www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship The Other Sacramental Mysteries Mystery of Crowning in the Melkite Church

I love it and he signed it for me
. I think you can get it from Madonna House

The part that is required by the state law, which are the vows being referred to, is done in the back by the back by the doors, with the priest facing west. It is what is being referred to as the Betrothal, which use to be done way before the Crowning.

Then the priest turns east, and leads the couple to the wedding table. So it would be: bridesmaids, reader, deacon, priest, couple, parents.

I am not certain if I have my husbands book here or not. I will look later. Hope that helps. Though he has reposed in the Lord, he was a Ruthenian Deacon, serving a Melkite parish.

I appreciate that you weren't applying it "directly" to me. Fr. Taft has a valid point, however, the question remains, to whom does such criticism apply. As Father himself no-doubt realizes, even an emeritus Professor at the Pontifical Oriental Institute is not necessarily exempt.

The Melkite rite, considering its evolution, need have no recourse to vows. The BCC, considering its evolution, has them in its official Recension, to be used where it is the custom. Consequently, I reject that they can simply be dismissed thus:

The vows become a convenient whipping boy for over-zealous purists who may then ignore the greater potential theological issues of the separation of marriage from the Eucharist -- the common cup as an unnecessary replacement -- and, as I'll detail in a following post, treatment and interpretation of the betrothal, i.e., the ceremony of the rings. The vows, as witnessed by the Ruthenian Recension, and though they may be an aspect of that tradition alone, are, consequently, not necessarily an incompatible element of the Byzantine betrothal-crowning theology.

[Disclaimer: my analysis below is not a criticism of jjp et al. who were following and adapting what was within the scope of the official version.]

This thread is on the Mystery of Crowning in the Melkite Church, the initial post asking about the presence of questions asked by the priest, and indirectly the words commonly referred to as vows. The thread has been discussing the BCC usage; although not directly addressing the Melkite ceremony, it relates to it on a number of points.

The official 1971Ritual of Marriage of the BCC calls the ring ceremony the “Engagement” (so I’m not questioning that this was done in this way) but is this ritual the equivalent of the popular engagement. If the “vows” are an adaptation and form of inculturation, what about the transformation of this form of the ritual in comparison. Even in the 1971 version, this is clearly intended as a two ring ceremony. The vows, which even if only a western influence, seem to come from an at least nominally Christian source (read what they say); what of making the engagement a one ring ceremony – the male/female parity of the Byzantine form now altered – and substituting for the two rings instead just the de-Beers monopolized, Hollywood and 5th-Avenue-advertizing popularized, diamond (-s forever) engagement ring?


The two questions asked of the bride and groom each are present in the Russian Orthodox service right before the blessing that begins the marriage service; the same questions are in the Ruthenian Recension. But where do the vows in the Ruthenian service come from? They are different than the typical Anglo-Saxon Protestant vows. To what extent if any do they represent a legitimate liturgical inculturation? In that regard, how do they compare to the still official 1971 Ritual of Marriage which notes that it is “Translated by the inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commissions of the Byzantine Ruthenian Metropolitan Province from the Roman edition of the MALYJ TREBNIK, 1952.” See also ( here [saintelias.com], 08 Binding Of Hands the binding/vows [saintelias.com] ) the treatment by St. Elias, Brampton Canada, in following the same MALYJ TREBNIK (Ukrainians and BCC have the Ruthenian Recension as a common heritage.).

It is quite clear, therefore, that the “Roman edition of the MALYJ TREBNIK” is the acknowledged source. One can view it here [patronagechurch.com]. That service is presented as two parts that are not separated: the first, the betrothal, i.e. the ring ceremony (pp 78-84), transitions via a procession and the singing of Psalm 127 to the beginning of the marriage ceremony (pp 84-112). The 1971 Ritual of Marriage separates these and (correctly) tacks on a dismissal to the betrothal since it is now separated from the marriage. This is fine. But it also eliminates a significant prayer from the betrothal service (see below at the end). Also, the betrothal ring ceremony clearly indicates two-rings. These are the equivalent of wedding rings (or what was just the ring for the woman only; as I recall as a youngster, it was common in US culture that weddings were not always “double ring”) in the typical American Roman Catholic service. What then of the 1971 Ritual of Marriage equating this betrothal with the sense of engagement? If this is the diamond engagement ring ceremony then what happens with the two rings commonly called wedding rings?

The solution in the 1971 Ritual of Marriage is to include within the marriage the stripped-down-to-bare-minimum giving of the rings from the betrothal service. It is preceded by a blessing of the rings that is not in the betrothal service but added. This transposed-from-the-betrothal “Bestowal of Rings” section, now in the marriage service, is encased in large brackets without further comment.

It appears the bishops in 1971 modified the service in the MALYJ TREBNIK so as to conform it to what appeared to be the popular custom. My own feelings after 2001, when I first started looking into the service, was that the 1971 ritual was impoverished without need or cause, and despite the good intentions, an unnecessary alteration and abridgement that diminished the integrity of the original service. I felt and still feel that couples celebrating weddings in our church -- in the BCC – deserve better and want (once made aware) and appreciate a more authentic version. 1952-1971-2012…and still waiting now, 60 years; and why do so many of our people lose their identity as Byzantine Catholics?

Our Recension isn’t immutable perfection, but it has that “beauty, so ancient and yet so new” that finagled-with –good-intentions-but-poor-results attempts like the 1971 Ritual of Marriage or the 2006/7 RDL would do well to honor and better follow.

======================================================

Concluding prayer of the betrothal mentioned above and absent from the 1971 Ritual of Marriage. [In Slavonic, the words pledge and betroth(al), appear to have the same root.]

Total strawman. Just because some "purists" who "may" or may not believe certain things may focus on vows instead of other inconsistencies - does not make the vows right, or wrong.

Treat them on their own merits, and not based on whether or not purists that you imagine are consistent about how you feel they treat them.


Are you talking about the "proposed" version or the one that the BCC uses now? Assuming the latter, how can saying "until death do us part" be consistent with the theology of the Sacrament of Crowning?

You may or may not have a valid criticism here and I am sympathetic to it (especially the de-Beers part), but that doesn't mean that, therefore, including vows make any sense. Only that you are able to find other points of potential inconsistency.

I would have liked to have had a ring of my own blessed at our betrothal, but our priest brought it up on the spot.

Either way, the "imbalance" here is insignificant compared to the stating that the Sacrament of Crowning becomes void upon death (.... until death do us part).



Nobody said "this is the diamond engagement ring ceremony" so your if/then is on shaky ground. I think most people, as you note later, have their betrothal on the actual wedding day when their marriage rings are used, so your question above doesn't apply.

Again, we did it this way only because it was the ring that we had available when the priest offered the ceremony - don't read too much into it beyond that. The focus was the betrothal, not the jewelry or of pioneering any new liturgical ground.

This Antiochian Orthodox text includes a questioning of the bride and groom:

http://almoutran.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/class_notes__rebrics.pdf

Also, the conflation of the betrothal and wedding into a single ceremony predates the 1971 Ruthenian booklet. That order is found in the Zhovkva Trebnik.

Fr. David