FRIDAY POTPOURRI: IT IS MY GREAT HONOR TO INTRODUCE TO YOU FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME

Except for some clean up, we’ve pretty much married our couple now.  There is not much official left save for the consummatum est.  (Terrible pun there.  I apologize.)  There is one rubric, however, that confounds me and I’ve not heard it addressed.  If there is a liturgist out there I would love to hear from you.

Everything about a rubric is there on purpose; the order of the wording, the inclusion, the detail of the word chosen (may vs must etc.)  So why does it state that, at a matrimonial Mass, “The bride and bridegroom, their parents, witnesses, and relatives may receive Communion under both kinds”?  Why not say all Catholics present may receive Communion under both kinds?  Is it truly limited (I bet not - or at least nobody is saying that.)  I doubt we will have people check their category against the program to make sure they fit into one of the privileged ranks.  Curious.

Thus we bring to an end this series on Friday Potpourri.  Nothing has come across my radar screen to start new as of yet.  Perhaps by next Friday God will provide something - but just in case, if you have an idea . . . pass it along!

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH WORDS TO SAY I LOVE YOU. OH WAIT. THERE ARE.

Let’s say that it is your vacation.  It is one thing to interrupt your vacation to answer a short text, it is another to be interrupted by a three hour video conference call.  Secretly you are dying a slow and terrible death.

So it is one thing to have little ceremonies added to the nuptial Mass.  But the part of the Catholic brain that has not shut down at Mass, that is at least aware of the flow that should be happening, and that is looking forward to Communion, is suddenly thrown off track by a long, long nuptial blessing.  You know who loves this prayer?  The moms and the priest.  Everyone else has just run into a brick wall and is too concerned about why they are no longer moving forward.  

Well, I am exaggerating.  Maybe I just don’t know how to do it well.  And often I have a couple looking at me with dreamy looks in their eyes over what is being said about them.  Maybe it is my attitude.  About half way through I am thinking, “Gads, am I still talking?”

But it is a beautiful prayer.  And though now it is better translated, even ICEL did not strip it down in length during the post Vatican II translation and they were not adverse to slashing and burning.  AND AS IS OFTEN THE MISTAKE it should be remembered (even by me!) that the people present are not the ones being addressed at this point - it is our Father.  We are going to our Father and asking for a very specific blessing on two of His children who are being united.  Other than to remind us of what is going on and to agree, the job of those who are there is to offer with the celebrant the words being spoken to our common Father.  He is certainly the cause of the day in so many ways, the King present and begged for a blessing, the eternal Father Who loves and blesses His children.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: THE AWFUL CONSEQUENCE OF CONSISTENCY

So I made the mistake of saying that I would talk about presenting a flower to Mary during a wedding ceremony.  Probably should not have.  But here we go . . . 

For those who do not know what I am talking about, (I thought everybody knew what this was since it has been such a common experience in my Catholic life,) during the wedding ceremony, a bride, with a particular devotion to the Blessed Virgin, will process to the shrine (statue) of Mary at some point during the nuptial Mass, offer a prayer of petition, and as a devotion, leave a flower (usually a single, white rose) which would be much the same thing as lighting a candle.  The only more recent change that I have noticed is that almost without fail, the groom now attends to this devotion also.  (When I was a kid, it seemed that only the bride went.)

There does not seem to be an allowance for this practice in either the new or the old rubrics for the nuptial ceremonies.  This is a private devotion being done in a public forum and as such is “stuck on” to the Mass. 

99.99% of the time I am adamantly opposed to sticking things on to the Mass.  The requests received for private things to be done at Mass come in often.  Private devotions, talks, presentations, other ceremonies, blessings, many of which are not not only not mentioned but expressly forbidden by the rubrics are often presented as something needed to be done at Mass.  The two most pressing reasons given for the necessity of doing such a thing is 1) it would be beneficial/meaningful to everybody and 2) it concerns the whole community and this is when the whole community is gathered.  As for the first concern, having it Mass often makes more people angry than happy and the second is a bait and switch.  The people are there for the Mass.  If whatever else is going on is really important, then you don’t win them over by forcing them to sit through it.  (How happy are you to turn on Public Radio during a fund drive?)

ALL THAT BEING SAID, my liturgical heart says that this devotional as it is often practiced during the Mass should go the same way as the unity candle - that is - snuffed out!  But I am weak where Mary is concerned and unlike a unity candle ceremony, this devotion to Mary is something that the bride and groom can (and should if they are going to subject the congregation to this private devotion at their wedding) continue throughout their lives.  It is also something in which the congregation can at least tangentially participate.  

Further, it can take place in a way that doesn’t really interfere with the rubrics of the Mass.  For example, while the music continues after the reception of Communion, what is to stop the bride and her groom from walking over to Mary, placing a rose, and asking for her intercession in their married lives?  

What do you think?

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: LET ME MAKE THIS PERFECTLY CLEAR . . . AGAIN.

If you have been reading this blog for awhile, you know I have difficulties with the unity candle.  (We do not use it at St. Sebastian.)  Among other things, as we have been discovering over these few months, we have spent so much time and care making sure that everybody is aware, informed, and is consenting to what is taking place.  To whit:

1. Before the ceremony, the couple is catechized and asked both verbally and through written statement that they are knowledgable about what is going on and that they freely choose to do it.
2. Banns are published to the community for three weeks informing them of what is about to happen (and giving them a chance to weigh in if they feel so inclined.)
3. The wedding bells are rung.
4. It is announced that this couple is about to marry.
5. They publicly state their intentions to get married with knowledge and freedom.
6. They exchange their vows.
7. It is announced that they exchanged their vows.
8. If people still don’t get it they exchange rings.
9. Often they kiss now as a further sign.

Then, for some inexplicable reason, some people feel a need to put on a piece of theater whereby, just incase somebody didn’t quite get what was going on, they take two candles, light one candle together with them, and then obliterate the light from the original candles.  (I have lots of problems with the symbolism, particularly at the Mass, with this.)

NOW, isn’t interesting that the new rite for marriage has new options for those entering into matrimony, but the unity candle is conspicuously absent?  Actually, I am so happy that they Church did not make it an official rite.  There would just be a ton of verbiage added to it.  “Now, bride and groom take the candle of their single selves, a light that has burned since their baptism, symbolizing the life of BLAH BLAH BLAH. . .

Read more HERE.

But there are some newly codified options but I doubt, unless our neighborhood changes dramatically, they will be of much use at this parish.  The first option takes the place of the exchange of rings.  It is the rite of the blessing and exchange of arras or coins.  These are used primarily with those of a heritage and practice from Spain, Latin American countries, and the Philippines.

Another addition is the blessing of the wedding veil or the lazo.  The lazo is a decorative chain placed around the bride and groom’s shoulder.  The veil would be placed on the bride’s head with part of it placed on the groom’s shoulder.  This would take place just prior to the nuptial blessing in those places where this is custom.

"Of course," some of my liturgist friends would say, "what does this say about taking a rose to Mary?"  

*sigh*  More on that in two weeks.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: THE MOMENT WE HAVE ALL BEEN WAITING (AND WAITING) FOR

“Fifi, I think that you are the grooviest girl ever.  You make me so happy that I have decided that every day I want to wake up and see your beautiful face.  So I ask you to be my wife, like, unto forever.”  

These are vows that you wont hear at a Catholic wedding.  We would consider these better for a toast at the reception perhaps.  There are some specific things that constitute a marriage in the Catholic Church that would vary from the state requirements or that of other faiths or even the intentions of the couple.  That is why we had all this brouhaha making absolutely sure (as much as possible) that this couple knows what they are getting into.  Let’s take a quick look at the vows:

There are two sets of vows put forward in the wedding ceremony.  Each of these two sets of vows can be exchanged four different ways:  1) They may repeat them after the priest. 2) They may give consent through questions (the priest asks, “Do you take . . .” to which they respond, “I do.”)  3) They may memorize them (I have had only 2 couples do this in 18 years) or 4) Read them from a prompter.

The first set of vows is the “all the days of my life.”  Two minor changes were made.  The first is “I will be true to you” has been changed to, “I will faithful to you”.  The second is making the vow a single sentence instead of two sentences. 

The second set of vows is the “till death do us part.”  I like these ones better but the vast majority of couples do not.  There is one added, clarifying phrase.  Just before death doing them part was added, “”to love and to cherish.” 

There are a couple of interesting things to note about these vows.  (Probably a lot more - but these two will do.)  The first is that the priest in the Roman Rite is not the celebrant of the sacrament of matrimony, the couples are the ministers.  The priest is the official witness of the Church.  Way, way back in history one didn’t need the priest to get married.  (There are some extremely rare exceptions to this day that this are still possible - but none of you will qualify I dare say.)  Almost everything the Church does is because at some point there were abuses.  So now we just say that you must have a priest as a witness to the exchange of vows.

Secondly, there is nothing contained in the vows stating what it is that you expect from the other person.  That would steer us toward a contractual marriage and an exchange of services (such as one receives from the state) rather than an exchange of persons making it a covenantal marriage.  You can demand services from someone (a contract) but you can’t demand that the other person give themselves to you (a covenant.)  We enter in to marriage to serve.  If both persons are true to the covenant, then, of course you will be loved in return.  And our goal is to have two persons radically engaged in ministering to and loving each other (not trying to draw love out of the other person.)  It is our model for civility in general: That we be 1.2 billion people engaged in being of service to each other rather than being 1.2 billion people demanding to be served by everybody else.

Note that about marriage - that it serves as a model for the community.  It is also why marriage belongs to the whole community, not just the couple getting married (and why it is important for you to celebrate your 25th, 50th, 60th anniversaries publicly.  Your witness is needed!)  It is why we ring the steeple bells before a nuptial ceremony:  It is a public event.  And as the couple is to be a witness to love in the world, the community is to be a support to those engaged in living out their vows.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: RIGHTS

Enough with all of the preparations, clarifying of conditions and examination of intentions.  Let’s get on with the actual wedding already.

The priest says, “Since it is your intention to enter the covenant of Holy Matrimony (almost asking the question one more time this is your intention isn’t it?) join your right hands and declare your consent before God and His Church.”

Did you ever ask yourself, “Self, what’s up with the joining of right hands?”  Well I have.  Why not join both hands?  Why not left in right as they stand next to each other?  Why not join left hands since that is the hand on which you will wear your wedding ring?  (More on that later.)  Why join hands at all?  Why not just stare at each other?  

So I tried to do a little research for you.  (This first part is my opinion - nothing that I discovered about Catholic symbolism.)  I suppose some of it is that it is further and intense clarification.  It seems more than with any other sacrament, we have a desire to be extremely precise with matrimony.  “Who is this person going to marry?  Why the one whose right hand is held.  Can’t mistake that one.  That guy is definitely not accidentally getting married to the lady in the front row.”

There is a lawyer in the parish who joshes me about being so precise about things.  Even with the Eucharistic Prayer, I am very conscious about making eye contact with the species that is about to be consecrated.  (This is not in the rubrics.)  So when consecrating the wine, at some point I will glance at all of the chalices on the alter.  I just find this mindful.  I am not intending to consecrate the loaf bread you happened to bring in on your stop at Acme No. 1 before coming to Mass.  So could this holding of right hands have this precision in mind?  Everything the Church does seems to always clarify something that someone in the past has misunderstood.

The little bit that I could find is that it could possibly have pagan origins.  This will send some people over the edge.  “See that?!?!  The Catholics are doing something that pagans used to do!  That proves they are following Satan!”  As if a pagan cannot be baptized for the glory of God.  Not everything pagan was evil or bad.  They had some awesome ideas.  I mean, ancient paganism (not the knock off excuse for paganism modern forms are) gave way to Christianity.  These guys were not completely off track.  

But I digress.

It was part of more ancient ceremonies that hands were bound.  The hand clasp is an ancient sign that an oath is being engaged between two parties - marriage being one of them.  This is the serious moment.  We are done talking and negotiating.  It is obvious that the couple is aware of what is about to take place with this formal gesture in front of these witnesses.  Even if you cannot hear it, you know that this is the moment of truth.  It is the right hand that grasps the hand of the other, not a weapon or any other such thing.  You are the one to whom I am about to give myself - in a way that has been done since even before Christianity though now the gesture is baptized for us.  This seemingly inconsequential action is so ancient, so recognizable, so ingrained into our culture and humanity, is so heavy with tradition, that it is even announced, “Join your right hands and declare your consent before God and His Church.”