I am asking specifically from an Eastern Catholic perspective (ruthenian), but I think the Orthodox may have the same answers, but it would be interesting to see if their are differences. I have read a bit about the ceremony. I just have a few questions.

One, the blessed wine that the couple drinks from is just blessed wine and not the Eucharist. There is no eucharistic celebration (or divine liturgy or mass) at an Eastern wedding?

If this is so, if one marries someone who is baptized but not Catholic or Orthodox (depending on point of view of person answering)is the non catholic/orthodox person allowed to drink the blessed wine with their spouse? I am thinking that they can, because they do allow guests to partake of the blessed bread on certain liturgical celebrations and it is not Eucharist.

Also, I know that there is no exchange of audible vows. Is there a kiss at an Eastern wedding, or is this not done, or does it depend?

Lastly, is there a day of the week weddings are recommended for, or could you plan it any day of the week the church will allow it, so long as it is not during lent or other fasting periods. Meaning, assuming that it is in a time of year that it is ok to have weddings, does the day of the week matter, and if so can it be changed if you want to?

thanks to any who answer.

Quite a string of questions. Let's see what I can do:

1) the cup of wine in the wedding service (do the Ruthenians use it?) is blessed only; it is not Eucharistic. It was Eucharistic many centuries ago. Yes, it is possible (depending on the Bishop) to have the wedding service integrated with the Divine Liturgy. The present rubrics specify that the wedding service takes place immediately after the Divine Liturgy.

2) Assuming that the non-Catholic or non-Orthodox party to the marriage is a baptized Christian, the marriage may take place in Church and both spouses should share the cup of wine (which, again, is not Eucharistic).

3) There is no particular rubric or prayer which would direct the spouses to kiss during the wedding service - save it for the reception.

4) We are supposed to do weddings on Sunday. We are not supposed to do weddings on Saturday, nor on any fast day, nor during a fasting period.

Fr. Serge

Thanks for the answers. I wonder if all Eastern churches try to have the wedding services on Sunday. But did you also imply that the it is not necessary to attach Divine Liturgy, but it is possible, and even when done, this is sort of a pre-cursor to the ceremony.
The reason I find the Sunday thing difficult is that any wedding I have been involved with was an all day event, needing to get ready and dressed very early on for hours of pictures and set up etc. and I would think for the bride it is even more involved. How could she make her obligation to attend liturgy if she was unable to have enough time to get dressed and the families prepared. etc. seems impossible/difficult to me.
thanks.

In the Arabic-speaking Orthodox traditions (of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem)--and indeed in the Melkite tradition--the wedding ceremony is not part of the Divine Liturgy, nor juxtaposed to it.

The couple would usually go to church on the Thursday (Muslim countries) or the Friday or Saturday before their wedding to receive communion.

The betrothal ceremony is also often held (months) earlier.

I recently got in an slight argument with 2 priest's daughters about vows. Our choir sang at a (ACROD) wedding and the girls (both dads are ACROD priests) both said "they cut the vows." I said, No they didn't, there aren't any. The both said "every wedding I've been to had vows. my dad...." etc. I said "ACROD has had heavy Latin influence in its past, no doubt it's a holdover."

a cantor agreed with me, the girls got madder.

So, Fr Serge or anyone, can you shed any light on the vows argument?

a few things that I read about no vows was that it is not a contract, but the deification of human love, or a baptism of human love. actually I will just quote from the OCA website...
"There is no "legalism" in the Orthodox sacrament of marriage. It is not a juridical contract. It contains no vows or oaths. It is, in essence, the "baptizing and confirming" of human love in God by Christ in the Holy Spirit. It is the deification of human love in the divine perfection and unity of the eternal Kingdom of God as revealed and given to man in the Church."
Another reason I read somewhere was that the fact that the bride and groom show up, and the meanings in the ritual speak for themself. There is noneed to sya it out loud.
I have no reason to be troubled by this, but it seems to contradict the service for baptism where there are indeed vows to renounce satan and commit oneself to Chrsit. They do not say, the very fact that the person is letting the priest baptize him speaks for itself. I wonder why in one ceremony the vows are seen as unnecessary and in another it is necessary. Oerhaps that is jhust how it developed.
Also, there is no giving of the bride away because she is not property, and the husband and wifre are equal and I guess it technically is not the man's job to be the person protecting or keeping safe the bride. I found this a little surprising. I understand the idea that the bride is not property, but I thought the concept of going from fathers protection to the husbands was a Christian concept, but perhaps the more accurate concept is mutual care and equality.

Strictly speaking, the "vows" of matrimony are part of the civil contract - in many countries, there must be a separate civil marriage. Anyway, the vows were incorporated into the Latin marriage ceremony, presumably at or not long before the time when the Church took over the work of adjudicating the legal aspects of marriage.

Much later, after numerous solemn discussions in the West about the "form" of marriage, various Eastern Catholic communities were "encouraged" to add the vows to their liturgical celebrations of marriage.

Still later, as various Eastern Catholic communities were aggregated to the Orthodox, they brought with them some liturgical baggage, often including the "marriage vows". By this time, the vows had acquired a popular mystique which they do not properly have, so getting rid of them has often proved a long process. But we are moving forward in this process, thanks to God.

The attempt to equate the marriage "vows" with the Baptismal commitment does not hold water (unlike the baptismal font, which usually does hold water). Baptism is not a civil contract.

Incidentally - or not so incidentally - we have also been plagued, particularly in North America, with people who try to insist that the very long-standing tradition of the brde and groom entering the temple together will not do, and that instead the proud papa should escort the bride down the aisle and "give her away". This often comes from people whose relationship to the Church is on the tenuous side. I've more than once been faced with some irate person producing an "etiquette" book and demanding that I should follow it instead of following the Euchologion.

Instead of trying to instruct the Church, we must allow the Church to instruct us.

Fr. Serge

"The attempt to equate the marriage "vows" with the Baptismal commitment does not hold water (unlike the baptismal font, which usually does hold water). Baptism is not a civil contract."

That was why I asked though. Neither baptism nor marriage are seen as contracts, therfore why is there official spoken "commitments" at the baptism but nothing for the marriage. What is different about the commitment vs. an oath, and why did they not then develop something similar to the baptism commitment for marriage that was different than an oath? Why in one ceremony are words essential, and in another ceremony the words are simply implied. Why not have essential words in both (though not necesssarily oaths) or in neither?

It does not bother me, I am just wondering why one sacrament developed one way and another seems to take a different approach.

And then, of course, there are the famous crowns. Exactly where do they come in during the marriage ceremony (attached or separate from a Liturgy)? Unfortunately, we did not do that in our Byzantine-Ruthenian church when I was an altar boy or when I got married. Those darn latizinzations again. We have missed so much rich tradition in the past decades.....

Any links to the Byzantine-Ruthenian or Byzantine of anykind marriage ceremonies?


Tim

Slava Isusu Khrestu

Hello Tim

Try this site St Elias Brampton Ontario

http://www.saintelias.com/ca/index.php

Click Divine Services
Click Mysteries
You'll see some help there


Hope it will help

Z Bohom
Nycholaij

A link for an unofficial, pre-RDL, "for instance" text

A Proposed Order for the Celebration of Betrothal and the Mystery of Crowning with the Divine Liturgy

is at prayers__liturgy about half way down the page.

As Nycholaij pointed out, Archpriest Roman's site is a great place to start. http://www.saintelias.com/ca/mysteries/crowning.php

Actually, the giving away of the bride is an English custom. It developed in one part of England and spread throughout the country.
I see no reason to adopt the customs of other nationalities or the customs of other churches.

We just had a wedding celebrated at our church a couple weeks ago. A couple picture of it http://oca-houston.org/KayleighJosiahWedding.html

Those darned Latinizations again.

Tjm, my sister was married in the late seventies. The marriage ceremony was part of the Divine Liturgy, my Dad did walk her down the aisle, vows were exchanged and there was the crowning. It would be interesting to hear from others to see where any differences in the ceremony have been through the years.