Last Saturday at St. Francis de Sales parish in Holland, Michigan, those gathered for the wedding of a young couple, Ben Gerhardt and Cassandra Howe, witnessed and participated in an interesting variation in the rite. Following the vows, the couple washed each other’s feet and then the feet of their new in-laws. The mandatum continued as other members of the wedding party and guests came forward.
The music performed was “Mandatum” by Peter Latona, published by GIA.
Video of the mandatum portion of the celebration is below and also linked here. The mandatum begins at about 44:00.
Comments
70 responses to “Mandatum at a Wedding”
I like it! We didn’t do it at our wedding, but we did choose John 13:1-17 for the gospel reading. Rather more powerful than a unity candle…
This is not permitted by the liturgical books. This kind of DIY liturgical business is very damaging to the Holy Mass and the good of souls. There is just ever more fragmentation and disintegration of the Holy Liturgy.
@Peter Murphy – comment #2:
Is Unity Candle permitted in the liturgical books? Or visit to the shrine of the Blessed Mother?
awr
@Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #3:
The visit to Our Lady’s altar is done after Mass. Or at least it should be. If we do the Rites ‘right’ we don’t need to add novelties. I always say, the more novelties, the less faith, just as I also say, here in Ireland, the bigger the cars and dresses at 1st Holy Communions, the less faith there is. It is a real disgrace what happens here in Ireland at 1st Holy Communions and increasingly at weddings. Mammon as God, celebrated in a DIY ‘liturgy’. I guess it’s what the people want so who am I to judge?
@Peter Murphy – comment #2:
Don’t worry, before long there won’t be any more weddings in Catholic churches. The number of Catholic church weddings is in rapid decline, as even church-going couples opt to get married on the beach or at the winery. One of the reasons commonly cited for this is the ability to plan their own ceremony, music, etc. without all the rules and regulations. But at least then the temple police can relax knowing that they have stamped out fragmentation and disintegration of the Holy Liturgy.
@Scott Pluff – comment #6:
The problem is not the availability of DIY wedding ceremonies in other venues, nor is the solution to this problem to turn churches into DIY Wedding Chapels.
@Scott Pluff – comment #6:
Gosh, I wish we had some temple police.
@Peter Murphy – comment #2:
“God is not afraid of new things. That is why he is continuously surprising us, opening our hearts and guiding us in unexpected ways.” — Pope Francis
>>Is Unity Candle permitted in the liturgical books?
No.
—
I wouldn’t describe this as “an interesting variation in the rite.”
It is an innovation. Something new and different.
Maybe that’s bad, or good, or illicit, or tolerable.
Maybe it’s good in theory, but was actually bad in practice (like having a different person read each day of the Genesis reading).
Maybe it’s bad in theory, but good in practice (like organ alternatim).
Good, bad, or indifferent – and those are worthwhile conversations – I think its either sloppy or disingenuous to refer to this as a “variation,” a word that suggests making use of one more available options.
@Adam Wood – comment #5: You are the only person to use the phrase “an interesting variation in the rite” here. We need to get back to basics folks. Like standing faithful to the Deposit of Faith and all the approved rites. Vatican II said nobody, priest or layman, may tinker with the Sacred Liturgy, yet there are many ‘experts’ in precisely that. Scott: Temple police slur is not really relevant here to one who cares deeply about the unity and sacrality of the Holy Liturgy. Ad hominem attack always implies at least a sub-conscious realisation of a lost argument.
@Peter Murphy – comment #9:
>>You are the only person to use the phrase “an interesting variation in the rite” here.
Not even remotely accurate. I was quoting the original post, which called it exactly that. And which I object to.
@Peter Murphy – comment #9:
I think ‘temple police’ is an apt term.
How do you suppose we got from the Last Supper to the Tridentine Mass? Someone just went ahead and started genuflecting, though it wasn’t in any approved books. Then someone started elevating the host. Then someone started elevating the chalice. And on and on, down to most every last detail. It all happened because of local creativity which spread and eventually became official.
@Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #11:
Exactly. I can just imagine the blog rants when the radicals started violating the Council of Nicea and kneeling for the Eucharistic prayer.
“20. Since there are some who kneel on Sunday and during the season of Pentecost, this holy synod decrees that, so that the same observances may be maintained in every diocese, one should offer one’s prayers to the Lord standing.”
@Fr Lou Meiman – comment #45:
At least in English that sounds like a suggestion, not a requirement. It also sounds a lot like the norm to stand for Communion, which the CDW says is nonbinding. I may be mistaken but I seem to recall a legal principle that liturgical norms are nonbinding for the laity, or at least norms concerning posture.
Love it. Love it. Love it.
And here’s why: The footwashing is one of the most powerful liturgical symbols we have of service, forgiveness, and love. All of these things are essential within a marriage. Within John’s gospel, it is situated in a very important context. I have always been struck by the fact that the footwashing included Judas. It was done before he left; Jesus knew who would betray him, and still he stooped to wash the betrayer’s feet.
Talk about forgiveness.
Additionally, the footwashing exists as a liturgical event. We do it on Holy Thursday. Unlike lighting a unity candle or a visit to a Marian altar, shrine, or statue (which I’ve seen in the context of the wedding Mass, not after it), there’s liturgical precedence for the footwashing. If one is going to argue against the mandatum at a wedding, I’d say the better way to do so would be to argue that it’s more appropriate for initiation. (And evidence exists that certain communities used the footwashing as an intiation rite.)
Still, I’d include the footwashing in my wedding in a heartbeat.
I’ve seen it at weddings before. Very moving.
To Peter: what about lighting of the Paschal Candle, renewal of baptismal vows, singing of the Litany of the Saints? It’s DIY. But approved in other countries. As Fr. Anthony suggests, how do we know the mandatum won’t be approved in 3-30 years?
Frankly, I’m still stuck on the restoration of the Gloria.
That aside, accretions mentioned above and some not (the blending of sand…..the folding in of kids from prior marriages….cultural customs….even the veneration of BVM (simple an excuse to have the Schubert sung) seem to me to detract and subtract from the potency of the matrimonial rites as they are so constituted.
Now (?) we’re talking about a mini-mandatum, which in a marital context is more than apropos, BUT at home!
Would that celebrants/presiders reflected in their involvement with couples that it is they, the couple, who are enactors of the marital sacrament, and not the big robed Burt Parks and his hand held wireless mic!
I could die happy then.
What a remarkable and beautiful witness! Precise and note-perfect compliance with “all approved rites” is no guarantee of good liturgy or effective prayer. Perhaps we would do well to listen more attentively to his words, “For I have given you an example; that you should do as I have done to you” (Jn 13:15). Jesus demonstrates an amazing “innovation” (definitely “unapproved” at that time; note the response of Peter), and we have minimized its potential by lack of use and, historically, a sad focus on exclusion (i.e, washing “only” the feet of men).
We are who we are because the Lord was willing to break the rules (yes, even the rules of prayer). Rubrics did not direct the way that Jesus proclaimed the Good News of the kingdom. How he witnessed the love of the Father is what has transformed hearts. This young couple have entered into the sacrament of marriage in an extraordinary and inspiring way. Congratulations!
I encountered this not long ago at the wedding of two friends–Methodist pastor and her husband–and thought it quite beautiful. I’d be surprised to see it any time soon in a wedding mass, but were I to see it I’d be anything but scandalized.
We could read the liturgical documents and discover that, although there is an additional action in the liturgy, no rule is being violated. Historically, marriage and funerals are the major places where local custom and even innovation have been tolerated (sometimes even encouraged). Or in other words, they are – and have always been – rich sites for inculturation, and a clear exception to the general rule that people don’t add to the liturgy. This is clear from the Introduction to the Rite of Marriage, which is happily available online (I had to work a bit to find it): http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/Rites/Marriage.pdf
Both here and in Sacrosanctum concilium, we see a reference to local authorities for the preparation of localized “rituals” (i.e. books) and, particularly in the Introduction to the Rite of Marriage, a deference to local custom or the people’s practice in all but the exchange of consent and the blessing of the bride (the Roman elements considered essential). So no one need apply for an annulment on the grounds that their marriage isn’t sacramental because they visited the BVM shrine during the ceremony, and no one need worry that the inclusion of a Mandatum implies a lack of faith. I personally find them both more inspiring innovations, in the current context, than the white wedding dress (a reference to baptism that sadly leaves out the groom), seating the grandmothers, and the giving away of the bride.
[Edit to add: of course this doesn’t mean anything can be done or no one can be held to standards; it just means that the standards they’re held to aren’t “is it in the book or not”? Organic development, so often held to be a watchword, actually demands that things not in the book sometimes be done.]
I find this most refreshing. We should be celebrating the fact that this couple actually understands what christian marriage is really all about and expressed it in this simple yet powerful ritual. While not “on the books” it is certainly in “THE BOOK”(Bible). This couple, without words, was evangelizing to everyone in that church that day what true love is really all about. While not judging anyone, i am sure there were guests in that church who are christian in name only and were shocked to see this ritual at a wedding.
While we didn’t have the Mantatum at the liturgy, we did do this on our wedding night and continued this “tradition” each year on our wedding anniversary. Even as a liturgist, i never thought of doing it at the wedding liturgy. Kudos to this couple.
@joseph mangone – comment #18:
Is it “what christian (sic) marriage is really all about?” Is it not what Christian life is really all about. While that is clearly seen in the Mandatum on Holy Thursday, in this instance it becomes the (exclusive) domain/prerogative of the married… evidenced by the withdrawl of the officiant of the ceremony. In the end, a very confusing, contradictory, unnecessary inclusion.
Do the rites in their fullness, celebrate them appropriately, and there will be no need or room for any extra rituals or gimmicks.
@Dismas Bede – comment #20:
What Dismas said, which is generally beneficial to the believer.
@joseph mangone – comment #18:
Hey, what you two do on your anniversary (much less your wedding night!) is none of our business. 😉
I think it is beautiful having the couple wash each other’s feet. The thing I find irritating is the congregation being expected to go up too. At one point you see the bride trying to coax people up–I hate that kind of coercion at Mass. My parish expects everyone to get their feet washed on Holy Thursday and uses a certain amount of shame to make it happen. I don’t appreciate the shaming so I’ve stopped going to Holy Thursday liturgy. It becomes overly long and tedious, and the symbol looses its power. It becomes boring repetition–sort like a group rosary.
Sacrosanctum Concilium 22.3 says otherwise…. “Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.” If it’s not in the books, it isn’t to be done
@Ben Yanke – comment #24:
I sure hope nobody breaks the rules and washes women’s feet on Holy Thursday. Or refers to the “hostile inflexibility” or “traditionalists.” Or says that God is not afraid of new things. 🙂
@Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #25:
Do you still want to claim that you’re not an ultramontanist, Father? 😉
I sure hope nobody comes around who allows more than one version of a missal to be used.
@Stanislaus Kosala – comment #27:
We already have three!
@Ben Yanke – comment #24:
The temple police has spoken! Have you studied the proposed “new” Rite of Marriage? There needs to be room for legitimate adaptations. This has ALWAYS been the case, whether you can admit to it or not. Fr. Anthony brilliantly made that point above.
I think the concept of self-emptying service is a fantastic topic for the wedding celebration. Actually carrying it out like this doesn’t sit right with me though. Not something I’d be promoting at all.
@Sean Whelan – comment #26:
Having been there and being part of the decision to do it, I can attest that this came from this couple, and very much from their genuine spirituality. It wasn’t something we promoted. Their lives are dedicated to service to God’s people. It fit them very well.
It seems like a lovely witness, Phil, and there are always plenty of things that are in a wedding ceremony that aren’t written down in any book. What’s really interesting is which ones draw our attention, and why.
@Ben Yanke – comment #24:
There’s more than one relevant paragraph and document, Ben.
re #11
Fr. Anthony, you are right on. The development of liturgy has been and will be “organic” and from the “bottom up.” Thanks for the reminder.
The law is clear. This is not permissible. It’s not merely that this isn’t included as an option. It’s actually against the law. Ditto the unity candle and presentation of flowers to Mary if done within Mass. Pope Francis disregarded the rubrics in washing the feet of women. He can do that. He’s pope. Some here would have us all declare ourselves pope.
You can argue in favor of inculturation all you want. I would even join you in principle. But at least acknowledge that THIS is in violation of the law. And absent grave reason, we shouldn’t violate the law. There’s plenty of time before or after Mass for innovation.
I just got married 4 months ago in Phoenix, Arizona at Ss. Simon and Jude Cathedral. It was ad orientem and we had a fantastic choir! If any of you snowbirds are in town, I strongly encourage you to attend Mass at SSJ.
At any rate, instead of removing the garder from her thigh, which we found classless and inconsistent with our vows, I washed her feet at our reception. It was a very moving experience for us.
Aside from washing of the feet not being a prescribed ritual for a Nuptial Mass, it is important to remember that this sacred gesture only belongs to the priest on Holy Thursday and no other liturgy. The reason being is because this gesture is intimately connected to the priesthood and the institution of the Eucharist.
@Ryan Knight – comment #33:
Neither history nor Scripture support the assertion that the washing of feet is intimately connected to priesthood.
@Alexander Larkin – comment #46:
@Ryan Knight – comment #33:
Neither history nor Scripture support the assertion that the washing of feet is intimately connected to priesthood.
Correct. Peter Jeffery has done the impressive work in this area, showing the very wide and varied use of the mandatum in religious communities and cathedral chapters etc.
Wedding customs are encouraged in the praenotanda. I’m not sure the USCCB has ever asked the CDWDS for more than the second form of vows (To have and to hold”) for this country.
I’ve seen feet washed three times now. The first instance, the couple also requested the priest proclaim John 13:1-15 during the Liturgy of the Word.
I think the Temple Police are a bit excitable, and possibly envious here. They have also exaggerated their point. If the foot washing was done during the Gospel, or during the Eucharistic Prayer, they might have a point. But they might want to check how many times they tap their chest during the Confiteor or sign themselves before somebody else reads the Gospel.
Anybody reading up on the new introduction to this rite? What are they saying there?
@Todd Flowerday – comment #34:
I tap my chest thrice during the Confiteor because the rubrics don’t mention the number of times so I default to tradition. I sign myself once before the Gospel as GIRM 134 spells out. But either way, the laity have more leeway in their posture. The priest doesn’t have leeway in adding rites.
@John Mann – comment #35:
The Ordo Missae specifies one. Your “tradition” is a liturgical innovation, in the eyes of some.
Mandatum is not added. It already exists in the Roman Rite.
@Ian Coleman – comment #36:
Consider John 13, and it is a perfect expression of Jesus asking if we’ve understood what he has done for us. Then the mandate to do for others.
It is this sort of expression that strengthens marriage, not phantom campaigns against what other people are doing wrong.
@Todd Flowerday – comment #41:
No, the Missal doesn’t specify the number of breast strikes. So we can look to external sources for guidance.
Mandatum IS added to this liturgy. You can’t mix and match rites as you please.
@John Mann – comment #50:
The missal says once.
Lots of things are added, lawfully: the rite of acceptance into the catechumenate, the rite of farewell, etc.. Announcements. Collections for the support of the church.
@Todd Flowerday (#51): The Order of Mass says et, percutientes sibi pectus, dicunt (“And, striking their breast, they say”). That could be interpreted as once or three times. There does not seem to be a direction as to how many times one is to strike one’s breast, unlike in other places in the Order of Mass that give numerical directions, such as:
* Roman Canon and EPs II-IV in the relevant places: signat semel super panem et calicem simul (“He makes the Sign of the Cross once over the bread and chalice together”)
* After the Ecce Agnus Dei: Et una cum populo semel subdit: Domine, non sum dignus… (“And together with the people he adds once: Lord, I am not worthy…”)
* Blessing at the end of Pontifical Mass: ter signum crucis super populum faciens (“making the Sign of the Cross over the people three times…”)
@Matthew Hazell – comment #56:
Those are rubrics for clergy, not lay people.
@Todd Flowerday – comment #51:
“et, percutientes sibi pectus, dicunte”
“And, striking their breast, they say”
Where is the “once” you claim is specified?
@Todd Flowerday – comment #51:
Just because I can’t resist rabbit holes:
“percutientes sibi pectus” does not mean once and only once. Some will try to argue that the present active participle implies continues action. Too weak a stretch for me, but on a stronger basis the 1978 clarification simply asserted that one time was sufficient (“it does not seem, therefore, that anyone has to strike his breast three times”) without declaring the rubric means once to the exclusion of thrice.
More strictly on topic, though, even if thrice were contra legem it would not suffice for a meaningful tu quoque (meaningful, so to speak, since it is fallacious argument to justify any practice with a tu quoque) to say “you do something against the rubrics and so do I, so I guess we’re in the same boat.” My drum continues to resound – the presence of a community capable of receiving a law makes all the difference, so “wedding mandatum” and “three-strikes-Confiteor” might be the same thing, or they might not at all. We need an extra layer of analysis.
It seems to me to be the wrong symbol. After all, there’s nothing about the sacrament that relates the mandatum to the couple exclusively. Surely (after the vows have been exchanged) they should wash the feet of their guests. More flippantly, if it’s a symbol that the couple are exchanging exclusively with each other, then feet are not the organs that most obviously suggest themselves…!
In the introduction of ‘custom’ we must tread a path between the “temple police” and the “lone innovator,” since custom can only be instituted by a *community* capable of receiving a law. A flatly rigorist position against any and all deviation from the books would indeed ignore a legitimate role of custom praeter- and contra legem which was considered important to retain in the 1983 CIC. Yet most of what is being said here in defense of custom is conveying a facile understanding of the term as meaning, more or less, “deciding to do something not in the books.” The key point to remember about custom is that it still stands or falls in relation to the prohibition of SC 22, for it is impossible to introduce custom by any *individual*’s (or most small groups’) “own authority.” Only a community validly introduces custom, and then only if it is a certain sort of community, the type capable of receiving a law; while canonists may differ as to just which communities fall under that heading, it certainly excludes the possibility of a single cleric introducing a “custom” on his own say so (“I’ve got an idea of how to improve the liturgy so everyone has to follow my lead because I run this show”), and it also excludes individual families, which depend upon the existence of particular physical persons as opposed to some juridical organization or category (so “all 45 of my cousins agree this is a good idea” also doesn’t fly). Short of a whole parish coming together and expressing a real sort of approval for such an innovative practice, we would need at least some identifiable parish organization to collectively desire some modification of the liturgy (e.g., altar guild members will all employ this practice at their weddings). If more putative customs actually were canonically custom, the word wouldn’t have such a bad rap. As things are, ‘customs’ have too often been impositions of the few upon the many powerless to stop the innovation, hence the strong negative reactions they provoke.
@Aaron Sanders – comment #37:
There aren’t any procedures in canon law for making new customs. What ultimately establishes a custom is the passage of time, a minimum of thirty years of observing a practice.
No one calls together a parish town hall meeting and announces, “We’re going to take a vote today to introduce a new liturgical custom in our parish.” Rather, the introduction of a custom begins when a practice beyond the law or even contrary to it is initiated and no legitimate lawgiver puts a stop to it. But this still is not a custom until at least 30 years have elapsed. For a custom contrary to the law that means that folks will be ACTING AGAINST THE LAW for a minimum of thirty years. And our canonical tradition recognizes that folks can do that!
So, yes, even though SC 22.3 and other postconciliar liturgical documents enunciate the exceedingly important principle that “no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority,” the Church has a longstanding canonical tradition which says, “Yes, he or she can.”
@Fr. Ron Krisman – comment #39:
Are you implying that life in the Church is messy?
“I’m shocked, shocked…”
@Fr. Ron Krisman – comment #39:
I’ll give you that my “whole parish coming together” was misleading – I meant it as “achieving a more-or-less united will,” not as holding a plebiscite. People can express consent in all sorts of ways, including implicitly, but without some communal basis there is no such thing as custom, so unless you want to argue that practices forced upon unwilling communities are legitimate custom it would seem we must agree that the community receiving the law – which a single couple or that couple and one sympathetic priest cannot form – needs to consent to the imposition of the custom. We don’t know enough about this case to know whether such a consent exists.
What we do know for sure is that even if this same couple were to arrange for a renewal of exchange of rings within the context of Mass every single year for the next 30 years, no amount of footwashing performed during those Masses could make that a customary (and by *that* title legitimate) “sign of peace and love” within that rite. You simply can’t form a custom without a community (at least weakly juridical as opposed to simply physical) to receive it. So while it is true that things may attain a life of their own and eventually come to be desired by an actual community, it represents a certain degree of bad faith to do something without at least initial consultation to see if one’s pet innovation might ever have a *chance* of becoming customary. And until such a community exists to embrace the proposed change (which might happen by a community instantly and tacitly accepting something that had been foisted upon it without any consultation), it remains simply an act against the law.
@Aaron Sanders – comment #53:
Jesus loves outlaws, even the people who strike their chests three times instead of once.
I get invited to a fair number of weddings. I don’t remember the last time I saw the garter thing done.
“Shoehorn” mentioned above is a caricature. The mandatum is an expression of discipleship, and it was appropriately framed within the Mass. Striking the breast three times in quick succession: that is shoehorning.
@Aaron Sanders – comment #53:
Again, the way you see a practice becoming a custom: I can’t see that ever happening.
Surely a practice which is against the law can be initiated by one person breaking the law. And, over time, that practice can be adopted by an entire community. And, over more time, what began as a practice that was against the law takes on the status of custom.
The sabbath was made for man. Man was not made for the sabbath.
Amidst all the discussion of the rites or wrongs, could we get a little love for a parish that had a CHOIR! singing at a wedding mass?
@Clay Zambo – comment #42:
It wasn’t a wedding Mass. View the entire video. The bride is a Unitarian Universalist minister, and the groom a very dedicated Roman Catholic.
There always seems to be a disconnect in these discussions between the nature of the thing added (i.e. most would agree that the mandatum is a beautiful symbol of mutual love and service in marriage) and whether it is a good idea to shoehorn it into the context of a Mass. Just because a symbol is beautiful is not in itself any justification for inserting it into the liturgy. We do have friends who replaced the removal and throwing of the garter at the reception with the groom washing the bride’s feet. That seemed like a much better way to incorporate the practice, with the added benefit of carrying symbol and sacrament out into the (normally) secular context of the “after party.”
There is also an individualistic self-consciousness often on display in cases like this that I find disturbing. In other words, one individual or couple engages in a cerebral exercise of thinking up an interesting/beautiful/wonderful symbol and then inserting it into the liturgy. The process is: “I (we) think this is a beautiful thing, and I (we) want it in the Mass.” A more genuine process, it seems to me, is “in my culture, x is a traditional ritual for a wedding. Is there any way to “baptize” it (if it comes from secular culture) and gracefully integrate it into the Mass?” In that sense I would perhaps consider the unity candle better than the mandatum. Because although it is not taken from the Roman Rite, the unity candle has become part of wider American wedding culture.
I am not without sin though 🙂
At our wedding, the priest required his own traditional practice – for my wife and I to compose a prayer to read out loud after the vows. He also asked that my mom compose a prayer for the whole congregation to read out loud. In one sense, it was a good exercise and the prayers were beautiful. In another sense, I was uncomfortable adding to the rite. It seemed nice, but unnecessary.
Hmmmm… I notice that they exchanged rings in the name of the Trinity.
These modern, wishy-washy Unitarians really bug me.
I think it’se worth noting: This ceremony was outside of mass. The bride has celebrated the triduum at the parish several times with her fiancé, and has both a biblical and practical understanding of the mandatum. Many Unitarians are baptized Christians. And, if it interests you, I believe it is worth viewing the entire video (all of the string players are relatives of the groom, who himself is a violist, and has sung in the parish choir for many years—along with his mother, the flutist, and his sisters).
Striking their breast. That’s all that’s there. Not three times. Sorry to cast a shadow over your next penitential act, but, gotcha!
And Aaron, I’m not saying we’re in the same boat at all. I’m calling you and others out on an inconsistency in your/their approach. Someone might say, “But it’s tradition.” That’s nice. And likely accurate. But it’s not in the liturgy.
Personally, I don’t care if people strike thrice, once, or bow their heads. But if a couple wants to do a Mandatum at a wedding Mass, I’m all for it. Especially after my reading of the Rite of Marriage praenotanda, and the numerous other customs I’ve seen: lassos, coins, candles, flowers, Marian devotion, and all. The liturgy is sturdy enough to handle one gesture. Washing feet strikes me as more profound than rings. (But don’t tell my wife I said that!)
Bottom line: when our ox is getting gored, there’s always a need for an extra layer of analysis, whether it’s in the rubrics or not.
Seriously? Whether or not you can strike your breast three times?
Enough. Further comments not about the mandatum at a wedding will be deleted.
awr
While I don’t comment here anymore, I personally think the nuptial liturgy within or outside of Mass stands on its own without adding additional accretions to it. But apart from that the couple in the video have moved to Macon, GA and the bride is the minister/pastor of the Unitarian Church just slightly a block up from my church and her very tall seven foot Catholic husband has joined our parish and sings in our choir and also plays the violin for us,and his wife when able has attended here and sung with our choir. Small world no?
Thanks to:
1. Fr. Krisman (39), for providing both the standard by which to evaluate the value of customs as is, plus the clarification that accreted customs are filtered over time into ritual by virtues discerned and codified by authorities in that interim.
2. Ian Coleman(36), who makes a compelling distinction for where and to whom should a mandatum ritual be extended. And, as the respected Mr. Batastini clarifies (thankfully in 52) that this exhibition (not a perjorative) was, in fact, done outside of the rigors of ritual precision, something I alluded to in my first post. Lovely gesture it may be, but I’m not sure its effectiveness requires public viewing or endorsement. If we really follow Pauline exhortations, such an act of selflessness might best be shared privately between husband, wife and God within their threshold.
4. Mr. Aaron Saunders for calling into question the thorough intent of this customized act, and the necessity of some authoritative (not temple police, a common sense priest will do) review as to the act’s confusion to witness ratio and benefit.
As mentioned earlier, the rites are chock full of real theological “goodies” in its unaltered state, often that go begging in many real scenarios because of modern or cultural concerns that seem to take precedence. I’ve said before I’m a proponent of the wedding rites occurring at regular Sunday/Vigil scheduled Masses. So, I’m concerned that adding more actually results in diminution of the rest.
My apologies for introducing the [unspoken] topic.
Not only is SC 22 apt, but also 37-40. Given the recent synod, might we say that SC 40’s suggestion of situations of particular need might apply to sacramental marriage today? And if there is need for strengthening of marriage, it seems that one appropriate step of this synod and the church’s liturgists would be to surface attractive ritual options that provide inspiration, that are remarkable in both senses of that term? I’m thinking not only the Wedding Mass, but also blessing of engaged couples, and Masses of Thanksgiving (a practice seemingly universal among young clergy, but why not newlyweds?).
I think we can anticipate the problems in modern marriages, and suggest certain rituals which, while not a magical protection, might provide inspiration. The Church’s treasury can certainly bear some scrutiny to give us what we need, I would think.
I think you are involved in a performativer Widerspruch. 🙂
I hope this is on topic enough.
I’m inclined to agree that CIC 23-28 addresses only how a custom becomes a law, not how a custom becomes a custom. In fact, it would be inappropriate to address the latter. Customs praeter legem, by definition, have no governing rules and customs contra legem, by definition, are illicit. CIC 23-28 should not be read as a license to break the law. It’s an adverse possession law.
The mandatum at weddings is illicit and SC makes perfectly clear that no priest or layperson can make licit what is illicit. Nevertheless if the illicit practice persists within a community for 30 years and the ordinary doesn’t explicitly put a stop to it, it becomes licit for that community.
Deacon Fritz, touché! 😉
It’s been fascinating to read this thread. Some of these topics were brought up before we gave it the OK. Aside from “it’s not in the book” we could find no other reason to object to it. It was an authentic expression of the couple far more meaningful than a unity candle, which is, after all a duplicated symbol of the exchange of rings. We rarely do unity candle here, I almost always can talk them out of it.
We’re so accustomed at St. Francis to having to adapt, using the awareness of the spirit/letter of the law dichotomy because of our space and diversity, 1000 seats in the round-ish when we have the flexible seating in use, meaning we have 20+ Eucharistic ministers at some masses, poses many logistical problems if you’re trying to do everything by the letter of the law.. Then there’s the cultural awarenesses and adaptations, we’re a 55% Hispanic, 40% Anglo 5% Vietnamese, and a smaller Filipino group in there somewhere around 1%. We’re frequently including customs that are found either in the tradition of our people, or sometimes even in the ritual books in their countries, we always look at what significance these things have for the individual couple “because mom wants” it never flies. Perhaps these things, have made it easier for us to look past the “it’s not in the book” argument.
Rigid dualism is ok in academia, in my experience rarely does it draw anyone to deeper conversion in pastoral practice.
Interestingly, aside from Ben being in your parish Fr. Allan, he was frequently in the pews of Sean Whelan’s parish when Cassie was interim pastor up there. Small world indeed
Pray Tell friends:
Comments are now closed on this post.
See Kim Belcher’s related post – and go comment (on topic) there.
https://praytell.blog/index.php/2014/10/22/on-the-communal-character-of-custom/
awr