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

http://www.melkitecanada.org/the-sacrament-of-holy-matrimony/

Is this service an accurate English translation of the Mystery of Crowning in the Melkite Church? I couldn't find another English translation of it online. Then I compared it to an Antiochian Orthodox marriage liturgy and saw differences, which left more doubt.

Thanks for any clarification.

I think the addition of "vows" in the Mystery of Crowning that you linked to is a Latinization.

Click the link for a different English translation of the Mystery of Crowning [web.archive.org].

Thanks. I suspected that it was a latinization.

Could be considered an "Americanization" as well, as Orthodox services have been known to include it to look more like what you see in the movies. Which would technically be an indirect Latinzation by way of Protestant mass media.... but you get the point.

My ByzCath priest insisted on including these in our crowning despite my staunch objections. He said it would be confusing to those in attendance that weren't Byzantine and that the vows had been incorporated long enough ago to warrant inclusion. I said that not being Byzantine would be more confusing, and that they were included for non-theological reasons that don't make sense in the rest of the ceremony.

I would have called his bluff and refused the service until finding a suitable church that would give a proper crowning, but my wife-to-be, although understanding, was under enough wedding stress as it was without potentially moving the date/venue. I considered saying them my first act of oikonomia as husband/father of our familial church.

Though it still bugs me, as you can probably see....

So the "vows" are the only problematic part of the service? If that were omitted from the text that would be a legitimate, traditional Melkite marriage liturgy?

Be at peace then in realizing that your priest, whatever the legitimacy of the rationale, is in fact just following the Ruthenian Recension, our official books who's mandated intention was to eliminate latinizations yet allow that the Ruthenian churches have their own historical path and legitimate adaptations and customs.

Realize too that local adaptations can be legitimate; the Church is a living entity not a museum piece. Whatever the purpose of vows in the Latin ritual, in the Ruthenian ritual they serve as statements of intent -- as I see it, a continuation of the questions that proceed the service. I think they work well and are very appropriate within the context of the western culture that our eastern Church evangelizes.

Recall too that the crowning is a latter (though indigenous?) addition. I think including the ring ceremony within the marriage rite is a greater perturbation to the overall structure of the byzantine rite wedding than the words of the "vows". And theologically the so-called vows are neutral compare to the common-cup, the latter being a (rather poor) substitution for the reception of the Eucharist that unfortunately has come to replace it without necessity.

For more background see my post here and others in that thread.

All this is from the a BCC (i.e. my) and not necessarily a Melkite perspective.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I have read your prior conversations about this, and those helped me see the error of vows in the Crowning ceremony.

I noticed a few flaws in what you said above.

1) While we have been tasked to remove Latinizations from our books, you assume here that the vows are "legitimate adaptations and customs" - but this is not true, and respected members of Ruthenia such as Fr. Loya agree that the vows are a regrettable imposition of extra-theological requirements that states and kingdoms at one time enforced upon the Church. That they have remained for so long does not include them into the deposit of Tradition. They are, in fact, the antiquated museum relics that have no organic place in the crowning ceremony.

2) Your opinion on what you think the vows mean or do is yours to keep, but is not normative. I don't understand how you can call this a continuation of anything. If you mean the questions of intent, those too are unnecessary impositions, albiet less offensive and, as Fr Meyendorff notes in Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective, make a bit more sense in the betrothal if they must be there.

Vows exist to seal the contractual union between husband and wife. These make sense in western marriages in which the couple are uniting in a contractual arrangement, which stays in force until one of the contractees dies (until death do us part). In the Byzantine crowning ceremony, this union is consecrated by God Himself and is an eternal sacrament which is an eternal one. To vow something during this sacrament "until one of us dies" betrays a complete lack of understanding of what is actually happening. Do you deny this?

3) You make a lot of value judgments that are your own opinion re: rings, crowns, etc which I won't bother to refute, because opinions are relative. I will say that the common cup is indeed a poor substitution of the Eucharist, for those that choose to replace the Eucharist with the common cup ceremony. However, as Fr Meyendorff notes, has a very valid place in the ceremony apart from that when the couple does receive, recalling Cana and symbolizing the shared essence and destiny of the new couple. There is certainly nothing that is theologically contradictory about it.

Just because something is technically an "addition" (crowns, rings, cups, etc) doesn't make it "bad."

Vows aren't objectionable because they are not part of the "pure" crowning, and to try to equate them with other organic developments of the ceremony in order to justify their inclusion is a straw man.

Some developments are organic and are harmonious (or at least neutral) in terms of the theology, spirit, and intent of the ceremony.

Vows are theologically diametrically opposed to the theology of crowning, to argue otherwise is to ignore established consensus or to not understand either.

Evangeliziation is important, but compromising the integrity and theology of sacraments in an effort to ape contemporary culture is not the way to go about it. More harm comes to efforts of evangelization by this method than any good. I suppose a guitar during communion would have helped evangelizing in our Western culture too.

I realize a lot of Byzantine Catholics are afraid of being different, but this very difference is what defines us. Or, sadly, it is actually the lack of a difference that has truly begun to define us, and I mourn that both for Ruthenia and for my own spiritual life.

I recommend Fr Meyendorff's book that I mentioned above, Crowning: A Christian Marriage. It does an excellent job of outlining how the Byzantine Crowning ceremony developed historically and theologically.

As you can tell from the discussion, "legitimate, traditional, etc" can be difficult to pin down to everybody's satisfaction, Melkite or not.

As an addendum, Totus Tuus, if you can get your hands on Crowning: The Christian Marriage by Archbishop Joseph Raya of blessed memory, you will get no better account of the crowning from a Melkite perspective.

Yes and no. Here are the vows I'm referring to, the ones in the "proposed" rite:

"I, N., take you, N., to be my husband/wife, and I promise to love you, to respect you, to be always faithful to you, and never to forsake you. So help me God, one in the Holy Trinity, and all the Saints."

They differ from the official Ruthenian Recension form in that they do not have the obedience phrase for the wife and do not have "until death do us part." Thus there is parity in the form.

Whatever form or intent they have "in western marriages" here they are vows in the true theological sense in that they are made to God. They express very well the commitment of marriage. They IN NO WAY CONFLICT with the overall intent and unity of the service: they speak the truth and focus on the very biblical concept of covenant-love, ĥesed. For all the times I've seen, they were a moving and memorable moment for the couple and others present -- even a holy moment. For the Ruthenian church they have been deemed, via our Recension, as an element of our service. Overall, better to let them do their part to enrich the service, as they do if properly understood, then to have an unhealthy, purist prejudice against them based on the myth of being more authentically eastern.

I don't understand the "until death" stuff. It's either obvious -- even the east tolerates a second marriage in those (and other) circumstances -- or are not quite accurate for those who officially allow divorce.

I was talking about the vows in the current books that we had to say.

The ones you mention above (who proposed these? to whom were they proposed? what was the answer?) aren't as bad in that they don't mimic the contractual and legalistic aspect of the western variety. They'd be a less offensive change, but I still would have no desire to say them as their inspiration comes only from imitating the western cultural archetype, something you are presupposing is desired or beneficial for all Eastern Catholics, (and I have already pointed out a few of many prominent Eastern Catholics who do not agree).

At best, I can understand making those proposed vows optional for those who insist on adding things to the Crowning in order to look like other people, so that at least they aren't saying vows contrary to the theology of the sacrament they are participating in. But whether or not they "add" anything is subjective.

I tend to side w/ Fr. Taft. "As I've said more than once, I have never understood why people who have never manifested the slightest creativity in any other aspect of their human existence all of the sudden think they're Shakespeare or Mozart when it comes to the liturgy. That's sheer arrogance."

That, I believe, would be the 1970's version promulgated for the BCC. This still official version has the vows (with "matrimonial obedience" by the bride and "until death..." by both); it also has the exchange of rings within the marriage service. If I may ask, when and where did the exchange of rings take place for your wedding?

First - I didn't mean to imply Fr Taft's remark applied directly to you, he can be rather cutting which wasn't my intention. I realized later it might have seemed that way.

Anyways, yep, that's what we used.

I'm not sure off the top of my head re: the rings, good question. It's all a bit of a blur as you can imagine.

We actually had the betrothal before the wedding day, which I thought was cool. I hadn't bought my ring yet but my wife's engagement ring was blessed then.

I'll have to check tonight.

Since our betrothal was at an earlier date (and I didn't have my own ring then anyways - last minute at JC Penny's baby!) there was a small betrothal-esque blessing (not a repeat of the service but a redacted blessing) and the rings were exchanged then, at the beginning, in the front.

Having just been crowned to my wife last year in the Melkite Church , I can tell you that vows had absolutely no part in our ceremony. The Melkite Euchologion makes no mention of them.

A friend will be crowned in marriage next month, and his fiancee, a Latin, is fairly insistent that there be vows of some sort. I think that they'll be adding them either at the reception or at some other point after the Liturgy, but not as part of the ceremony itself.

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