www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Mini-Rant

Which invariably turns the sacred into a circus.

Consider that in the early Church, the ungodly would not even be allowed in the service, or would be dismissed after the reading of the Gospel. There is a reason the Holy Mysteries were reserved to the initiated.

Perhaps it just sounds this way to me, but most of the respondents have been men. I don't know if women have a different view, but it seems to me that a larger wedding can be beautiful and meaningful to both the believers and the "ungodly" as Stuart describes them. I can speak from experience as a mom of two daughters who are married and one to be married in November ...

With your first paragraph I agree. I was offering the alternate view because you asked. With your second paragraph, I break out in hives. My ancient and beautiful Latin rite has been sacrificed on the altar of archaeologism. I'll have none of it.

It was "godless" and that was me. Stuart has been unflinchingly sensitive and measured when it comes to describing the cursed pagan masses.

My daughters have a standing offer of big wedding with no cash, or small wedding with big check. Both have expressed interest in the cash.

And here I thought that the upstream swim of upholding the sacredness of the Marriage Rite--much less encouraging it within the context of the Eucharistic liturgy--was just a Protestant problem!

It does appear to be a fairly universal problem within American Christianity that bridal couples are more focussed on the reception than on the liturgy; and, by extension, more focussed on the Wedding day than on the Marriage.

The only glimmer of hope that I have seen is that when couples advanced in years are married subsequent to widowhood they finally realize that the hearing of Christ's Word and receiving of His Supper should be the focus of their Wedding--not "getting it over with" (as some rude younger couples have overtly said) so that they can get on to what they perceive as the real party.

Having a big wedding and living within one's means aren't mutually exclusive. My husband and I were both in our 30s when we married. We each owned a home at the time. Our guest list numbered about 150 and our entire wedding cost approximately $5000(about 10 years ago), which we had in savings. Both of us have large families and it was important to us to include those who care about us. The wedding did grow beyond my comfort zone, though. If you invite cousin "John", with whom you have a relationship, how can you exclude his brother, cousin "Pete", who you haven't seen in 10 years, outside of weddings and funerals. And if you're inviting "Aunt Mary's" children, how do you exclude the children of "Aunt Sue"? And then, of course, there's the awkwardness involved when all of these relatives who haven't set foot in a church since Grandma's funeral approach for Communion. Ok, Stuart, maybe I've just made your point for a very small wedding. Still, I was happy with my larger-than-I-wanted wedding.

Your $5000 was about $4750 more than we spent, or would ever spend. I'm a big proponent of only inviting those people who are closest to you and for whom the ceremony would be meaningful. After all, why should I pretend that having Uncle Charlie, who I don't know from Adam, at my wedding, would somehow be as significant as having his brother Bill, who was like a second father? I would have no problem inviting the latter but overlooking the former.

Having a small wedding also cuts down on the number of toaster-ovens and blenders you have to return later.

John Chrysostom was a big advocate of modest weddings, and wins kudos from me for actually having the temerity to say one should skip the reception and have a quiet supper at home (maybe invite the priest to dinner, he advises, not that he's looking for a handout).

Inviting people to one's church wedding is an excellent excuse to invite them to church, so that they can experience the liturgy in a non-threatening way. Think of it as evangelization. We usually pack the church for Baptisms, for the same reason. Feeding them afterwards (the reception) is just showing hospitality.

As sacraments, both baptism and marriage are ecclesial not personal events. The first and foremost consideration should be administering them within the context of the Eucharistic liturgy of the Church, within the Eucharistic community of the Church. Turning marriage, baptisms and even funerals into private occasions undermines the sacramental nature of our life in Christ. As such, they are not really suited to be forms of evangelical outreach--in fact, because such "events" frequently degenerate into circuses, they may actually undermine the desire of a person to return to that church.

I speak as the unfortunate victim of dozens of "Goomba Weddings" (a consequence of belonging to a large extended family with many Italian connections), the experience of which definitely delayed my investigation of the Church for many years, since most of my exposure to the Church came in the context of these chaotic and disedifying ceremonies.

I should also mention, just in passing, that (a) it isn't about the bride and groom; (b) it isn't the bride's "special day"; and (c) it is always about bearing witness to the Kingdom.

In regards to marriage, it is about the bride and groom and the two of them bearing witness to the kingdom. Without a bride and groom there is no administering of marriage. Marriage serves a sacramental function but also a civil/social function. Now I agree, less emphasis on social and more placed on the sacrament, but you have to walk before you can run. We have to lead or shepard the flock to a proper understanding of marriage.

Actually, in the Eastern Churches, without the priest nothing happens. In distinction from the Western Church, in which the couple are the ministers of the sacrament, a priest or deacon merely serving as witness, the Eastern Churches see the priest as the minister of the sacrament (which is why deacons cannot preside at Eastern Christian weddings, or at the wedding of an Eastern Catholic to a Latin Catholic); he brings them together in the sight of God, and through the action and descent of the Holy Spirit, makes the two flesh one as a typos of the relationship between Christ and his Church.

This is the proper understanding for us, and we should be teaching it in our parishes, and insisting upon it whenever we Crown a couple in marriage.

As for the social/legal function, I have for some time thought that the Church ought to disencumber itself of its role as deputed magistrate of the state in the execution of marriage licenses, particularly as the state no longer seems to hold a common understanding of marriage with the Church. People should have to go to a magistrate for a civil wedding, and then come to the Church if they want to sacramentalize their union (or, conversely, a couple who wish to have a sacramental marriage without the legal benefits and protections of civil marriage can go that route, too). This way the Church will be free to proclaim and enforce its theology of marriage without interference of the state.

I still don't see how this precludes inviting friends and family, and showing hospitality to them after the event. The fact that some people have only experienced "Goomba weddings" is only more reason to expose them to something different. I find it sad that some people have assumed all along in this thread that most people are only interested in the "party". I don't believe that attitude is at all representative of the members of this forum.

I didn't say you shouldn't. But one should not let the desire to invite family and friends dictate the arrangements of the marriage. Going back to the original post, the issue was having too many guests to accommodate in the original poster's parish--causing him to look elsewhere for a place to celebrate his wedding. He was upset when rebuffed by a couple of the pastors he contacted.

Well, consider: ideally, marriage should take place within the context of a Eucharistic liturgy, at one's own parish, before one's brothers and sisters in Christ. Under the best of all circumstances--that is, the way it ought to be done--this should be the ordinary Sunday liturgy of the parish. Let's assume that is just not practical, and it would take place, say, on a Saturday. By moving to another parish, the tie between the couple and their community in faith is broken (not to mention it may disrupt the liturgical schedule of the other church). In any case, it is not a good idea.

My suggestion is to trim one's invitation list to fit the size of one's parish, which of course means prioritizing, which is something nobody seems willing to do these days. Who really belongs at a wedding? The parents of the couple, their grandparents if still living, their siblings and perhaps a few of the couple's closest friends (there is nothing in the marriage rite that requires a best man or maid of honor, or a full load of bridesmaids, or cute little kids to carry the rings (which should be exchanged during the betrothal service, anyway). So we are talking about a maximum of perhaps sixteen in the wedding party, which would allow one to invite a reasonable number of other guests. But really, who has a hundred close friends and relatives outside of Facebook?

When Canada decided to define marriage as including same-sex pairings, there was talk among Christian folk of obtaining legal divorces to demonstrate that theirs was not what the state was calling marriage.

The other side of this question would seem to be that Christians should not cede the public square so easily. This too I notice as a difference among East and West, not as a matter of doctrine, but of practice borne out of history, I suppose.