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

Dear byzcath.org forum members,

In my survey of various church rituals in the Byzantine Catholic communities, I have come across a proposed matrimony hymnal that inspired a question or two:

The church hymnal in question is the proposed book called “A Proposed Order for the Celebration of Betrothal and the Mystery of Crowning with the Divine Liturgy” that is found at the following link:
http://www.patronagechurch.com/HTML/prayers__liturgy.htm

The title page is given:

“The Holy Mystery (Sacrament) of Crowning (Marriage) & The Divine Liturgy (Mass)”

My question is in regards to the traditional Byzantine Catholic vows. But first, here are the vows given in the proposed matrimony booklet:

THE MARRIAGE VOWS
The bride and groom join their right hands upon the Book of Gospels. The priest covers their hands with his stole and right hand.
For the GROOM: [Repeat after me:]
I, N., take you, N., to be my wife, and I promise to love you, to
respect you, to be always faithful to you, and never to forsake you. So
help me God, one in the Holy Trinity, and all the Saints.
For the BRIDE: [Repeat after me:]
I, N., take you, N., to be my husband, and I promise to love you, to
respect you, to be always faithful to you, and never to forsake you. So
help me God, one in the Holy Trinity, and all the Saints.
The priest blesses them with the sign of the cross, saying:
What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.

Can someone tell me the history of the traditional vows in the Byzantine Catholic community? I think they are beautiful, especially that both the bride and the groom have the same vow to each other.

What is the purpose of the crowning if the bride and groom have already made their vows?

Ed

Those wretched vows were adapted from Latin at a time when Polish laws governing marriage seem to require them. They are not required - I've never used them in my life.

The crowning is the central and crucial part of the wedding ceremony, as was at an earlier time the joint reception of Holy Communion (which is the origin of our present-day common cup).

Fr. Serge

Dear Fr. Serge,

They might be "wretched" but they are in the Byzantine Catholic marriage rites. Why do you personally consider them wretched? I am interested in understanding.

Still, your opinion is not shared by those in charge of keeping them in your church rituals. The Byzantine Catholic churches in the United States are not under the authority of Polish bishops, so, I would think that that argument is a little week, if not invalid.

Doesn't having both the vows and crowning make things easier when there are Catholics from east and west? Both customs are used to make sure that the marriage took place and that there was no room for doubt about the validity of the service.

The vows are nice, but a little different from the books I received awhile back from my family. What happened to the bride committing herself to "matrimonial obedience"? The groom also professed his love for his wife as his own body. These new and improved vows are probably a gender neutral solution to what is perceived to be sexism in the church.
Ed

The wedding vows may seem out of place here, but Fr. Serge, allow me to differ on this: I'll just say that assuming most Westerners marry in a Byzantine church these days, the vows would actually ease the culture/liturgical shock that most relatives would go through when coming to a Byzantine church.

I wonder how it will be for me (assuming I changed rite by the time I married) if I married an Italian girl from a very rooted Roman family. Oh what fun.

The reason you are attracted to them, is you don't understand the mystery taking place in the Crowning through the prayers that are said over the couple. The couple is bringing themsleves forward to Christ. All this vow that you are referring to is the legal part which the law requires - which is basically done in the exchanging on the rings/betrohal. Why be arrogant enough to think that you could improve the Crowning from what has been done for numerous centuries.

Also, there is a desire for control, instead of letting God do it his way. That is the only reason for bringing in some type of vows.

Fr. Serge is correct. I have NEVER seen them used. I pray they never are. I understand perfectly his statement.

Dear Pani Rose,

Why do you call it arrogance? To answer your question about arrogance, I would direct you to those in charge of publishing your church hymn books. Maybe they can share with you their reasons? Might this be the same arrogance that was instrumental in introducing feminism and gender neutral language in the official Byzantine Catholic hymn book without explanation as to who demanded it? But what is so horrible about vows? all the other churches have them; some Catholic churches allow their brides and grooms to create their own personal ones.

Why don't the vows fulfill or validate the Crowning? Your church shepherds seem to think they are necessary.

I would like to know what the Byzantine Catholic shepherds have to teach about it. Are there any resources (in English) I can read? How have they addressed conflicting opinions about vows and crownings? Many thanks!

Ed

The previous two pastors of my former parish did not use vows at all during any crowning service, and I was there for all of them as I sang in the choir. The current pastor does use them however. I think it's matter of preference of the priest as there does not seem to be a revised crowning service promulgated by the bishops yet. One would hope that any such revised service would not include the vows to restore the right practice.

I think they are a Latinization of the Crowning. I have never seen them used, I know they are there. The reason I used the word 'arrogance' is it seems to me that one thinks the words they could/would say are more important than those of the Scriptures and prayers prayed over the couple.

I was raised Southern Baptist. Sorry, there is just no comparison to a wedding in which someone does their on thing to the Sacramental Crowning. Also, there are how many divorces in the Protestant Churches and how many in the Eastern Churches? In the EC Churches I am aware of, a divorce is very rare. So, I would say why even desire to change something that is proven by God in his Word.

Sorry if I offended anyone earlier by the use of the word 'arrogance'. I just think it is a feel good thing to use your own vows. So I guess I just fall into the 'grump category'.

Pani Rose

Dear Pani Rose,

No apologies necessary. I am only confused.

If the vows are not needed, I can't understand why they are always popping up in your Byzantine Catholic church books. The one I quote in my first post demonstrates that there are still those who do not believe that the Crowning Ceremony can stand on its own two feet.

The vows seem to come first, which implies they are deemed more important, so the crowning is only secondary as if an embarassment. If the Byzantine Catholic church wishes to continue including the vows, then I would be interested in learning more about their theology from your own bishops. The Orthodox publish so many theology books explaining their rites, but the Byzantines are mostly silent. I only have the ritual books they publish to go on, and if anything is said differently, I will still go with the published texts actually used in the communities.

I can understand that some clergy can have their own personal spirituality and detest the inclusion of the vows, but their opinions conflict with their church shepherds. We saw how feminism and gender neutral language can be introduced in officially published books, but these were not private publications; they are written expression of your shepherds' voices. They have spoken.

With that being said, I can see how many people, including clergy, can be confused. I am confused just trying to understand which direction your church intends to go. When the winds blow one way, they go in that direction; when the winds turn and blow the other way, they go that direction. Bending reeds. Sorry if my words are strong, but I cannot find satisfaction in my understanding where the Byzantine Catholics stand on anything, especially when their chief shepherds are always working against them.

Read the title of your proposed marriage book, “The Holy Mystery (Sacrament) of Crowning (Marriage) & The Divine Liturgy (Mass)” Is it a Holy Mystery or a Sacrament? Is it a Crowning or a Marriage? Is it the Divine Liturgy of the Mass? I never read a ritual book that couldn't even make up its own mind what it is about! All so confusing. The title is confused about whether it is a Crowning or a Marriage, but inside, it is a Vow Ceremony.

Back to the vows.

What exactly is the theology of the vows, if any, that is so contradictory or challenging to the crowning ceremony? What ritual makes the marriage?

Thank you for your patience,
love and peace,
Ed

Ed Hash writes that:


I beg your pardon, sir!

Not so very long ago, our Bishop was here to celebrate a wedding, and did so. His Grace also did not use the "vows". Nor did Patriarch Maximos V, whom I was privileged to assist in a wedding in the USA a number of years ago, nor did Archbishop Joseph (Raya), of most holy memory, whom I was privileged to assist in several weddings.

So I and surely some other clergy will take it kindly if we are not falsely accused of acting in conflict with our hierarchs, especially if the accuser has clearly not taken the trouble to learn the facts of the matter.

For the sake of Christ, forgive me.

Father Serge

Dear Father Serge,
My thread and posts have been in regards to the Byzantine Catholic bishops in this country, namely the same ones who published the RDL. I provide a link to a website that is about the proposed marriage service. I hear (or read) one thing what a Byzantine Catholic is, but read a different thing that their shepherds publish for church use. If there is any conflict, it is here. Either the clergy are correct in their theology or their shepherds are. Either the vows are to be included or they are not. The "accuser" here is just trying to figure it all out. If I don't know the "facts" it is because I see contradictions between those who admire Eastern Christian theology and their church traditions and those who publish what is to be considered official. Maybe my confusion can be straightened out if you can only point me to what these Byzantine Catholic bishops REALLY say on the matter of vows? Since they, not me, has decided to keep this tradition in their rituals, maybe they have a legitimate reason? Of the four bishops who signed off on the RDL, name one who teaches what you and your bishops teach. My aunt says that her priest uses the vows all the time because it is mandated by his shepherd and is in the books.

Ed

Ed,


Like any other Latinization they are engrained. I would also add the last time the Metropolia printed Marriage booklets, as far as I am aware, was 1972, a time when most were still very comfortable with our Latinizations. The book you cite was created by the parish and has no official sanction from a hierarch that I can see.


No, you imply they are deemed more important. If you actually attend a Byzantine wedding it is quite easy to see that the Crowning is the high point of the service.


This is done for explanatory purposes for the sake of non-Byzantine Christians in attendance, since our terminology is unfamiliar to them.


The Crowning is considered to confer the Mystery, period. This is why a marriage conducted by a deacon will not be considered valid for an Eastern Catholic. Deacons cannot administer the Crowning, no Crowning means no Mystery confered which means no marriage. That is Canon Law. The Melkite Euchologion does not contain the vows at all. While I do not judge the vows wretched, they are not native to the Byzantine Mystery of Crowning they do not belong to it. It could also be possible that some state marriage laws require vows, I am not sure.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Serge,

I apologize if you consider my words in a negative light. I wish not to challenge you personally. If you care to respond, please quote or refer to the bishops whose names appear in the RDL publication. They, not any others, would be the ones publishing a new marriage ritual and may subscribe to a different type of Eastern theology that is more inclusive of other traditions.

You are an honorable priest!

Ed

This is quite public, which implies that they have some sort of appreoval.


Actually, the ritual books have the vows first. Having the Crowning later makes for an interesting problem: if the Crowning is what makes the marriage, then the vows have no legal or binding affect. So, why incorporate them into the ceremony?


Do the Orthodox do this too for those attending who are not Orthodox?

If that is so, then someone should notify your bishops.


Not native? What does Rome have to say about it? Are the vows in the official Roman texts of the Byzantine Catholic wedding ceremony? Everyone refers to Roman publications that always seem to be in conflict with Byzantine Catholic books, so I thought it would be interesting to know that.

Ed

At a certain point this argument makes us look silly. Do we follow the true faith lived out in the authentic orthopraxis or do we attempt some "third way" wherein we are made into a potpourri of Liturgical practices from all over. The pendulum seems to be swinging in the former direction.

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

Now we are getting somewhere. The above quote is incorrectly ascribed to Fr. Serge; it is rather from my post.

They are not essential; you are not right.

I doubt it. ACROD may have in the past. As an aside, I think the BC church should certainly be aware of Orthodox praxis but it should not dictate ours.

It is there in the liturgy -- lex orandi, lex credendi -- but the liturgy is primarily doxological not didactic. So there is a need to learn and be open to an explanation of the teaching.

This is in the official ~1970 text and the Recension text. It is not in the “proposed order" which has (proposed) the same words for bride and groom. What is implied by matrimonial obedience?

Yes, of course, in a sense. But that fact has no inherent meaning. The problem here is that I suspect there's an equally incorrect conclusion implied in your question. The crowning ritual, as has been noted, is a later addition to the service. It is beautiful and meaningful but my understanding is that the sine qua non is the blessing of the Church accomplished by the blessing of the priest. And most profound theologically, conveying the mystery of the union of man and woman, is the most primitive practice (also noted in a previous post) the reception of Holy Communion. This fact, an interpretation of the crowning and the significance of the "vows" are all treated in the Introduction of the "proposed order" text. Perhaps you didn't read it.


I don't know. It is somewhat understandable since they appear to be a western influence. My own feeling has changed and I think that (properly understood as not being the form of the sacrament as in the Latin rite) they not only work in our culture but are a good thing to do.

That can be an interpretation but unfortunately not one founded on the facts and the focus, aka the "propose order." I'm not sure where you are coming from here because any conceivable reading of the "proposed order" text cannot warrant this statement. -- emphatically quite the opposite. There the couple arrives together for the betrothal ceremony and this makes sense if the betrothal has already taken place. For the case dealt with in the booklet which has the betrothal right before the marriage, it makes more sense that the bride would arrive with and be accompanied by her family.

You can look at it as property exchange if you insist on what is put forth as its historical origin in the west (who knows betrothals many have been so in the east too, families exchanging children and wealth), but that need not be the case. Especially in the case where the betrothal will first take place I'd say it is dignified and proper for the bride (and groom) to be accompanied by e.g. parent(s). To give a further perspective: I consulted a number of sources, Orthodox and Catholic, on the betrothal/crowing service. One was a video put out by the Greek Orthodox Church. In it, as I recall, the father escorts the bride up to the waiting groom and priest at the ambon.

I'm also wondering if the inclinations towards the father giving away the bride and vows might be Americanization rather than Latinization . . .

hawk

The lead a 'suri juris' church and have made official a Rome-approved liturgy book.


Fr. Serge, I never "required" any vows. It is not my book. It is not about me, but about why your shepherds keep inserting words into their worship hymnals that are either feminist/gender neutral and/or Latinizations? Please do not take my inquiry personal. From what I gather, there are Byzantine Catholic bishops who ARE acting independently of Rome, Byzantine tradition, the Orthodox, and like-minded clergy who "require" vows, thus instilling confusion into the community. Why are they always the same bishops? Maybe I am getting too close to being censured, but this is being allowed for one or more reasons, none of which have to do with being authentic Byzantine Christians. Publishing the vows when many claim that they are not necessary is no different than a clergyman satisfying a bridal couple's desire for what they feel comfortable with. I thought the church's responsibility was to instruct the ignorant, not let the ignorant instruct it.


I don't have a problem. I am only confused because your bishops publish BOTH the vows and crowning in their wedding books. I didn't publish them, remember? Many clergy, from what I hear and read, ignore them. Someone is wrong. There is the problem.


I don't know. What do I have to do with Vatican II?


I don't know. I was only asking if those bishops who insist on incorporating the vows in their official church hymnals had any teaching on it? As usual, just like gender-neutral language, there is nada. The vows just show up like mandatory celibacy.


Nothing. I wasn'thtbelieve you were the one who referred to the vows as "those wretched vows". Such a reply perked my interest why a priest would refer to something bishops publish in their hymnals as "wretched"?


I don't know what standard this group is using. What they publish though stimulates more questions than answers. From what you and others have written, they seem to be the only ones keeping this Latinization going. I wasn't aware of that. If what you write is true about the wretched vows not showing up in any official publication, then this is a unique case.

I guess I will never fully understand. My first post was an inquiry into the history of the (non-so-traditional) vows in the Byzantine Catholic community. Though beautiful in themselves, their purpose, from what I gather, has a dubious history.

Thank you, dear Father, four your reply.

Ed

Has your bishops provided an explanation of the vows why they are there?

If they are not necessary and the Crowning is good enough, then their teaching would be of great interest.

I await in great expectation.

Ed

A chara,

The term "sui iuris church" is quite flexible - be sure that you know what it means in any specific context.

I did not write that you require any vows. I wrote that you appear to require them. There is a difference. So far as I am aware, none of the hierarchs who are responsible for me and my work here in Dublin have issued any worship hymnals (other than some popular hymns in the back of large prayer-books), nor do these hierarchs atempt to enforce "inclusive" language or the sort of Latinizations which tend to come up in our discussions.

You ask "Why are they always the same bishops?" It's not clear to me whom you have in mind.

You write "I don't have a problem." I'm glad to hear it -but you are certainly producing an impressive word-count expressing the problem that you don't have! I have not, however, claimed that you have published any service-books, so you needn't bother assuring me that you have not.

You write that "Someone is wrong". That may be true - it often is. But you will do better to ponder your own errors rather than imputing errors to others.

You ask "What have I to do with Vatican II?" Whether you have anything to do with that Council yourself, I wouldn't know. But since you keep accusing people of violating our legitimate authority, I would hope that you might go to the trouble of discerning just what the legitimate authority asks of us. That includes Vatican II.

You treat other synods with the same cavalier dismissal. At the risk of being offensive, the impression I am gathering is that you are seeking any pretext to criticize our Church. Believe me, we do not suffer from a shortage of busy-bodies!


At the risk of appearing dense, I cannot fathom what you are attempting to articulate in these sentences.

Maybe you should just attempt to organize the world's biggest chain prayer.

Fr. Serge

You mention the Metropolia Pitsburgh. I do believe you had a lot to say about the RDL. your thesis wasn't about the bishops in the Ukraine.


The issue is one of logic. Someone witnesses one thing in an official church book; hears a different thing being taught; reads another priest's comments about it being "wretched". You figure it out. I can't. I came asking a simple question about the vow ceremony in your church and I am considered erroneous.


As in reading the countless posts on the RDL, I cannot but help from getting the picture that fingers were being pointed at authority. Father David Petras wrote many responses differing from yours about the RDL, but he was working for the authorities who published the books. Many have also asked whether they were actually following legitimate authority too. I don't know who really has the final authority in your community. I am just trying to get to the bottom of the vow controversy. Should they stay or shold they go?


What is a synod? Maybe if I knew what they were, I can offer my opinion?


One of the reasons why I got so interested in the Byzantine Catholic church and its current debates was from reading your dissertation criticizing the RDL.

Ed

To begin at the end, I'm happy to know that you read that book of mine and that it stimulated you. But that's the wrong place to start learning about the Church.

Since divine services in English are rather scarce in Ukraine (I've known it to happen for visiting groups, but that's by way of exception), I would hardly have written much about the hierarchs in Ukraine in the context of an English-language service-book.

The principal error here is starting in the wrong place. If you want to know our teaching on Matrimony, that is fairly readily available (try Father John Meyendorff's study for a starter).

Who has the final authority in the community I have pastoral charge of? In most instances, that would be His Grace Bishop Hlib.

Anyone who by his own admission does not know what a synod is lacks the basis on which to form an opinion of one. But to be positive about it: a synod is the body of bishops, headed by the Patriarch, Catholicos, or Major Archbishop, which governs the particular Local Church in question and has the authority to elect candidates for the episcopate. I could continue, but that should do for a beginning.

Our Church, like any other, is capable of developing controversies - some of them are of major theological importance; others are relatively minor. But one does better if one wants to understand a given Church to concentrate for a while on what that Church teaches and practices which is not internally controversial.

Try reading the published works of Metropolitan-Archbishop Joseph (Raya). Enjoy!

Fr. Serge

The following was written by Ruthenian Bishop Pataki (retired as of 12-06-2007):

"Marriage in the Eastern Church is a sacrament conferred by the priest by means of the 'crowning' and nuptual blessing, not by the couple as in the Latin Church. Thus, a deacon may not officiate at the marriage of an Eastern Catholic. By law, marriages are performed by the pastor of the groom unless special permission has been received; and Eastern Catholic Churches do not typically give the dispensation which allows a marriage to a non-Catholic to be performed by a non-Catholic minister, which is sometimes given in the Latin Church."

Bishop Andrew Pataki [web.archive.org]

This is a nice reference. The above quote however, found on what I believe was the official website of the Eparch of Passaic, does not appear there as attributed to Bishop Andrew: If I am reading the page correctly, the author is not indicated, and it is part of a (Passaic) synopsis and explanation of the publication Eastern Catholics in the United States of America that was produced by an NCCB committee chaired by Bishop Andrew. The word "crowning" does not occur in that NCCB document at all; in sections on marriage, the word "blessing' is common.

The quote above conveys the basic understanding (it and the NCCB document could use some fine tuning) but it is not a quote from the NCCB publication nor as I see it, attributed by the website to Bishop Andrew.

The NCCB booklet is very informative (as is the Passaic website commentary), especially so for its very small size. It is unfortunate it is not available on the internet.

Well said! During the patristic period the blessing of the priest was held to be essential to the sacrament of matrimony, while the "crowning" and the importance of the "vows" are later accretions to the rite.

Would not one say that the form of the blessing is now imparted by the signing of the couple with the crowns?

Yes, the use of the crowns has become a part of the blessing as the rite has developed over time.

But as far as the vows are concerned, they should be a part of the betrothal service and not part of the Mystery of Crowning.

I recently sang in the choir for two Byzantine Catholic weddings in the Eparchy of Parma. Not only were there vows but BOTH the bride and the groom vowed themselves to "marital obedience." What can this possibly mean? I can understand dropping "marital obedience" from the bride's vows, although there are serious issues here. I understand it. I can make no sense both parties vowing "marital obedience."

Слава Ісусу Христу!

Apotheoun, as you observed if for civil reasons oaths or vows were required they would make sense as part of the Betrothal, which occurs at the western end of the temple. The oaths are customarily made upon the Gospelbook placed on the portable "tetrapod" table in the center or eastern side of the building. Unless the priest is going to carry and hold the Gospelbook location practicalities will trump sense.

After wading through all these comments, I am left with the impression that there may be differences in the theology of the Sacrament/Mystery. Does Byzantine theology (Catholic and/or Orthodox) regard the parties (the couple) as the "Ministers" of the Mystery? Is the Priest (Deacon?) the Minister, or only the witness of the Church to what the parties are doing? Apart from the possible influence of civil law on the addition/insertion of the vows, does the insertion of the vows (among Catholics of the Byzantine tradition) reflect an attempt to straddle two different views on who the Minister of the Mystery is?

dear Tim:

Yes, I think you have hit the nail on the head!

There are Indeed different theologies of the Holy Rite of Crowning between the Latin Church and the Byzantine Churches.

In the Latin Church:
Vows are Essential, because the Couple (as it were) Make the Marriage - by their "Contracting" together. THEY (& not the Cleric) are the Ministers of the Sacrament. Thus for example the Latin Bishop (where necessary) could appoint a layperson to "officiate" because the "officiator" is only a witness.

Canonically for example the bishop could (and I think often does) give permission for a Protestant minister to officiate at a Catholic wedding - again, because he/she is only a witness.

In the Byzantine Churches (like the UGCC and the Ruthenian in the US):
the Priest is the Minister and was said by previous posters the essential part of the Rite is the Crowning. In the Byzantine Churches, the one that "Makes" the marriage (as it were) is the Priest. And canonically there MUST be a BLESSING - no blessing no marriage. Thus it must be priest or a bishop (not a deacon, because in the Byzantine Churches, it is not the function of deacons to give blessings).

--Thus canonically, a Protestant minister cannot be given permission to "do" a marriage of Byzantine Christians, because the Protestant Minister is not a Priest & thus not authorized to give the blessing of Crowning. For example, if a Catholic of one of the Byzantine Churches were to wed a Protestant in the Protestant's own church, permission could be obtained for this, BUT a priest must be present to give the Blessing.

This explains why Vows in the Byzantine ritual (while extant for a number of years) are really extraneous to the theology of the rite (and, as been posted before, the liturgical interpolation can be historically traced and documented).

Also the very rite tells us something of the meaning (at least in the Byzantine Order of Crowning). The couple's "covenanting" together (their consent) happens at the betrothal. This happens in the Narthex. But when the Priest leads them (following the cross, and hands crossed & holding on to the Epitrakhil) into the Sanctuary it becomes much more than a contract between 2 persons, but enters into the Spiritual realm and includes God in their lives.

hopes this helps.

As to why the Vows or any of the other Latinizations still extant in the Eastern Catholic churches are still being tolerated by the Hierarchs, those are not so much, I think, theological or liturgical questions, but questions of pastoral sensitivity.


And yes there is confusion, but this is certainly not the only issues in the life of the Eastern Catholic Churches, where our gradual transitioning from being quite latinized to becoming fully "Eastern" (or Orthodox, if you will) creates "confusion". Church life can be quite complicated and confusing...(what can I say?)

Herb

All of which may raise still more questions:
1) Why is the Betrothal Rite celebrated as part of the Rite of Crowning? (After all, any actual 'betrothal' probably took place some time before the wedding day. When my wife and I were engaged, over 40 years ago, our pastor celebrated the Betrothal Rite for us after an evening prayer service. I'm afraid some of the people present mistook it for some sort of clandestine wedding.)
2) What is Orthodox/Byzantine Catholic practice/teaching on the possibility of Christian marriage when no priest is available? Or is that one of those situations where 'oekonomeia' (sp?) is invoked?
3) Are the differences that seem to exist among Latin Catholic, some Byzantine Catholic, and Orthodox views on the Minister of the Sacrament/Mystery serious theological issues or merely matters of "emphasis"?
4) What are the Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic positions on Western Christian marriages? On marriages between Western Christians and Byzantine Catholics/Orthodox: (a) when celebrated in a Catholic Church (Latin or Byzantine)? (b) when celebrated in an Orthodox Church?
5) Do all Catholic Churches of the Byzantine tradition (UGC, BCC, Melkite, Romanian, Russian, Belarussian, Greek, Albanian, etc.) have the same view on the theology and discipline of the Mystery/Sacrament?
6) Do all other Eastern Churches (Catholic and non-Catholic) share the same view on the theology and discipline of the Mystery?

Re the Betrothal
I suspect you are right about the Order of Betrothal. And I have seen it done (as in your case) before the Crowning. I have even seen some cases where the couples family was in different parts of the country and they did the Betrothal in one part & the Crowning in the other.

As to the reason, I don't know, but as with many things byzantine, I suspect there are historical and practical reasons for the migration from the original practice and we are the inheritors of the gradual evolution of our churches' liturgical past. (eg Why do we have multiple dismissals in the Divine Liturgy or do the Prayers of the Faithful at the very beginning or have a "psalm that does not "respond" to a prior Bible reading?)

2) Again, I would have to agree with you. I'm not sure that it is the Byzantine/Eastern approach to speculate about what can canonically and validly happen "in case of near death" for Holy Mysteries/Salvation to take place. It seems that our Churches proclaim what is the best practise (eg Fasting) and not the absolute bottowm line necessary unto salvation (maybe more of a Latin tendency).

3) It is a significant canonical and theological difference, not just style or cosmetics (if you will). Canonically, if a Latin were to marry a Protestant in the Protestant Church, they could get permission for the minister to officiate. If a Byzantine were to marry a Protestant in a Protestant Church, some priest who have to be there for the Blessing/Crowning.

It is interesting that despite the real differences in theology and canonicity, we (the Latins and the Byzantines) can both agree to disagree and respect each others practice. Eg: if a Latin marries a Byzantine, they can be Crowned/Vowed in by either rite validly and canonically!

If a canonical Byzantine (but baptized & raised in the Latin Church) wanted to marry a Protestant in the Prot. Church, the Byzantine's de facto Pastor (a Latin priest) would ask for permission and delegation of the Byzantine hierarch to have the crowning there and delegation to blessing them with Crowning in the Protestant church.

4) Byzantine Churches recognize marriages in both the Orthodox and the Latin Churches.

I suspect that the Orthodox "recognize" the marriages of Byzantines and Latins - but I'm not sure they would recognize that they are true Mysteries and Grace-bearing (maybe some would while others wouldn't). (Maybe some of our Orthodox members could respond)

Re the Orthodox re their own faithful, I think only recognize marriages by Orthodox clergy.

5) All Byzantine Churches have the same theological and liturgical tradition (with minor local variations liturgically both within and between churches) - because it is all 13 Churches use the same "rite".

6) This one I do not know, but it would not at all surprise me that each rite's theology and canon law is quite different in the Christian east. As you can see from their liturgies, the various eastern Rites can differ as much from each other as they can from the Latins (naturally) - which is why it is not correct to talk about the "Eastern Rite" as their ain't no such animal. Cf. the Ethiopian liturgy vis a vis the Chaldean vis a vis the Byzantine! A world of difference!

There are certainly differences in the canons and different disciplines. But for Catholics, while the theological aspects can be diverse, the fundamental theology must be one.

I, coincidentally, spoke with a priest just this past Sunday about the point noted in 3): "If a Byzantine were to marry a Protestant in a Protestant Church, some priest who have to be there for the Blessing/Crowning." For a Catholic, such a wedding, with proper dispensations, can be allowed; the Byzantine Catholic priest is not required or encouraged to attend.

See also the current related thread Marriage without a priest .

dear ajk:

we may have to agree to disagree about this item, sorry.

I too talked to my priest, who was instructed by his bishop (a canonist) that a Catholic priest be present and give a blessing. I agree that it does not have to be a Byzantine Catholic priest, a Latin priest will do; but I was told that the Chancery insisted that a priest be present and a blessing be done. Maybe they should double check with their respective judicial vicars. Maybe there's been an misunderstanding.

It's certainly true for Latins that once the Permission (a dispensation is not necessary if it is a case of 2 baptized persons) is given, a non-Catholic minister may officiate (because he is only a kind of witness and not the "minister" of the Mystery). But I was informed that that is not the case with Byzantines...

Herb

No need to be sorry. Tell me more; when did you talk to the priest; what jurisdiction/church?

As I said, my inquiry was just this past Sunday. I know the couple. When I said I thought the norm was for the priest to attend he (the priest I was talking with) said that had been so before but now he was told by the Chancery not to attend (that's what I understood; he for sure was NOT there). This is in the Eparchy of Passaic.

dear ajk:

My understanding is from the UGCC (also quite recent), but I would think that the canonical practice would be the same in all Byzantine Catholic Churches.

Your Pastor's application sounds to me somewhat like the normal Latin canonical practice. And he is quite right, after the permission is given for the Protestant minister, the Latin priest is not encourage to go and "be a part" of the ceremony (because that would negate the Permission delegated to the Protestant minister to Witness the Vows and the principle is that there should only be one officiant and not some kind of dual tag-team inter-faith partnership thing)

Слава Ісусу Христу!

The common cup being a substitute for “…conveying the mystery of the union of man and woman, is the most primitive practice… the reception of Holy Communion” stated ajk.

Was the ancient Christian marriage ceremony part of the Liturgy, if so why have we separated them?

The term “catholic” is quite flexible; so is the term “orthodox”. Does anyone know what these terms mean anymore? How about the term “Eastern Christian”?


I am not the one requiring vows. My post was in response to a proposed wedding ceremony whereby Byzantine Catholic bishops wish to preserve or require them. This post was not in response to a ceremony “I” propose or have published in the past. I don’t publish wedding ceremonies for the Byzantine Catholic churches. Their bishops or chief shepherds do.


My post does not address any bishops in Ireland. The proposed wedding ceremony came from the United States under the authority of those bishops who DO publish inclusive language. We have discussed these topics in the past. There is a forum dedicated to this debate on this website. You have published much on the subject. We know what hierarchs we are talking about. Their names are on that RDL book and will soon be on the preserved Latinized wedding vows THEY, not me, you or your bishops, will keep.


The ones who also published the RDL which has incorporated inclusive language. I am not talking about a text being proposed for Ethiopians or Italians. I gave the link to the text being discussed.


It is not about errors, but about the desire of the Byzantine Catholic church in the United States wanting to preserve the vow ceremony. What exactly is the theology behind it? Have these bishops published a teaching on how the vows reflect Byzantine theology? If you only show me, I will can begin to understand. However, we only have a vow ceremony that a number, including you, have stated should not be there. Well, if they should not be there, then maybe an explanation is needed so dummies like me can stop being confused and finally figure out which way they are going on this issue.


So, what IS the legitimate authority on the inclusion of the wedding vows? You have made the argument that other authorities and traditions do NOT include those “wretched vows” (your words). I am left still confused. On one hand, you consider them “wretched”, you don’t use them yourself, other authorities other than the RDL bishops never include them, they are not in the Roman documents, BUT to simply ask why they are still going to be included in the proposed wedding ceremony, I am considered an accuser. Well, if the RDL bishops are doing there own thing apart from Byzantine traditions and ancient authorities, then the burden is on them. What does this Vatican II have to do with including vows in the ceremony?


You continue to place the burden of what the RDL bishops do on me. If the inclusion of the vow ceremony is so “critical”, then those who are establishing the pretext are those who keep insisting on keeping the vows in addition to the secondary crowning rituals. If it is a matter of proving that Byzantine Catholics are real Catholics, then I can understand.

Fr. Serge, I know you are a good man and a dedicated priest in your church community. If no one has saide it lately, let me say it. Christianity and the church is better off with you and your ministry. My comments above are only because I am one sorry fellow who is so confused by the RDL bishops.

Ed

This topic has moved from an inquiry to an argumentative exchange. I don't know what the reason for the argumentative attitude taken by the original poster is, but I am locking this topic because of it.

There are variations in ritual books brought about by factors related to the history of the people of the BCC whose ancestors came from areas where the civil authorities interferred with their liturigcal patrimony. Father Serge and others here have offered explanations. Their expertise in this area needs to be respected.

Bishops don't micromanage the pastoral practice in every parish. That's why we have priests--they are the bishop's representative in the parish and they are sent because the bishop trusts them to stand in his place.

In the future, legitimate inquiry ought not to have such a confrontational attitude as follow-up to explanations offered.

Bob
Moderator