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

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?