www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Byzantine Catholic wedding vow ceremony

Really? Posting something on site means it is approved? Again you imply something that is non-existant. Please notice it states proposed order, meaning it has not been apporved. I see no disclaimer of hierarchal approbation.


I did not say they were not.


Please reread my first post where I clearly state the reason they are they.


I have seen explanatory pamphlets in Orthodox parishes.


I am sure the bishops are quite aware of the canonical requirements of an Eastern Catholic marriage. That they choose to allow the vows remain because of custom is their perogative.


They are not in the Greek Euchologion published by Rome.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Hello Byzantine TX,

First of all, I love your state.

Second, you make an excellent point about silliness and orthopraxis. However, I am not the one publishing your church hymnals.

With praxis comes teaching. Where can I find the teaching on this "third way" from your shepherds and why they believe that the vows should be included when so many enlightened Byzantine Catholics see it differently?

Ed

Dear Fr. Deacon Lance,

Now, that is very interesting! A Latinization that Rome doesn't even include!

So, how can it be a Latinization if Rome doesn't include it for the Greeks (I assume you mean Byzantine Catholics)? What Latin bishop is imposing the vows on the Byzantine Catholic wedding ceremony?

Ed

Thank you for your apology and expressions of respect. The RDL applies exclusively to the eparchies which constitute the Pittsburgh Metropolia. However, "Byzantine Catholic" applies to any and all of the various Local Churches which derive from the Constantinopolitan tradition, are in communion with Rome, and use the Constantinopolitan liturgical tradition in one or another of its variations.

I can't even remember whether I have ever attended a wedding service conducted in any parish of the Pittsburgh Metropolia since I was a high school boy, long before Vatican II.

However, the Ruthenian Small Trebnyk, published by the Holy See in 1947 and 1952, makes it clear that the "vows" are to be used only if such a custom is already in place Small Trebnyk, p. 95.

Fr. Serge

Ed,

Latinization is the adoption of Latin practice by Eastern Catholics out of a feeling of inferiority of their own practice. It need not be imposed and if you would do serious study, rather than browse the internet, you would learn that about the only Latinization actually imposed by Rome was the ban on ordaining married men in the diaspora. Just about every other Latinization was adopted voluntarily or was imposed by Catholic royalty, like the inclusion of vows in Crowning.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I think part of what Ed is missing is the Bethroal that takes place with the rings. In centuries past Bethroals took place much earlier in the life of the couple, and on many occasions do a year or so before. Nowdays, because life is so different, it is done right before the Crowning, upon entering the Church. This is the part that is required by the 'law of the state', the time in which the prayers for the exchange takes place. It is the couple who bring themselves to Christ, not the parents, therefore the priest is the one going before them. At our Church the Brides Father will walk her from the rectory or the car she arrives in, to the front door of the Church.

FIRST PART: THE BETROTHAL CEREMONY

The priest stands before the Tetrapod near the Sanctuary and on the Tetrapod are placed the Holy Gospel, the Cross, two candlesticks, two crowns and a glass of wine.

According to the present custom, the bridal party is received by the Priest at the entrance of the Church. Then they make a procession into the Church while the Priest is incensing, and the Choir is chanting the Hirmos of Pentecost in the 4th Tone:

Hirmos of Pentecost in the 4th Tone:

Choir Hail O Queen, glory of virgins and mothers: for your praise is beyond the eloquence of the most cultured tongues, and the wonderful manner in which you gave birth to Christ throws every intelligence into amazement. Therefore, we the faithful magnify you with one accord.

The priest stands before the Holy Doors, and the bridal couple approach with the two witnesses, the bridegroom on the right and the bride on the left, and on each side of them the best man, and the maid of honour, all holding lighted candles. The priest then places the two rings on the right side of the table, and begins the service thus:

Priest: Blessed is our God, at all times, now and always, and forever and ever.

Choir Amen.

THE BLESSING AND EXCHANGE OF RINGS

Priest: O Lord our God, who wedded together from the nations the pure and Virgin Church, bless + this betrothal and unite and protect these your servants in peace and harmony.

For all glory, honour and worship are your due, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, now and always and forever and ever.

Choir Amen.

Priest: The servant of God (Name) is betrothed to the handmaid of God (Name), + in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Choir Amen.

Priest: The handmaid of God (Name) is betrothed to the servant of God (Name), + in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Choir Amen.

Priest: The servant of God (Name) is betrothed to the handmaid of God (Name), + in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Choir Amen.
http://www.melkite.com/holy_matrimony.html

Personallly, I think when people are not cathecised in the Mystery that is taking place, the the leagalism that is on question here pops up. Vows are not part of the EC Crowning for the most part.

It is like when St. George was built, the Latin Bishop forced them to put confessionals in it. All they were ever used for was storage, since the Melkites go to confession before the icon of Christ. On here you can see where the confessionals once stood, it is now a full emersion Baptistry for babies and adults.
http://www.saintgeorgeonline.org/index-1.html

Thank you all for your replies. I consider you all very spiritual and God-fearing believers.

I would still certainly enjoy reading ANY-thing that the bishops of the Pittsburgh Metropolia have written on it since the proposed marriage service is from one of their communities. I would think that the community in question has no fear of reprisal for publishing publically the new service with vows.

I've read that there may be a difference in the type of marital rite between the vow service and the Crowning service. Who exactly is the minister in each? I've read once that those who exchange vows ar following a contractual type of marriage whereby the ones exchanging the vows are the ad-ministers of the rite - whereas the ones who are Crowned in marriage are following a covenantal type of marriage whereby the ones being crowned are ad-ministered by God through His representative, the priest. Is this correct? This was in the back of my mind all along, but I wanted to see if this aspect of the different marriage rites would have been brought out. I can't remember exactly wehre I read it, but it stuck in my head. I somewhat agree with that analogy of contract versus covenant.

However! A ritual of marriage that contains BOTH is very confusing. In this type of marriage rite, WHO is the minister of marriage? Everyone?

My confusion stems from this and I cannot find answers. When I read the Gospels, I notice contradictions in places, times, and people in the stories there, but those contradictions are between the Evangelists who wrote their Gospel. I take the differences with a grain of salt since the Gospels are a theology. I CANNOT justify blending the two together to make one happy Gospel story or pericope because I have a difficult time with Bible contradictions. Tatian tried solving the dilemna of contradictions by merging them all together rather than deal with the particular theological nuances in each Gospel and respecting those contradictory, but equally valid approaches. The blending of both vows and crowning is Tatian-like; a faulty and very misguided way to deal with two different approaches to the idea of what is marriage.

In the end, the Byzantine Catholic bishops in the Pittsburgh Metropolia still justify the Tatianesque blending of particular, but unique theologies.

I am disturbed by the proposed marriage service as published on-line in the Passaic church website because it tells me a lot about my aunt's church and why confusion runs supreme.

Ed

I should add that if the proposed marriage service is only a product of a single congregation or community, then maybe someone should notify their chief shepherd of their attempt to freelance with the rites of the church. Who is the chief overseer of their community and will he take on the task?
Ed

I (as the sole redactor responsible for the text in question that is given in the initial post of this thread) must admit that this comes as quite a pleasant surprise to me, and serves me right for neglecting to thoroughly check the Recension text (which I did not have at the time the booklet was prepared). Don't know how I missed it since I did look it over at the time I scanned the Trebnik in, but sure enough there it is, not just a directive but the actual text of the "vows" themselves and in the official Slavonic Ruthenian Recension text from Rome, p. 95 [patronagechurch.com]. My reason at the time for including the vows in the booklet was chiefly fidelity (obedience) to the official English text (ca.1970) for the BC church, but chalk one up for our bishops, they too were adhering to the official source. Fidelity to the received text is the antithesis of arrogance.

I have refrained from posting because I appreciated the opportunity to get uninhibited feedback from the forum on the "proposed order" (which BTW in entitled Crown Them with Glory and Honor, rather then what has been represented in some posts as its title). This is a unique opportunity for those with questions about the booklet to get answers right from the source, and I am a very willing source (as time permits) to discuss or do battle (this is after all an internet forum) as the case may be.

Before or rather than commenting on prior posts, however, I hope some posters would want to rethink their positions and re-post. One thing though that I found disappointing in the critiques was their selective use of the material rather than treating the booklet as a whole; for example, there is an introduction which gives the motivation for the booklet and comments on the service and explicitly treats the vows (which if anything, given this new information, is too dismissive). There is an arrogance in jumping to uninformed conclusions, in manipulating a simple text to suit one's prejudices, and in expounding one's preconceived notion of what must constitute true eastern liturgy as the norm.

So, thank you, Fr. Serge for this reference; and thank you Fr. Deacon Lance for maintaining a balanced perspective. As for the rest of you, I shall be contemplating a suitable punishment, perhaps a nice long follow-up post.

Do your worst.

And deserved for your believing Ed.

PS Collin Nunis and John K, you will also be exempt from my wrath.

I'll ask Bishop Hlib (he did his doctorate on the wedding service), but my tentative understanding is that Polish law was thought to require the vows for civil validity. I could easily be mistaken.

It could be useful to have a thread on the whole topic of "Latinization"; the word has more than one meaning.

Fr. Serge

Dear ajk,

From what I gather from your reply is that vows are an essential component of the Byzantine Catholic marriage ritual. Am I right to say this? Do the Orthodox include vows?

As an outsider, I am only trying to figure out what your church is trying to teach. I checked with copies of books that I received from my Byzantine family and noticed that the choice of vows is different. I have words of "matrimonial obedience" by the bride.

Can the Crowning rite stand alone without the vows? Why do so many Byzantine Catholic clergy object to it and refuse to use it in their services?

I should add that this objection goes along with the issue of letting the father escort the bride down the aisle, simply a pagan rite of property exchange, rather than the priest escorting the bridal couple (bride and groom) down into the church. I bring this up because the fatherly escort with property exchange (daughter to groom) and the vows have become popular in the Byzantine Catholic church.

Ed

I should add a story of one priest that my aunt tells me who said Mass (not just the marriage part) facing the people and permitted the bridal couple to exchange their personal vows. The groom sang his written vows. It was very emotional from what
I hear.

Ed

Ed Hash writes me:



I have no conceivable responsibility to do any such thing! Does someone think that these four bishops, and they alone, are infallible or something? Come to think of it, I don't think I've met the majority of them, nor have any reason to think that they would care to meet me.

The official Greek text from Rome does not include the "vows" which you appear to require. The official "vulgate recension" from Rome does not include the "vows" which you appear to require. The Ruthenian edition from Rome provides them, but only as an option.

Now please tell me just what your problem is. Did Vatican II require Byzantine Catholics to use those vows? Do you know of any Synod (headed, of course, by a Patriarch or Major Archbishop) over the past century which requires that we should use these vows? If not, what are you upset about? If you seriously believe that the Pittsburgh Ruthenian Metropolia is some sort of "standard" to which all Greek-Catholics must conform, you are very sadly mistaken; look again.

Fr. Serge