Marriage/Weddings
Since the topic came up in the Lord's Supper thread, maybe it is time to move on to another topic. Marriage
Is it a sacrament or is it just a social contract?
Why do some denominations consider it a sacrament? What makes it a sacrament?
Mine does not say it is necessarily a sacrament, though it does have sacramental features. But Luther argued that it is primarily a rite that belongs in the civil realm. I think it was because in the thick of the Reformation the Roman Catholic Church was refusing to marry people that did not pledge full allegiance to Roman Doctrine.
Besides all cultures have marriage rites, as well as all religions.
How does your denomination view the act?
Is it a sacrament or is it just a social contract?
Why do some denominations consider it a sacrament? What makes it a sacrament?
Mine does not say it is necessarily a sacrament, though it does have sacramental features. But Luther argued that it is primarily a rite that belongs in the civil realm. I think it was because in the thick of the Reformation the Roman Catholic Church was refusing to marry people that did not pledge full allegiance to Roman Doctrine.
Besides all cultures have marriage rites, as well as all religions.
How does your denomination view the act?
Comments
In terms of a sacrament, I don't think Baptists regard it as one officially, but the idea of "promises before God and the congregation" would be similar to baptismal promises. I got married abroad, and my minister wasn't too happy because he felt that the community aspect was important. (We came back and had a blessing at the church some months later.)
Marriage in England is (and arguably Wales, in spite of disestablishment) but the CofE hath no jurisdiction in this realm of Scotland.
The way marriage law is framed, in the Church of England ordination also makes a person a de facto deputy registrar for marriages they conduct in licensed Church of England churches ‘according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England’.
The Law Commission is currently reviewing the law on getting married and if the government finds legislative time for it I think we’ll see changes in the law fairly soon. (Possibly this parliament or the next.)
The Marriage Act 1949 is the main statute governing the law, and it was a consolidating statute, i.e. mostly bringing together a number of existing statutes. The overall shape of marriage law in England and Wales has not changed much since the latter part of the nineteenth century.
At that time, I suspect, the arrangements put in place were seen as providing a mechanism for recognising marriages in addition to the provision already available in England and Wales for the recognition of Quaker, Jewish and Church of England weddings.
There are Baptist ministers who refuse to do "legal weddings" as they don't want to be agents of the State (although in fact it may not be they who are the Registrar in their churches) and will only do a non-legal church service of blessing.
It isn't a Dominical Sacrament in the CofE sense because Jesus neither provided it nor commanded it, but as far as I know, every ecclesiastic household on earth regards it as 'an honourable estate' even if they don't use that phrase, one which Jesus signifies that he blesses by performing his first miracle/sign at Cana. I'm almost prepared to bet that your marriage liturgy includes a reference to that event. I'm sure also that everybody's teaching regards it as, for Christians, some sort of sacred bond, something we enter into before God and which he recognises rather than 'just a social contract'.
Theologically it is seen as being intended by God, a means of grace for the couple and a reflection of the union between Christ and the church. The couple are the ministers of the sacrament, both at the wedding and ongoing. The cleric is just the church's witness.
But as to your last point, Presbyterians regularly describe marriage as a “covenant,” and the idea that the parties to the marriage have “made a covenant” or “entered into the covenant of marriage” is frequently heard in our wedding liturgies. As I noted somewhere else on the Ship recently, the idea of “covenant” is a major theme for us; it’s part of our understanding of the sacraments as well.
Never before or since have I heard this line defended, not even by IngoB of blessed memory, but he was very well-up on official RC doctrine and practice so I have never been able to entirely dismiss it from my thoughts. What do y'all make of it?
I suppose if one believes that everyone is called to a particular state, whether that be marriage or celibacy, then there must be a question mark over those who have not committed themselves to either. Being not wholly convinced by the premise I can't endorse the conclusion. Though I would note also the existence of Consecrated Virgins, who are not ordained and need not be religious (in the sense of being nuns).
Thats a strange and very personal view. Some people realise they are not cut out for marriage - I rather suspect they would not be cut out for community life as a religious either. Did it not occur to him that they might be gay? I assume this conversation was before gay weddings were legalised.
Pfft. Simple. You wouldn't doubt the word of a consecrated virgin, would you?
The Catholic catechism says the following of 'single' people
'we must remember the great number of single persons who... are especially close to Jesus' heart and who deserve the special affection and active solicitude of the Church. Many live their lives in the spirit of the Beatitudes ,serving God and neighbour in exemplary fashion... the Church is a home and a family for everyone.'
Would this monastic Catholic friend have advised widows or widowers to embrace the religious life as soon as their spouse died ?
I'm pretty sure he saw it the other way round, in the way that @Arethosemyfeet suggests - that if you were not called to marriage that was a prima facie indication of a vocation to the priesthood or a religious order.
I think the idea was that some sort of community is essential and that "it is not good for the man (or woman) to be alone". So if you don't have the podvig of a spouse, you need the podvig of the others in your order (or perhaps of your congregation if you are a secular priest). But that is my own recollection of how I attempted to make sense of what he was saying.
It is interesting that @Forthview has never come across this but @Ruth has! I don't think I ever asked my friend about what it implied for widows and widowers. He was perhaps going through a rather extreme phase at the time having come under the influence of Gerry Matatics.
All of us, within a Catholic context, have a vocation in life, but there are more options for that vocation to flourish than in the married state or the priesthood or religious life.
Service to god and service to neighbour can be done in so many ways.
I,m sure it is the same in all religious groupings that single, unattached people often give immense service to their church.
As a person who was clearly not Catholic, and in the context of learning about Catholicism to see if it was the way I wanted to live my life, I was quite taken aback by the suggestion that the alternative to marriage was religious orders. He didn't suggest any other possibility. To me it said that this guy had a very narrow view of the world.
Was he ready to facilitate your entry directly into a religious order ( against canon law,I;m sure) or did he merely suggest that if you did wish to join this religious body and you were sure that you would never marry then it might be 'perhaps' an idea to consider the religious life ? - once you had accustomed yourself to the Catholic way of life.
"You're single aren't you?" he said. "I've often wondered if you might be a failed nun."
I presumed he was referring to women who entered and left religious orders; the odd thing was that although he was active in many international Catholic conferences and workshops on the role of women in the church, he had no idea at all he was being offensive. He was mortified when I pointed out why I objected to what he was saying. For him it was like 'locker-room ' talk among priests and deacons as shorthand for the anomaly of single women who didn't want to get married, weren't satisfied by any of the limited options of service for women in parish circles and weren't safely embedded in a convent.
Some countries have very strict separation between legal ceremonies and religious ones, don't they? So you have to get married in a state ceremony but then you can have whatever religious ceremony you want, or not, as the case may be. Is that more useful for separating the legal and spiritual aspects, or should they not be separated?
When many people have unhappy experiences of marriage it is wonderful to read such a good experience as that described by @tclune and there are many, many more which are not recorded here.
All of us who are Christians have a religious vocation in life - to love God and our neighbour - for many people marriage is one of the most fulfilling ways of doing that.
For others that is not the case.
In spite of the fact that there are other religious vocations as well as or instead of marriage I have never, ever heard it said that the only vocations for Catholics are either marriage OR the priesthood OR Religious Life. Also the priesthood and the Religious Life (in the Catholic sense of that expression) are two different things.
I've been thinking about this, @Forthview and I'm someone who did consider entering a contemplative order when I was in my 20s. I have tremendous admiration for two women friends who became enclosed Carmelites.
At the same time, one reason I posted here was because what @Ruth may have experienced 30 years ago is still quite prevalent in Catholic communities I know well, a certain unsubtle pressure and expectation placed on young single women to 'resolve' their 'singleness' by either marrying or entering religious life. I don't know that young men are pressured in the same way to enter the priesthood, even though the idea of vocations are very much of the hierarchy's mind. The unmarried status of men isn't as troubling as it seems to be for young women. One reason is obviously that many women do express a longing to become priests in a church where only men can enter the sacramental ministry. In my experience too, much of parish life revolves around the family and single people are often excluded. Although women may persist and find a niche or a teaching role, it isn't easy and alternatives aren't presented whatever the official standpoint on vocations might be.
I appreciate what MaryLouise has to say about the pressures put on young women by the Church to 'resolve' their 'singleness'. Surely, however, this would refer to those who show a real interest in religious life (as opposed to the Religious Life) I am thinking of the vast majority of people within the Catholic community who would count themselves as Catholics but not as particularly religious It is for these people that I have never heard of this idea that one has to be either married or in some sort of ordered religious life.
For anyone, either male or female, who shows a more than average interest in Church life,it would be natural ,I think, for clergy to put forward to them the idea of thinking of the priesthood or the Religious Life.
In everyday parish life I think ,as well as the families, of the many single people who do so much to support parish life. In a way it is natural that the Church would seem to give priority to families as the whole Church community is that of the family where people work together for the good of all.
I agree with MaryLouise that the Church has to move forward with its vision for the role of women within the community of the Church.
Perhaps I ought to consider joining my RC friends on a more permanent basis. Here in Methodism, such Enthusiasm is likely to result in being asked to Join A Committee.
Therefore marriage and weddings are much on my mind just now. My daughter and son-in-law to be are navigating their way through two different cultures. To a lesser extent, so are we - future son-in-laws family seem to regard the wedding as the joining of two families rather than the joining of two people. Previously, my knowledge of Christian / Hindu marriages was based solely on Alan and Usha in "The Archers."
When they were dating at university, the fact that they came from different cultures seemed irrelevant - they were just two geeky science students, both born in Britain. Culture only came to fore when they started thinking about getting married.
We are Presbyterians, and so marriage is not a sacrament for us. I don't even know how to frame the question "Is marriage a sacrament for you, future son-in-law?"
See, that's 'cause Methodists are nice. Anglicans and Presbyterians don't ask, they tell.
The only enthusiasm needed for any Methodist church I've ever attended is a pulse -- and in a pinch, that requirement may be waived.
Best wishes to your daughter, NEQ.
I'm not sure "do you think marriage is a sacrament" is a terribly interesting question, at least, not for people who are actually getting married. It's of some interest as regards how we think about God, but I don't think asking whether or not marriage is sacramental affects how the couple concerned interact with each other in any way.
In my mid-twenties I was directed by my Director of Ordinands to take up a certain OSB Friar as spiritual director to explore potential vocation to ordained ministry. During the course of our first meeting, he told me he could see me very clearly as a nun. I roared my leg off. Probably not the response he expected.
Because they're not very persuasive?
Someone Else...talking about what it s like to be a monk or a nun doesn’t quite cut it
Clearly at most one of those "wedding" ceremonies can be a legal marriage. (It may be that the couple have a separate registry office wedding for legal purposes.)
Fortunately no need for wee white fences at a C of S wedding!
Was it something which was placed there during the wedding ceremony or did you have the impression that it was always there (wherever 'there' was) ?
Do you know if it was something which was insisted upon by the Catholic authorities or was it something insisted upon by the Hindu authorities. ?
The only thing I can think of, if the wedding took place many years ago, would have been the Communion rail. Since the Council of Trent rood screens which separated the nave of a church from the sanctuary were generally removed in Catholic churches and replaced with a small fence which might be made of marble or of wood or indeed painted wood, even white painted wood. Before Vatican 2 generally speaking lay people did not go into the sanctuary beyond this 'fence'.
A wedding would usually take place in the nave of the church - on the 'lay' side of the fence.
If there was also a Mass at the wedding it is possible that the bride was invited through the central gate in the 'fence' to receive Communion, while her husband, if he was not a believer in Christianity would remain in the nave of the church.
This 'fence' ,if it was the Communion rail, has been removed in most RC churches since the mid 1960s.
Apart from this I cannot think what the 'wee white fence' might have been.
I think that the fence you mention may have been some sort of altar rail. However the cathedral in Aberdeen was 'cleared out' of Victorian furnishings as early as 1960 even before the Vatican council by a reforming Bishop Walsh.
At weddings in Catholic churches the bride and groom will sometime sit on seats at the front of the nave, occasionally with a prie-dieu (little prayer desk )in front of them. These items of furniture will sometimes be covered in white- as it is a colour which is non-liturgically often used at weddings. It may be that the Catholic bride was invited forward at the appropriate moment to receive Communion. Depending on where you were sitting and depending on your unfamiliarity with the rite you may have seen this payer deskas a 'wee white fence'
In the really olden days when virtually every RC church would have had a Communion rail, at a Nuptial Mass the bride and groom would sometimes be invited right up to the altar to receive Communion. I remember this happening often in Austria.
You tell me that the bride was European. I'm not sure if that means European as opposed to Indian or if it means Continental European as opposed to Scottish European. If it means that the bride was from another European country, possibly with a strong Catholic background, again it is possible why she went forward to receive Communion.
Mass is streamed every day at 6pm from St Mary's cathedral in Aberdeen so I'll have a look in the next few days but I am fairly sure that there is no communion rail in the building.
We have to try to seek what is common but there will always be some sort of gulf in religious belief and practice between those who are Christian and those who belong to some other religion. All gulfs can be overcome but the 'wee white fence' should not be something which separated them.
A former Dean of the Cathedral here got the same response when he asked me if I had ever considered becoming a nun. To be fair to him I felt it was more an open question, rather than him thing I should.