www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship The Other Sacramental Mysteries Saturday wedding w/ Divine Liturgy

I asked this question in a different thread, but in the chance that it may have been buried there, I will give it its own topic.

I understand that traditionally Crowning is on Sunday after Divine Liturgy and does therefore not need to include any of the DL/Eucharist.

On the fact that the sacraments were all formerly linked with the eucharist see P. Trembelas, 'I Theia Efcharietia kata tin synarthrosin aftis pros ta alla mystiria kai mystirioeideis teletas', Efcharistirion, essays in honour of H. Alivisatos, 1958, pp. 462-72. The theological significance of this liturgical fact is immense. For example it would be a mistake to regard marriage as a simple confirmation and blessing of a biological fact. Linked with the eucharist it becomes a reminder that although the newly married couple have been blessed in order to create their own family, nevertheless the ultimate and essential network of relationships which constitutes their hypostasis is not the family but the Church as expressed in the eucharistic assembly. This eschatological transcendence of the biological hypostasis is also conveyed by the “crowning” of the bride and groom, but is lost essentially and existentially from the moment the rite of marriage is separate from the eucharist.

However, in recent times many churches (Orthodox, Melkite, you name it) have allowed Crownings to take place early on Saturdays.

In these instances, is it customary to link the Crowning services to a Divine Liturgy? For instance, in this "Proposed Order for the Celebration of Betrothal and the Mystery of Crowning with the Divine Liturgy" - which I realize is not an official church document - proposes after the Gospel a litany, homily, and moving into the Cherubic Hymn of the DL. There is no Common Cup in this proposed order.

http://www.patronagechurch.com/PDF/Proposed%20Order.pdf

That is in contrast to this transcript of a Melkite wedding which mirrors a traditional Orthodox wedding (assumed to have been after Sunday DL and therefore no Eucharist).

www.melkite.com/holy_matrimony.html [melkite.com]

All of that having been said, if a wedding is going take place on early Saturday as has become tolerated (if not customary), what is the optimal order for this to happen?

Also to consider is Fr. John Meyendorff's "Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective" which argues for a closer link between the DL and Crowning ceremony (albiet on a Sunday), along with the Common Cup.

Thoughts?

I can't fight the urge to "bump" this in case somebody with some thoughts didn't see it.

I am also interested in thoughts as to where the Common Cup should/could be incoporated in a betrothal & crowning that is incorporated with the Divine Liturgy, as it is not currently in the rubrics for the "Ritual of Marrige w/ Divine Liturgy" as published by the Byzantine Seminary Press.

Thank you!

It was in the eucharist that the Church would contemplate her eschatological nature, would taste the very life of the Holy Trinity; in other words she would realize man̓s true being as image of God̓s own being. All the fundamental elements which constituted her historical existence and structure had, by necessity, to pass through the eucharistic community to be “sure” (according to Ignatius of Antioch) or “valid” and “canonical” (according to the terminology of contemporary canon law), that is, to be ecclesiologically true. No ordination to fundamental and structural ministries of the Church took place outside the eucharistic community. It was there, in the presence of all the people of God and of all the orders, in an event of free communion, that the Holy Spirit distributed gifts “by constituting the whole structure of the Church.” Thus the eucharist was not the act of a pre-existing Church; it was an event constitutive of the being of the Church, enabling the Church to be. The eucharist constituted the Church̓s being.

Consider this comment by Met. John Zizioulas: On the fact that the sacraments were all formerly linked with the eucharist see P. Trembelas, 'I Theia Efcharietia kata tin synarthrosin aftis pros ta alla mystiria kai mystirioeideis teletas', Efcharistirion, essays in honour of H. Alivisatos, 1958, pp. 462-72. The theological significance of this liturgical fact is immense. For example it would be a mistake to regard marriage as a simple confirmation and blessing of a biological fact. Linked with the eucharist it becomes a reminder that although the newly married couple have been blessed in order to create their own family, nevertheless the ultimate and essential network of relationships which constitutes their hypostasis is not the family but the Church as expressed in the eucharistic assembly. This eschatological transcendence of the biological hypostasis is also conveyed by the “crowning” of the bride and groom, but is lost essentially and existentially from the moment the rite of marriage is separate from the eucharist.
John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion (Crestwood: St.Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1993), 61, Footnote 61.

The "Common Cup" is just a substitute for the true cup, the Eucharistic cup. As the introduction in the proposed order put it: "The true seal of marriage, the communion of persons, is the receiving of Holy Communion — the body and blood of the Lord — by the husband and wife."

Can't do better than that.

...

I think the common cup is appropriate in situations where reception of the Eucharist is not possible. Having the Common Cup with the Eucharist, however, seems to me a very inappropriate redundancy that detracts from the significance of the Eucharist as quoted in the "proposed order" introduction and as noted by Met. Zizioulas (both above). And for Zizioulas, the Eucharist is not just the sacred species in isolation but in the context of the community, of necessity a Eucharistic community, the Church. As he also writes in the referenced book, p 21:

It was in the eucharist that the Church would contemplate her eschatological nature, would taste the very life of the Holy Trinity; in other words she would realize man̓s true being as image of God̓s own being. All the fundamental elements which constituted her historical existence and structure had, by necessity, to pass through the eucharistic community to be “sure” (according to Ignatius of Antioch) or “valid” and “canonical” (according to the terminology of contemporary canon law), that is, to be ecclesiologically true. No ordination to fundamental and structural ministries of the Church took place outside the eucharistic community. It was there, in the presence of all the people of God and of all the orders, in an event of free communion, that the Holy Spirit distributed gifts “by constituting the whole structure of the Church.” Thus the eucharist was not the act of a pre-existing Church; it was an event constitutive of the being of the Church, enabling the Church to be. The eucharist constituted the Church̓s being.

More on this general topic, betrothal/crowming, is in the thread The Byzantine Catholic wedding vow ceremony.