The entire service is the dedication of a *sexual* relationship before God, ideally producing children. This is how unmarked categories work. The spoken part is a blessed consummation of love, part of God’s vision for the church and the world. The unspoken corollary being, it is not for you, queer person in the pew. This blessing, this act of God’s grace, is not for you - your love is unacceptable.
The entire service is the dedication of a *sexual* relationship before God, ideally producing children. This is how unmarked categories work. The spoken part is a blessed consummation of love, part of God’s vision for the church and the world. The unspoken corollary being, it is not for you, queer person in the pew. This blessing, this act of God’s grace, is not for you - your love is unacceptable.
Even writing that down explicitly is upsetting.
Yes, I see.
My previous post could be construed as being rather frivolous, for which I apologise.
The entire service is the dedication of a *sexual* relationship before God, ideally producing children. This is how unmarked categories work. The spoken part is a blessed consummation of love, part of God’s vision for the church and the world. The unspoken corollary being, it is not for you, queer person in the pew. This blessing, this act of God’s grace, is not for you - your love is unacceptable.
Even writing that down explicitly is upsetting.
This is interesting, and I wonder how much Christian stuff is predicated on this. I have no idea, if heterosexuality is a kind of baseline, but probably.
The entire service is the dedication of a *sexual* relationship before God, ideally producing children. This is how unmarked categories work. The spoken part is a blessed consummation of love, part of God’s vision for the church and the world. The unspoken corollary being, it is not for you, queer person in the pew. This blessing, this act of God’s grace, is not for you - your love is unacceptable.
Even writing that down explicitly is upsetting.
I see what you mean. But being open to reproduction (where possible) is a sine qua non of RC theology of marriage to the extent that a previously expressed unwillingness to reproduce nullifies the sacrament. If and when change happens it will need a pretty root and branch rethink of the whole shebang.
What I mean, is that a marriage service is by its nature a sacred rite built around sexuality and gender. So to say that RC churches don’t talk about sexuality and gender from the pulpit is to miss the point that they do so every time they talk about marriage, and every time they talk about parenthood, and every time they use metaphors and similes based on these things.
The heteronormativity is taken for granted - it literally “goes without saying” that the marriage is heterosexual, the parenting they wish to promote is heterosexual, the love they consider sacred is heterosexual. Of course this is not unique to the Roman Catholic Church, but not seeing it is like a fish being unaware of water.
Here’s my take on it: I don’t see the matrimonial formula being as “sexual” at all, and I was married with RC rites. In the official disconnected-from-reality RC view it is all about reproduction and the sexual act is almost incidental to the proceedings.
I've been in a suburban C of E church for many years and I've never been aware (in this local church) of anything that might be misogynistic or homophobic. But reading the OP it troubles me that it is there in the C of E hierarchy. So should I stay in the C of E at all? And if not, then where can be relied upon to not have such glaring faults?
Indeed, although I am myself rather a long way away from the nearest Scottish Episcopal Church!
Still, I tune in each Sunday to A Certain Church in Edinburgh, which is well-known for its inclusivity (as well as its thoughtful homilies, excellent choir, and well-ordered *traditional-style* liturgy).
In all fairness, the C of E does encompass a wide variety of views, and it's at least a step forward to see and hear a few senior bishops being more inclusive in their views. A long way to go yet, though.
ISTM that some Cathedrals are much more inclusive than some parish churches - St Albans Abbey springs to mind.
justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1549/Marriage_1549.htm. I had a colleague who used to describe to our wedding prep couples that basically, this view of marriage was 'God acknowledges that people are basically horny sinners who need a clear mechanism to control them and their sexual urges; so if you want to have sex, this is the way to do it and keep on God's good side.' It wasn't his view; he didn't like the 1549 service, but we used to offer it to couples as one of the options they were free to choose. I always had a chuckle at the phrase that marriage was a 'remedy for sin' (meaning sexual sin).
Language that made it into the 1662 BCP but, intriguingly, was bowlderised for the 1928 proposed CofE BCP and excised entirely from the 1912 and 1929 Scottish BCPs. The American church seems to have ditched all three from their first BCP. I think I have heard the 1662 version used "in anger" (so to speak), though I think the priest was more amused by the brides who chose to promise to obey their husbands.
The (C of E) vicar at the church where Mrs V and I chose to get married said he would only allow the ceremony in his church if she would 'promise to obey'! So she did -but can't say she ever has 😅
The (C of E) vicar at the church where Mrs V and I chose to get married said he would only allow the ceremony in his church if she would 'promise to obey'! So she did -but can't say she ever has 😅
Where do these 18th C throwbacks come from and how do they get accepted for ordination?
It may depend upon how long ago (*ahem*) Mr and Mrs Vole were joined together in holy matrimony.
The 1662 Prayer Book definitely has the woman promising to *obey* her husband, but the liturgical reforms of the 60s and 70s allowed the word to be omitted, presumably at the woman's request...maybe the Voles' vicar did not approve of the changes being made .
This applies today in the still-authorised traditional-language Series One, but the contemporary-language service in Common Worship does not mention *obey* at all.
The (C of E) vicar at the church where Mrs V and I chose to get married said he would only allow the ceremony in his church if she would 'promise to obey'! So she did -but can't say she ever has 😅
Where do these 18th C throwbacks come from and how do they get accepted for ordination?
More critical is 'when' because that might explain 'why'.
There was quite a widespread clerical fear back in the day when 'all services were 1662' that if they didn't comply with the 1662 form of marriage, the wedding might be void. It was mixed up much more with arguments about the 1928 prayer book, whether and how illegal it was and the status of its Communion Service. 1928 also contained a marriage service that some clergy were using, but if the 1928 Communion Service was illegal, it was argued that the 1928 marriage service also didn't 'take'. The point was never argued in the courts, which is quite surprising as if sound, it would have provided grounds for an annulment rather than a divorce.
The Common Worship form of marriage is fairly flexible, but there's still a risk that a celebrant who is too gung ho or too compliant to a couples' wishes to leave out bits they don't like, could render the marriage void as distinct from merely irregular. It's still the case that a church marriage, to be valid must be according to the forms and usage of the Church of England. That means either the 1662 book or within the range of the permitted options in Common Worship. There are now no other possibilities.
I very much doubt God considers it invalid if it doesn’t follow the exact rules laid down by the church. I don't get why people get so het up about this sort of thing.
I very much doubt God considers it invalid if it doesn’t follow the exact rules laid down by the church. I don't get why people get so het up about this sort of thing.
That isn't the point. If a marriage is void, then whatever God or the other party thinks about it, either spouse can get out of it, any children might be illegitimate and if it's void rather than voidable, there may be no power for a court to make any financial provisions.
I very much doubt God considers it invalid if it doesn’t follow the exact rules laid down by the church. I don't get why people get so het up about this sort of thing.
I don't know His mind, but the real question is the civil consequence of a void ceremony. Even here, a marriage must be performed by an authorised celebrant (either civil or religious) and the parties must make to each other a declaration that "I call upon the persons here present to witness that I, A.B. ( or C.D.), take thee, C.D. ( or A.B.), to be my lawful wedded wife ( or husband, or spouse)" or words to that effect (and you'd be mad not to follow this exact wording and add to it any special words you'd like).
Has it ever happened that a marriage has been declared void because someone raised down the line questions about how well the vicar stuck to the rubrics?
As long as the legal bits are complied with (there are 3 of them I think = confirmation of ability to marry, vows, declaration of marriage) then its legal. It matters not if anything else is changed, it's simply denominational window dressing.
I haven't heard of a marriage being void due to mistakes in liturgy - I have seen a close run thing with timing. A 5.30 pm service and a late bride meant a very quick service before the cut off of 6 pm
Has it ever happened that a marriage has been declared void because someone raised down the line questions about how well the vicar stuck to the rubrics?
Not as far as I know. However, I'm not an expert in this. When I said 'back in the day' I was talking about fifty odd years ago, and clergy who had been trained twenty years before that. Besides, the 'obey' was relatively incidental. The real issue that underlay it was about whether a wedding conducted according to the 'illegal' 1928 prayer book was valid.
The main issues now I think would be whether changing anything in the two 'take' bits, replacing the vows with some sort of Valentine's Day card guff, omitting or changing either of the authorised Prefaces and omitting the declaration about impediments could mean the wedding is not in accordance with the services authorised by law, and therefore arguably illegal. If the couple want to put in any soppy stuff about the sunlight or how lovely they find each other, that's got to be additional to the vows and not instead of them.
If the couple want to put in any soppy stuff about the sunlight or how lovely they find each other, that's got to be additional to the vows and not instead of them.
Exactly. All that a valid ceremony requires is:
a. An authorised celebrant, either religious or lay.
b. A couple free to marry; and
c. Use of the words described in the legislation as "sufficient".
You can have the witnesses doing the can-can etc should you want, but you must follow these very simple requirements.
If the couple want to put in any soppy stuff about the sunlight or how lovely they find each other, that's got to be additional to the vows and not instead of them.
Exactly. All that a valid ceremony requires is:
a. An authorised celebrant, either religious or lay.
b. A couple free to marry; and
c. Use of the words described in the legislation as "sufficient".
You can have the witnesses doing the can-can etc should you want, but you must follow these very simple requirements.
Fixed quoting code. BroJames, Purgatory Host
With regard to “c,” where I live, any words, even the soppy ones, are sufficient as long as they express consent to take one another as spouses.
With regard to “a,” an authorized celebrant is not required if the ceremony is in accordance a recognized mode of solemnization of any religious group (such as the Friends) or of a recognized Indian Nation or Tribe.
"I call upon the persons here present to witness that I, A.B. ( or C.D.), take thee, C.D. ( or A.B.), to be my lawful wedded wife ( or husband, or spouse)"
or to like effect. A friend who became a civil celebrant said that her group was taught always to use the statutory words to avoid any debates in the future about the validity of the marriage.
Ministers etc of religion (and the definition of a minister is very wide) are authorised celebrants. Those you mention would be included.
All that may be the case where you are, @Gee D, but in the US, marriage laws can and do vary from state, and they are different from laws in England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Australian states.
There are no “statutory words” in the state where I live, and as I said, an authorized celebrant isn’t necessarily required either.
We may be, but thanks for your additional bits of information. Marriage laws used vary between States, but for some time (I think 1961 off the top of my head) have been national.
Well, we've had our answer from the House of Bishops today : Yes ... but No ... but We value you all ... but No marriage ... but We'll offer prayers of thanksgiving ... but Clergy can opt out. In other words the pointed-hatted ones are recommending officially sanctioned hypocrisy: we don't approve of your union ... but we'll bless it anyway.
On average CofE churches conduct about one wedding per year. This is hardly a national problem, painful thought it is to those individuals concerned. People have already voted with their feet.
Hmm. I don't doubt what @Alan29 says, but there are numerous churches which are popular wedding venues - the parish next to Our Place has a picturesque mediaeval church, and at one time was hosting so many weddings that the Vicar had to call on other clergy to assist her, not only with the pastoral work, but also with the services themselves (mostly on Saturdays).
I don't know if she was ever asked to bless a same-sex partnership, though.
Well the attempted PR coup of money from Queens Anne Bounty being divvid out has rather fallen flat with this news. When will the CofE finally catch on that people aren't that gullible
My point was, of course, that there still a few Anglican churches which are popular for weddings - quite how the clergy deal with requests (if any) for same-sex blessings, I know not. *Unofficially* might be the answer...
My point was, of course, that there still a few Anglican churches which are popular for weddings - quite how the clergy deal with requests (if any) for same-sex blessings, I know not. *Unofficially* might be the answer...
If you believe his reasoning, it appears to be the former with regard to the latter.
I also forgot the third option: cowardice in pretending that it's other people's bigotry he's pandering to rather than his own. In other words, why not both?
Is what the CofE offering to queer couples essentially what they offered to His Majesty when he married Her Majesty, the Queen Consort. I seem to recall that our gracious Lord Charles was not married in Church, but at city hall, and their union blessed at Church.
Is what the CofE offering to queer couples essentially what they offered to His Majesty when he married Her Majesty, the Queen Consort. I seem to recall that our gracious Lord Charles was not married in Church, but at city hall, and their union blessed at Church.
No, because the CofE accepts that their majesties are married.
Comments
http://www.catholicweddinghelp.com/topics/text-rite-of-marriage-mass.htm
Even writing that down explicitly is upsetting.
Yes, I see.
My previous post could be construed as being rather frivolous, for which I apologise.
This is interesting, and I wonder how much Christian stuff is predicated on this. I have no idea, if heterosexuality is a kind of baseline, but probably.
I see what you mean. But being open to reproduction (where possible) is a sine qua non of RC theology of marriage to the extent that a previously expressed unwillingness to reproduce nullifies the sacrament. If and when change happens it will need a pretty root and branch rethink of the whole shebang.
The heteronormativity is taken for granted - it literally “goes without saying” that the marriage is heterosexual, the parenting they wish to promote is heterosexual, the love they consider sacred is heterosexual. Of course this is not unique to the Roman Catholic Church, but not seeing it is like a fish being unaware of water.
And the Scottish Episcopal Church. And the Methodist Church of Great Britain.
Still, I tune in each Sunday to A Certain Church in Edinburgh, which is well-known for its inclusivity (as well as its thoughtful homilies, excellent choir, and well-ordered *traditional-style* liturgy).
In all fairness, the C of E does encompass a wide variety of views, and it's at least a step forward to see and hear a few senior bishops being more inclusive in their views. A long way to go yet, though.
ISTM that some Cathedrals are much more inclusive than some parish churches - St Albans Abbey springs to mind.
Where do these 18th C throwbacks come from and how do they get accepted for ordination?
The 1662 Prayer Book definitely has the woman promising to *obey* her husband, but the liturgical reforms of the 60s and 70s allowed the word to be omitted, presumably at the woman's request...maybe the Voles' vicar did not approve of the changes being made
This applies today in the still-authorised traditional-language Series One, but the contemporary-language service in Common Worship does not mention *obey* at all.
Trinity, Bristol, if memory serves.
There was quite a widespread clerical fear back in the day when 'all services were 1662' that if they didn't comply with the 1662 form of marriage, the wedding might be void. It was mixed up much more with arguments about the 1928 prayer book, whether and how illegal it was and the status of its Communion Service. 1928 also contained a marriage service that some clergy were using, but if the 1928 Communion Service was illegal, it was argued that the 1928 marriage service also didn't 'take'. The point was never argued in the courts, which is quite surprising as if sound, it would have provided grounds for an annulment rather than a divorce.
The Common Worship form of marriage is fairly flexible, but there's still a risk that a celebrant who is too gung ho or too compliant to a couples' wishes to leave out bits they don't like, could render the marriage void as distinct from merely irregular. It's still the case that a church marriage, to be valid must be according to the forms and usage of the Church of England. That means either the 1662 book or within the range of the permitted options in Common Worship. There are now no other possibilities.
I don't know His mind, but the real question is the civil consequence of a void ceremony. Even here, a marriage must be performed by an authorised celebrant (either civil or religious) and the parties must make to each other a declaration that "I call upon the persons here present to witness that I, A.B. ( or C.D.), take thee, C.D. ( or A.B.), to be my lawful wedded wife ( or husband, or spouse)" or words to that effect (and you'd be mad not to follow this exact wording and add to it any special words you'd like).
Over 75% of weddings these days are civil.
I haven't heard of a marriage being void due to mistakes in liturgy - I have seen a close run thing with timing. A 5.30 pm service and a late bride meant a very quick service before the cut off of 6 pm
The main issues now I think would be whether changing anything in the two 'take' bits, replacing the vows with some sort of Valentine's Day card guff, omitting or changing either of the authorised Prefaces and omitting the declaration about impediments could mean the wedding is not in accordance with the services authorised by law, and therefore arguably illegal. If the couple want to put in any soppy stuff about the sunlight or how lovely they find each other, that's got to be additional to the vows and not instead of them.
Exactly. All that a valid ceremony requires is:
a. An authorised celebrant, either religious or lay.
b. A couple free to marry; and
c. Use of the words described in the legislation as "sufficient".
You can have the witnesses doing the can-can etc should you want, but you must follow these very simple requirements.
Fixed quoting code. BroJames, Purgatory Host
With regard to “a,” an authorized celebrant is not required if the ceremony is in accordance a recognized mode of solemnization of any religious group (such as the Friends) or of a recognized Indian Nation or Tribe.
"I call upon the persons here present to witness that I, A.B. ( or C.D.), take thee, C.D. ( or A.B.), to be my lawful wedded wife ( or husband, or spouse)"
or to like effect. A friend who became a civil celebrant said that her group was taught always to use the statutory words to avoid any debates in the future about the validity of the marriage.
Ministers etc of religion (and the definition of a minister is very wide) are authorised celebrants. Those you mention would be included.
(Thanks to BroJames for fixing quoting code).
There are no “statutory words” in the state where I live, and as I said, an authorized celebrant isn’t necessarily required either.
More deja vu Vicar?
I don't know if she was ever asked to bless a same-sex partnership, though.
https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/typical-c-of-e-church-held-just-one-wedding-last-year
My point was, of course, that there still a few Anglican churches which are popular for weddings - quite how the clergy deal with requests (if any) for same-sex blessings, I know not. *Unofficially* might be the answer...
Unofficially sounds about right.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/20/gay-priest-church-of-england-civil-marriage
Ah, cowardice or bigotry. How do you tell?
If you believe his reasoning, it appears to be the former with regard to the latter.
I also forgot the third option: cowardice in pretending that it's other people's bigotry he's pandering to rather than his own. In other words, why not both?
No, because the CofE accepts that their majesties are married.