our own heads . . ."

The hybridization also occurs when we insist on holding the Mystery of Crowning on a Saturday and outside the Divine Liturgy and when we chip away at various traditions our Church has ordained centuries ago that appear to us to be "old fashioned."

And the pagan Romans also considered themselves to be "modern."

Rather than be afraid we'll stand out, we should promote a veritable "cult" of appreciation and understanding of our Church's tradition and make every effort to contrast them with those of the West - as you have done so effectively.

I pledge to continue with your project next Saturday with about 80 students.

Alex

Dear J. Thur you said:

" If a bride really needs to be "handed over" like property, why not ask for it to be done at home like the Roman pagans did and not in the Temple of our Lord?"

I say:

Is she being handed over as 'property', (which any man would be sure to resent), or is her father handing her to someone else for protection?

Maybe more correct would be to say she was being handed over 'with' her property, (dowry) to someone else for protection...or in the case of royalty, for political reasons, (with her dowry of course).

Zenovia

Dear Bernardo you said:

"Down here not only the bride is "handed over" but also the groom. It is a tradition that in the entrance procession, behind the priest, the groom enters the Church together with his mother, then the bride enters togehter with her father, and when getting before the alter, the bride and groom finally, get together."

I say:

Now it shows you who's boss there. The grooms mother of course. Hee-hee-hee!

I'm joking! At least in Mexico the groom's mother knows that she must let go. How different from some cultures I know, where it's a tug of war between wife and mother-in-law.

Zenovia

You have forgotten that women only got the vote in most western countries after WWI. Women previous to this, when married owned no property. All property was their husbands. The symbol is the handing over of a daughter to her new protector. She is alos making the move supported symbolically with the consent of her own family. Byantine Catholic churches incorporated many things in the west due to the cultural pressure to conform to the dominat culture. Todays church has been told to stop doing this and take pride in their own liturgy and practices.

Doctor Alex Roman,

Thank you for your kind reply.

Isn�t it interesting how we opt for Roman pagan/civil practices, but ignore or keep to the side our Christian traditions?

First, we opt for �handing over of the bride�, but shy from the bridal couple being escorted into the temple to the altar. The �handing over of the bride� is not a rite of the Church as can be seen from the Roman ritual of marriage and our Byzantine ritual.

Second, we opt for lay ministries (Eucharistic Ministers, Mary-Martha servers, altar boys/servers, volunteer cantors), but shy from the minor orders.

Third, we opt for vows, a tradition that expresses a �contractual� marriage as in the West, whereby the bridal couple (bride and groom) are the ministers of marriage, but shy from the importance of the Crowning in a �covenant� marriage, whereby the bridle couple are married in Christ by the priest, who is the agent/minister of marriage.

Fourth, and I�ve seen it done in the Byzantine Catholic Church years ago, we may opt for a man and woman making the offertory procession, but shy from letting the laity from offering their gifts (bread/wine/etc) at the side table before liturgy.

Fifth, we opt for canonical fundamentalism, but shy from the beauty of the liturgy, which best expresses the particular theology of the Church.

Sixth, we opt for �handing over of the bride�, but ignore the public interrogations which DO take place at the doors of the Church. By then, one would hope that those who come to marriage �freely and without reservation� ALREADY come to church as a couple and not a man with a woman who still needs to �cut the apron � err, belt strings� with daddy.

It has nothing to do with ritual purity. It has everything to do with 'say (text) what you do (rite); do (rite) what you say (text)."

But hey! Sentiments are a very powerful force today.

Joe

Maybe. But I know a lot of men who need their wives more.

To me, it's fine to have both walk you down the aisle. We had my brother, who was an usher, escort my mom. That's what she wanted. She wanted to see me and my dad walk in together. Also, she didn't want to "take away" from the groom's mom. The moms get a lot of attention paid to them at weddings. Really, it's dear old dad who is feeling some loss! I love both my parents equally. But other than my husband who came along years later, my late father was my very best friend in the world. In the old days, there is no question that the father held more sway and that most societies were patriarchal. After all, you have patronymics in names, not "matronymics."