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

So my fiancee and I are looking at churches in the area to celebrate our Holy Mystery of Matrimony. We have contacted numerous Eastern Catholic (UGCC, Ruthenian, Maronite), as well as a few Orthodox and Latin parishes. My rant -- So far the Eastern Catholic parishes have, on the whole, been very standoffish, the only exception being the Ruthenians who were very helpful (unfortunately, the distance precludes me from being able to use their Temple). The one Orthodox jurisdiction that even bothered to respond, did not respond positively. The Latins, on the whole, have been welcoming - there were a few exceptions, notable the woman who snickered when I mentioned facing the Altar together with the priest during our Mass, along with a few Latin parishes already booked on our day.

Generally, I am disappointed in my experience with fellow Eastern Catholic jurisdictions, all the hoops and unnecessary stalls. The Latins I am happy to say were surprisingly helpful! The Orthodox, generally, didn't bother with us.

Is there a local church that you normally attend? I am guessing not, otherwise why be looking?

Regularly yes, unfortuately our guest list is larger than our pew space, so we are looking for a larger Church to host us.

Ahhhh. Is your priest able to help coordinate? Would he be performing the crowning? Perhaps some of the more stand-offish parishes are assuming that you want to come in as a relative stranger and get an Eastern service?

Either way, hope it works out for you!

IMO, it's reasonable for any parish of any jurisdiction to offer weddings, funerals and sacraments primarily to their own members. People who go "shopping" for a wedding venue and are not a stable part of any parish should not be surprised if the priest reacts with discomfort and negativity to their request.

The solution here is for the bridal couple to get involved in a particular parish and take it from there.

Approaching a priest with a list of preconceived expectations for that special day may involve proposing idiosyncrasies not on the parish menu. One approaches a parish in order to learn and to accomodate oneself to it, not to make demands of it first crack out of the box.

Remember: a wedding is about JESUS, not the bride and her accoutrements. It's not HER day: it's JESUS' day.

Well, in fairness to him, he is a part of a stable parish. It's just not big enough to seat everybody. Although I suspect some of the parishes he may have contacted might be misunderstanding the circumstances, as you did. Perhaps his priest can help in that regard.

MT:

Christ is Risen!!

I have to agree with our brethren who have advised asking your parish priest for help. Now, if you are a registered member of a parish, that itself presents lots of problems.

That said, it is also true that using another parish is asking a lot, so it would make a big difference if your priest asked another of his colleagues.

Asking Orthodox parishes to use their temple is really stretching. You have to understand that the temple is a consecrated space and is meant for the use of the Church; it's not a rental space or hall. This whole attitude is really understandable if one remembers the divisions that are still very much a part of the whole reality in which we live.

May God open the door to some sacred space for your Crowning.

Bob

Yes indeed, you're right: I did overlook the fact you mention.

Mea culpa. Esu kaltas. My bad. I ought to be more attentive in the future.

I think the points are here are well taken. My guess is that the difference in responses between the various churches has more to do with experience than anything else. Many Roman churches have wedding coordinators who handle these kinds of things all the time. Also the administration of the sacrament is quite different between the East and the West so what is acceptable is different. Deacons frequently conduct marriages in the West and assuming proper preparation (usually well outlined in the Diocese) a couple can be married in any consecrated place. For example, here there are a couple of college chapels that are frequently used for weddings only because of their perceived beauty. The couples don't have to be related to the institution to "rent" them. Which, of course, brings up money.

The Eastern churches being much smaller and tighter knit communities would not be so open to anyone outside the community entering their sacred space. Also, since only a priest can officiate at a wedding, one would expect a priest to priest communication rather than a couple to wedding coordinator communication.

What it boils down to is this. Does your priest have a working relationship with a large Roman parish that is willing to allow him to conduct a Crowning ceremony in its space?

The bottom line is that you want your priest to officiate in another space because of limitations in your own parish. Let him handle the negotiations.

Bob

Or have a more modest wedding. I've never had a hundred, let alone several hundred, people I would want coming to my wedding (which had, as I remember, all of eight). Cut your invitation list to fit your church.

Michael Thoma:

Come to think of it--take Stuart's advice. When I remember my own wedding, it would have made more sense to elope. My father greatly disliked my wife's father and we almost had a fist fight on the way into the reception. The reception ended with my family stating that there would never again be a mixing of the families. And there hasn't been.

I offered both my children $10K to elope.

It's obvious that neither you nor your wife come from large extended families! By the time we invited all the aunts and uncles and cousins and cousin's kids ... ugh. I get a headache just thinking about it. And we "had" to invite them. Certain members of the family (who shall, of course, remain nameless) were not going to give us any peace unless we did. Fortunately for us, most of them couldn't be bothered sending in an RSVP, let alone actually showing up. Even so our tiny parish church that seated 150 was stuffed. And it was lovely and wonderful!

To the OP: There's nothing wrong with a packed church. All the great liturgies are standing-room only -- think Pascha and Christmas!

Oh, yeah, we do. But we just decided that we were going to live within our means.

But marriage is an ecclesial, not private event, so the people with whom you should be sharing it are the members of your parish (with, perhaps, your closest family), in the context of the Divine Liturgy (all sacraments ought to be sealed with the Eucharist).

It also annoys me when hundreds of people with very little if any connection to the Church show up for a wedding, obviously uncomfortable being there, more than a little bit embarrassed by the proceedings, and leaving even before the dismissal. It's disrespectful and disruptive, at a minimum. Why not just invite those people to the reception only? Both they and your fellow parishoners will appreciate the courtesy.

Because sometimes you just want to do what you can to expose your godless friends and relations to a wee bit o' the sacred.

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.

The sacraments, like society and the law, are made for man. There is no theological reason why these should not go hand in glove. In societies where the Church was free to flourish, this has most often been the case.

If current trends continue what you are saying WILL be reality. However, the sacrament of marriage as well as all of the beatitudes, the ten commandments,... all of them provide the Best moral structure and compass for society. I personally think that it is in the best interests for the US Government to have good, moral(Christian) families! It makes sense in long term strategic planning. Like it or not, the family is the cornerstone of society, too alter it may have dire consequences. This may be a moot point, perhaps its already too late. Or maybe not.

I would not say it is bailing out of the public square, but of carving out a space within it and saying, "This is ours, and we will not yield, no matter what you do". Wholesale separation of the Church from state institutions would simultaneously point out the huge role played by the Church in the delivery of social services, while allowing the Church to say what it wants and do what it wants. It should not take a single dime from the government, because "he who pays the piper gets to call the tune". It is apparent that conscience clauses are likely to be overturned, which will really leave us no choice. I should particularly like the Church to celebrate sacramental marriages for couples who eschew civil marriages, if by marriage the state is going to specify a type of relationship contrary to the Church's notion of marriage.

It is easy to forget that, until well after Constantine, Church marriage and civil marriage were entirely separate. The former was the spiritual union of a man and a woman, the latter a contractual relationship between them. It was the sixth century before the existence of a Church marriage was considered evidence for the existence of a civil marriage. It was the ninth century before the Church was given oversight of all aspects of marriage, both civil and sacramental. That relationship was mutually beneficial until recently. We are now entering the post-Constantinian era, where the values of the state and the values of the Church are no longer compatible. "Symphonia" is no longer possible, so we must revert to the pre-Constantinian situation of being "in" society without being "of" society.

I agree with your assessment of the situation of the Church in relation to the state. Certainly it will come to this. It is well on its way where I am, but I don't see how abandoning marriage as a legal arrangement as well as sacramental is a way to accomplish the goals of the Church.

Well, from a practical standpoint, the state is in a position to impose certain demands on the Church as the price for allowing it to execute marriage licenses, just as it does for allowing the Church to administer child services, adoption services, and health care services. As I noted, conscience clauses are increasingly challenged and overturned by a militantly secular court system, which is why, e.g., the Church no longer provides adoption services in Massachusetts. If the state can demand the Church not discriminate against gay couples in adoption, it can do the same with regard to gay couples or divorcees in marriage.

So, cutting the tie allows us to say clearly, regardless of what the state calls marriage, this is what WE call marriage, and we will not compromise on it.

More subversively, the state discriminates against marriage in the tax code, in health insurance and in social security. Allowing people to marry in the Church without marrying in the eyes of the law would allow them to evade the marriage penalty, or to collect more in social security, or to obtain more extensive health and welfare services than would be possible if they were legally married.

In the early Church, few Christians could legally marry, since civil marriage was the purview of Roman citizens. So, the Church did its thing, and set an example of chastity and fidelity not matched by their pagan neighbors. "See", said Tertullian (easily one of my least favorite ante-Nicene Fathers), "how much better we Christians behave towards our women, than do you who call yours wives". He had a good point.

Personally, I think the secularist will come after us regardless what we do, until we capitulate to their changes regarding our theology! SO,...let them force change! Force them to try to legitimize what they want in pubic debate, and we can be right there to make the Christian counter argument.

Actually, there is no counter-argument. The state has a monopoly on armed force and will apply coercive measures. It will simply shut down or impoverish the Church, and there will be no other argument than the one we make with our bodies as witnesses to Christ. They probably won't kill us, but they can bankrupt us and put us in prison. And our only response will be to go, joyfully, praising Christ for all his blessings.

This will, of course, drive the secularists nuts.

On the subject of Marriage Tertullian is probably my favortie ante-Nicene Father. This passage has found its way into many a Wedding homily

I suppose you are in the United States where freedom of religion still has a place in the discussion. Here, they are shutting out the Church from much ordinary participation in public life, and penalizing her organizations for upholding Christian practices, quite without reference to funding.

Once we start paying fed taxes- those small churches you like may not make it. Those social services we provide like schools, counseling, adoption, etc.., many of those services will be cut and fewer and fewer people will see any benefit. Our relevance in society will diminish and with it a platform to spread the Good News! Now you will have a much smaller group of purified Christians, but it will stay that way, a small group of marginalized Christians for a very long time! And in that time, many souls will have never had a chance to hear and learn the good news. I wouldn't give an inch to the secularists!

In regards to the original post, its ok to have large wedding. Now, I also understand those pastors point of view when it seems like you are shopping for a venue and then never come back. So please don't feel offended, those pastors are trying to do what is best for their parishes. If I were you, I'd follow the advice previously given, talk to your pastor.

The planned guest list for my daughter's wedding was larger than our church could hold.

For reasons never explained to me, though, we have a second consecrated altar outside on the patio, dedicated to the Theotokos. The grooms family actually made a make-shift iconostasis from fabric and hung it from the patio cover, andqwe set up outside.

It worked so well that we now do this each year for Pascha, which would be tight, at best, indoors (although we don't hang the fabric, and satisfy ourselves with the portable icons).

We've shared the facilities with other catholic an orthodox over the years. Until. Couple of years ago, a Syrian group nted every Sunday, and a mother orthodox group monthly--which made for a tight Good Friday schedule . . .

On an aside - can you post pictures of the fabric iconostasis? I would love to learn how to do it/commission such a work for my parish - although we don't use iconostasis, we could hang it behind the altar as an icon wall of sorts!

I'll try and find them n the pictures of my daughter's wedding, but it was rather simple--we used a translucent lint blue fabric, I think in the width they came off the bolt. We hung them to the sides of the space left open for the deacons' doors, and also betray the decans' door and the Holy Doors, also simply an opening.

In front of these we placed the two portable icons.

Since then, we haven't hung the screen. They're not that practical, and we are at risk of high winds and/or rain at Pascha. Rain would make th interesting, as we would have tro uble fitting the Pascha crowd Ito the church . . . And when I say "high" winds,I mean 50-100 mph.