Ship of Fools: Readings at Weddings & Funerals

Thread: Readings at Weddings & Funerals Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025801

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Felt moved to suggest this after two especially grisly services in quick succession:

FIRST was a wedding, taken by the incumbent from a neighbouring parish, with the agreement of our PP, because he had a "close relationship" with the couple following a late miscarriage.

Come the day and the readings were (1) some tripe about a lonely dinosaur who wasn't lonely any more after he teamed up with another dinosaur who "liked shopping and smelled nice", and (2) an extract from "The Velveteen Rabbit" - basically about a previously much-loved cuddly toy that is later abandoned because it loses its' plushness. Note: our PP had asked for and been given assurances that at least one suitable reading from scripture would be included.

Needless to say, the "homily" that followed these two extracts made one wish rather for a reading from the London telephone directory - it would have been more interesting and, probably, more meaningful: the gist was that we all need to make sure we stay attractive to our other half... profound or what!

SECOND was a funeral: NO reading from scripture; family objected to any prayers, only accepting the Lord's Prayer "under sufferance"; reading was the poem quoted by Ronald Reagan when the space shuttle exploded about leaving the "surly bonds of earth", finishing up with "and touched the face of God". Slightly to be preferred IMHO to "Death is nothing at all" but only just. Music was mainly the entire Neil Diamond LP Jonathan Livingstone Seagulland Jerusalem. PP did manage to sneak in a couple of the Sentences at the beginning but the expression on the face of the deaceased's daughter - well, if looks could kill we could have buried two for the price of one.

Yes, I must be getting old, but is it too much to hope for that even at occasional offices we get a scripture reading? What are clergy thinking to allow this sort of rubbish... [Devil]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Broadly speaking I suspect if you asked they would say that their pastoral responsibility to the families outweighs their personal beliefs about what should be involved in a wedding or funeral.

I, on the other hand, am inclined to say that if you don't want a Christian ceremony don't go to a church for it.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I tend to agree with that. But I would like to ask if the funeral cited in the OP took place in church or at the crematorium? I think that makes a difference.

[ 07. April 2013, 17:38: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Both services took place in Church.

Our churchyard is also the parish burial ground so anyone who resides in the parish has a right to be buried there. And since that is the case they ALL seem to think they must have a service in church first.

The funeral people did say that the deceased was "a humanist" - but if that is the case, and there really is no belief, WHY do these people not simply go to the grave and bury their dead? If they have no belief in the life hereafter why not just meet at the graveside and then adjourn somewhere to share memories?

Did you know there are actually people who describe themselves as humanist "celebrants"??? [Eek!]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Did you know there are actually people who describe themselves as humanist "celebrants"???

Yes - and in my experience they often do a much better job that many clergy.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The funeral people did say that the deceased was "a humanist" - but if that is the case, and there really is no belief, WHY do these people not simply go to the grave and bury their dead? If they have no belief in the life hereafter why not just meet at the graveside and then adjourn somewhere to share memories?

Did you know there are actually people who describe themselves as humanist "celebrants"???

Why does a ceremonial acknowledgement of death require a belief in a life hereafter?

Just to note: considering myself a Christian, I don't believe in an afterlife...

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

I have no patience with "pastoral" reasons removing all that is Christian from services in a church. If everyone has a right to be buried in the church yard, the pastoral/church staff should tell people that they aren't required to have a church service first - and perhaps point them to a non-religiously-affiliated funeral director. They could still be very pastoral in doing so, by treating the grievers with dignity and respect, and helping them to locate a funeral director, and making them feel quite welcome in the church yard - and by staying out of the way when they're not really wanted.

Same goes for weddings. I think very few people wouldn't understand if told that a service in the church will require certain elements. And there are many beautiful passages in Scripture anyway - the typical wedding reading from the Song of Solomon, for example, or 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 - that someone who isn't a Christian might find to be beautiful liturgy. After all, if Christians take readings from Gibran's The Prophet or from the Bhagavad Gita (and they do), surely non-Christians can take readings from Hebrew and Christian scriptures!

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

One day, I hope I find someone who likes shopping and smells nice.

[ETA: why's this in Dead Horses? Is there a new dead horse I don't know about?]

[ 07. April 2013, 20:38: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Hosting
This is on the wrong board. I'll move it to Eccles as it appears to be about worship practices.
Louise
Dead Horses Host

Hosting off

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

Our churches policy is that at weddings and funerals, appropriate readings can be added, but that nothing can be taken away. So Scripture readings are non negotiable, I thought that his was true of CofE services generally.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Our churches policy is that at weddings and funerals, appropriate readings can be added, but that nothing can be taken away. So Scripture readings are non negotiable, I thought that his was true of CofE services generally.

Is there anything that can be said to be true of CofE services generally? [Razz]

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

The poem cited in the OP is called "High Flight" -- it used to be part of the compulsory English LIt course in high school many decades ago. Not Christian, but certainly Theist. And no worse (in terms of theology) than, say, Lawrence Binyon's For the Fallen (if that's what it's called), a little bit of which we hear every Remembrance DAy and at far too many funerals of veterans.

John

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
The poem cited in the OP is called "High Flight" -- it used to be part of the compulsory English LIt course in high school many decades ago. Not Christian, but certainly Theist. And no worse (in terms of theology) than, say, Lawrence Binyon's For the Fallen (if that's what it's called), a little bit of which we hear every Remembrance DAy and at far too many funerals of veterans.

John

A minor correction/amplification. In Ontario Grade VIII some years ago (many, perhaps...), we were required to memorize this fine sonnet, written by a US citizen (son of a TEC priest), a pilot in RCAF 412 Squadron.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

Yes, anyone living in the parish has the right to a wedding and a funeral, but the right is to a wedding or funeral by the rites of the Church of England, not to any old ceremony you fancy.

I agree with churchgeek that there are pastorally sensitive ways of saying that. I am not averse to including secular readings in either service, but not to the exclusion of scripture. But there's no reason why you shouldn't have, for example, one of Mr. Shakespeare's sonnets as well as the usual bits of scripture at a wedding, and you could roll in a congregational singing of "you'll never walk alone" at the funeral of a football fan.

If you're going to have communion, there's less scope for variety, but then you're dealing with regular church-attenders rather than walk-ins, so you're less likely to get a request for something odd.

But at the end of the day, by holding your ceremony in a church, you are explicitly inviting God to take a part, and if you don't want to mention him, then perhaps you shouldn't be holding your ceremony in his house.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Why does a ceremonial acknowledgement of death require a belief in a life hereafter?

Just to note: considering myself a Christian, I don't believe in an afterlife...

Um, because Christ spoke repeatedly of everlasting life, and mentioned often that obtaining this was essentially what humans were to turn to Him for? [Confused]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Posted by Leo
Yes - and in my experience they often do a much better job that many clergy.
That may be ... but what exactly IS a "humanist celebrant"?

Surely if one is a humanist and non-believer then the idea of anyone other than a close family member or friend is likely to be anathema.

My question about humanist celebrants may be explained by knowing one - a communicant member of the CofE (which breaks all the BHA rules) who has been "in therapy" for the past 15 years.

Yes, there are clergy who don't "do a good funeral" - as in all walks of life, the CofE has underachievers.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Posted by Leorning Cniht
Yes, anyone living in the parish has the right to a wedding and a funeral, but the right is to a wedding or funeral by the rites of the Church of England, not to any old ceremony you fancy.

... err actually wrong. If your chuch's churchyard is classified as a public cemetery then anyone living in the administrative parish or district has a right to be buried there and they don't have to have the rites and ceremonies.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If your chuch's churchyard is classified as a public cemetery then anyone living in the administrative parish or district has a right to be buried there and they don't have to have the rites and ceremonies.

But I don't think that extends to using the church to hold some kind of ceremony, does it? That's just a right to a spot in the churchyard.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Posted by Leorning cniht
But I don't think that extends to using the church to hold some kind of ceremony, does it? That's just a right to a spot in the churchyard.
Exactly - that's what I said. The point I was making was that they should have the courage of their non-belief and just go straight to grave. If they want to come into church then they should follow the proper order of service. (Although the case in question was very sensitive being we are a small village and all...)

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

Exactly - that's what I said. The point I was making was that they should have the courage of their non-belief and just go straight to grave. If they want to come into church then they should follow the proper order of service. (Although the case in question was very sensitive being we are a small village and all...)

I agree. Although I suppose being a small village and all, you're fairly short on buildings where some sort of funeral assembly can be held, and they're probably more expensive than the church.

Most non-religious folks still want a funeral gathering when they can say goodbye to the deceased and remember his life, and wouldn't want to try to do that at the graveside.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Just to say I think The Velveteen Rabbit is extremely moving, although no more appropriate for a wedding than a funeral.

At our civil partnership ceremony we had the opposite problem: we were told no religious readings were possible.

I slipped in a nice passage from Ecclesiastes about cuddling up in bed together (at least that's what I think it's about) which doesn't mention God, so it got in.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

L'organist:

I know that you are relatively new hereabouts but I'd say you've been here long enough to work out how to quote other people's posts!

If you want to practice, there is a 'UBB practice thread' in the Styx...

Much obliged!

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host

[name of practice thread corrected...]

[ 08. April 2013, 09:13: Message edited by: dj_ordinaire ]

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If your chuch's churchyard is classified as a public cemetery then anyone living in the administrative parish or district has a right to be buried there and they don't have to have the rites and ceremonies.
But I don't think that extends to using the church to hold some kind of ceremony, does it? That's just a right to a spot in the churchyard.

All the churches in our small group have a churchyard or a garden of remembrance. Any of the parishioners have the right to be laid to rest there, but you cannot do so without clergy. We have had a couple of cremations which were without our clergy being involved, but when it came to the burial of ashes - it had to be a service with clergy. OK the burial of ashes service is very short but we do not allow a burial without one of our ministers.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

A humanist celebrant is someone who presides at humanist ceremonies. You can find out about them (or book one!) here. It sounds like leo has had better experience of them than I have. I've been to a couple of humanist funerals and they were dull and surprisingly lacking in imagination and creativity.

Venbede is also correct in that in England and Wales (I don't know about Scotland) you can't have religious readings or music at services presided at by a civil Registrar. A lot of people seem not to realise this when they opt for a civil wedding or partnership, and I've known it cause some upset.

But I do believe that at a church service where a Christian minister is presiding, there should be an identifiably Christian ethos. And for me, that would include at least one passage of scripture, some Christian prayers, usually including the Lord's Prayer, and the minister should be identifiable as such.

And I'm irked that nobody has yet said, "Yes, Adeodatus, we hope you find someone who enjoys shopping and smells nice, too."

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

I've heard of ceremonies in church where no scripture has been read, but the rules say that at least one scripture reading is a non negotiable. Any ceremony that takes place in an Anglican Church must conform to Anglican norms (which are, after all, full of holes big enough to drive a bus through...). Of course in an ecumenical context I'd include the use of an equivalent rite from another trinitarian church.

At a crematorium I've followed the line that if you want me to do a religious service then it will be a Christian one, which means scripture and prayer at some point. Years ago I was once asked to provide a crem service without readings, prayers or hymns. I consulted a learned friend on what was left to include. He recommended I stand at the front in cotta and black stole, whistle three verses of 'wish me luck as you wave me goodbye', press the button, and leave....

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Yes, Adeodatus, we hope you find someone who enjoys shopping and smells nice, too.

There. [Smile]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Strangely, there is no direction for a scripture reading in the 1662 order of Matrimony. (apart from a psalm).

But I agree, all pastoral rites in the C of E allow flexibility and are negotiable, but within limits.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Posted by Leo
Yes - and in my experience they often do a much better job that many clergy.
That may be ... but what exactly IS a "humanist celebrant"?

Surely if one is a humanist and non-believer then the idea of anyone other than a close family member or friend is likely to be anathema.

My question about humanist celebrants may be explained by knowing one - a communicant member of the CofE (which breaks all the BHA rules) who has been "in therapy" for the past 15 years.

Yes, there are clergy who don't "do a good funeral" - as in all walks of life, the CofE has underachievers.

I know two humanist 'celebrants' who both do a good job. The word carries the idea that a funeral 'celebrates' a human life in reflections poems etc.

They 'celebrate' the birth and new arrival into a family etc.

I have been asked to do a funeral where some were Christians, others non-believers and i did it on roughly the same lnes as i conducted school collective worship -' here's a reading from the bible that you might like to reflect on.' I am going to read a prayer - you might like to make it your own in the silence of your heart.'

Re BHA rules, i am chuffed to get mailing from the BHA addressed to me as 'Dear member'. It derives from the time when I was chairman of our Standing Advisory Council on RE. I got mailings from mosques and synagogues as well.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
And I'm irked that nobody has yet said, "Yes, Adeodatus, we hope you find someone who enjoys shopping and smells nice, too."

And not surprisingly. I hope you do.

Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :

If a C of E minister permits or presides at a service which doesn't include a reading from Scripture (or chanting of scripture, or dramatised version, etc) then they are breaking both Canon Law and the vows they took at their licensing and ordination. A complaint to the Archdeacon should be in order.

I do quite a lot of funerals; I've done funerals for humanists and buried people in unconsecrated ground because they wanted it. As soon as there's any question about the content of the service, I say straight up that I'm a Church of England minister so I'm obliged to use a Church of England service, which will include a Bible reading, sermon and prayers. I keep the sermon short, let them pick the reading if they want to, name the relatives of the bereaved in the prayers, let them put other stuff in too, and I do the service well. No complaints at all so far...

My job is to love the bereaved family, but they are not my employer. My job is also to proclaim the hope that is in Christ. When done well, those two duties do not conflict in any way.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

On a slight tangent, my brothers' wedding was led by a humanist celebrant who oversaw things very well, and in a way that was respectful to all traditions.

This was, however, a humanist ceremony, not held in a church or anything of the sort, which would seem sensible for those who do not want a religious wedding. There are plenty of beautiful old buildings licensed for such events so there is really no need to use a church simply for the look of it.

Posted by Crotalus (# 4959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
If a C of E minister permits or presides at a service which doesn't include a reading from Scripture (or chanting of scripture, or dramatised version, etc) then they are breaking both Canon Law and the vows they took at their licensing and ordination. A complaint to the Archdeacon should be in order.

I do quite a lot of funerals; I've done funerals for humanists and buried people in unconsecrated ground because they wanted it. As soon as there's any question about the content of the service, I say straight up that I'm a Church of England minister ...

If, as an Anglican Priest, you bury in unconsecrated ground, without first blessing the grave, you're breaking the law yourself (Canon B38). A complaint to the Archdeacon should be in order.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
If a C of E minister permits or presides at a service which doesn't include a reading from Scripture (or chanting of scripture, or dramatised version, etc) then they are breaking both Canon Law and the vows they took at their licensing and ordination. A complaint to the Archdeacon should be in order.

I do quite a lot of funerals; I've done funerals for humanists and buried people in unconsecrated ground because they wanted it. As soon as there's any question about the content of the service, I say straight up that I'm a Church of England minister so I'm obliged to use a Church of England service, which will include a Bible reading, sermon and prayers. I keep the sermon short, let them pick the reading if they want to, name the relatives of the bereaved in the prayers, let them put other stuff in too, and I do the service well. No complaints at all so far...

My job is to love the bereaved family, but they are not my employer. My job is also to proclaim the hope that is in Christ. When done well, those two duties do not conflict in any way.

Yep I'm with you on this one except that I say "I'm a baptist Minister and any funeral I preside over will be a Christian one including prayer, a reading, soem reflection ...." Becuase I never charge for funerals (and this is pretty well known) I do rather more than the av baptist minister and probably as many as most CofE clergy. Inevitably i then come across a wide spoectrum of belief but i do, as I say, make the basis of my belief and practice clear. I am to love and support the bereaved and this won't happen if I throw my faith out the window.

As for the readings mentioned - they're as bad as the Henry Scott Holland "Death is nothing at all" - yes it is otherwiuse Jesus wouldn't have needed to defeat it

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
posted by ExclamationMark
As for the readings mentioned - they're as bad as the Henry Scott Holland "Death is nothing at all" - yes it is otherwiuse Jesus wouldn't have needed to defeat it

I'm with you on the Scott Holland - ghastly.

If it must be non-scriptural, what about "And that is dying" by Bishop Brent? Tasteful, Christian and an excellent way to explain the notion of the life hereafter to someone totally unfamiliar with the concept (or a child).

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

If my relations insisted on a poem, I'd want Philip Larkins' This be the verse (aka They f you up, your mum and dad).

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

quote:
posted by ExclamationMark
As for the readings mentioned - they're as bad as the Henry Scott Holland "Death is nothing at all" - yes it is otherwiuse Jesus wouldn't have needed to defeat it
I'm with you on the Scott Holland - ghastly.

Me too. What was he on?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

quote:
posted by ExclamationMark
As for the readings mentioned - they're as bad as the Henry Scott Holland "Death is nothing at all" - yes it is otherwiuse Jesus wouldn't have needed to defeat it
I'm with you on the Scott Holland - ghastly.
Me too. What was he on?

To be fair to Scott Holland (who laid the foundation stone of my former church and was a generally good egg) that passage is taken out of context. IIRC (and I haven't got the full text) he goes on to say, more or less, 'but that isn't the Christian gospel - we believe..."

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

quote:
posted by ExclamationMark
As for the readings mentioned - they're as bad as the Henry Scott Holland "Death is nothing at all" - yes it is otherwiuse Jesus wouldn't have needed to defeat it
I'm with you on the Scott Holland - ghastly.
Me too. What was he on?

Opium? To be kind, I'm sure he was trying to be pastoral but in doing so he missed far more points than he raised.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Having not previously encountered one, I've been to several secular cremations in the last 18 months. One was rather well done in a difficult situation (suicide). Oddly, it included the Lord's Prayer with an invitation to decide for yourself whether to join in, and a moment of silence 'for prayer or whatever you wish to do'. Two had quite disturbing features, but in neither case was that directly attributable to the secular celebrant - unless one says that at one of them, he should have vetoed an utterly inappropriate choice of music at the time of cremation.

On weddings, I'd wonder at what point if one thins down the Christian content, one reaches a point where the wedding is void. I'd have suspicions that a wedding with no readings from scripture and just extracts from two children's stories, however worthy, ceases to be 'in accordance with the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England'. If the couple fall out, it might obviate the need for a divorce.

This issue doesn't arise for a funeral. Getting a funeral wrong doesn't (we hope) undead the deceased.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Scott Holland's full sermon 'The King of Terrors' is here. The message is rather more complex than the often-quoted passage would suggest.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Thanks for that, Albertus, you're a star.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I do my best to twinkle

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Course you do, Albertus, its what we from the west of the Dyke do so well...

Cymru am byth

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

[Smile]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'd wonder at what point if one thins down the Christian content, one reaches a point where the wedding is void.

It's only void in law if the correct words aren't used for the intent, vows and contract. It may be illegal fore the CofE but still a legal marriage.

As regards funerals, well as noted above I've 2 or 3 humanist ones. They were as bad as the worst "Christian" ones I've seen - and that's pretty bad actually. Little engagement with the family; monotone reading from a book; clearly was only there for the cash (the Christian ones were performed by retired pet priests at the crem).

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Since the C of E regards civil weddings as equally valid as church ones (although the vows are only "I promise to be a wife/husband" without stating what that may involve) the question is irrelevant.

The only time I've been to a humanist funeral (and I can well see the point of them) I felt the bloke doing it (minister?) was a nice bloke doing his kindest. All he could say was a precis of the deceased biography. As I learnt later from the daughter, the contents had been a bit difficult as the husband and the daughter didn't get on and had very different ideas about what should be included.

The resulting biog was a bland whitewash and the daughter couldn't bring herself to attend.

I think he did well in the circs. It's the lack of communual singing that seems odd.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I can understand it if someone has strong feelings about it and wants to try to exclude God from the words of the wedding or funeral ceremony they are arranging. I think it a bit rich if they expect a church minister to conduct it, and/ or to hold it in a church however. God comes with the territory. It's a good thing for the family and friends to have input, but few would be capable of compiling a service with balance and depth, and in good taste.

I have been to ''civil celebrant' funerals and still shudder from the experience [Eek!]

so much so that I've written down my preferences for my own funeral and let my nearest and dearest know. Church ministers may not be perfect, but they're not doing it for the money. One hopes that they're doing it for love.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's only void in law if the correct words aren't used for the intent, vows and contract. It may be illegal fore the CofE but still a legal marriage. ...

It would be easier if that were the sole issue, but it may well not be. A Registrar's wedding takes effect from the Registrar being authorised.

What isn't clear is whether any wedding celebrated by a CofE priest in the right place and with the appropriate banns or notices is valid in law, or only one celebrated according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England. If the latter, then if you leave out a compulsory bit, the wedding wouldn't 'take'.

This is the anxiety I mentioned recently in another thread that a Vicar expressed to me in the 1970s. He wouldn't do weddings according to the 1928 book because it had never been properly authorised. So he wasn't sure whether in law such a wedding worked.

CW allows a lot of flexibility both as to content and as to what order the ingredients go in, but I rather think it says you must have at least one reading from scripture. Nothing stops you from having more than one, or - I think - adding other material, poems, the Velveteen Rabbit or whatever etc however glutinous.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

A Although I would be among the first to condemn fluffy sentimentality, I do find The Velveteen Rabbit profound. I don't think it has anything particularly relevant to marriage, and far more to bereavement. But I'm very suspicious of all these attempts to make out that the only possible human and Christian fulfillment is in marriage. I've read the gospels. It ain't.

B What about Wills and Kate? As far as I can make out their service was 1928. Are they still living in sin?

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
B What about Wills and Kate? As far as I can make out their service was 1928. Are they still living in sin?

1928 is AT BEST a watered-down vintage. It tries to shirk the stark reality of Christian marriage so unambiguously and unapologetically laid down in the 1662 rite.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
... B What about Wills and Kate? As far as I can make out their service was 1928. Are they still living in sin?

No idea but I suspect it is assembled validly and takes its authority from Common Worship. It's very flexible as long as you get certain key bits right and make sure they are there.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

It was Series One which is authorised (unlike 1928) but looks an awful lot like 1928. (The options are here.)

Thurible (married according to Series One within the context of CW Holy Communion, using the Roman Canon)

[ 10. April 2013, 11:21: Message edited by: Thurible ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
It was Series One which is authorised (unlike 1928) but looks an awful lot like 1928. (The options are here.)

Thurible (married according to Series One within the context of CW Holy Communion, using the Roman Canon)

The Roman Canon is not "within the context of CW Holy Communion", but that would only affect the validity of the Communion, not the wedding.
[Razz]

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

As ever on the Roman Canon, I plead the Hunwicke Defence.

Thurible

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
It was Series One which is authorised (unlike 1928) but looks an awful lot like 1928. (The options are here.)

Thurible (married according to Series One within the context of CW Holy Communion, using the Roman Canon)
The Roman Canon is not "within the context of CW Holy Communion", but that would only affect the validity of the Communion, not the wedding.

Surely the legality, rather than the validity? I don't think anyone would claim the Roman Canon was invalid, even in an Anglican order!

Posted by Rosina (# 15589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Just to say I think The Velveteen Rabbit is extremely moving, although no more appropriate for a wedding than a funeral.

Agreed - the toy rabbit wants to become "real"
it's a story about "being born again"

“Real isn't how you are made,' said the Skin Horse. 'It's a thing that happens to you. When a child loves you for a long, long time, not just to play with, but REALLY loves you, then you become Real.'

'Does it hurt?' asked the Rabbit.

'Sometimes,' said the Skin Horse, for he was always truthful. 'When you are Real you don't mind being hurt.'

'Does it happen all at once, like being wound up,' he asked, 'or bit by bit?'

'It doesn't happen all at once,' said the Skin Horse. 'You become. It takes a long time. That's why it doesn't happen often to people who break easily, or have sharp edges, or who have to be carefully kept. Generally, by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the joints and very shabby. But these things don't matter at all, because once you are Real you can't be ugly, except to people who don't understand.”
― Margery Williams, The Velveteen Rabbit

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Sorry: I can see that some people would find that very moving, but for me- especially as something to be read out in public- [Projectile]

Posted by anon four (# 15938) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's only void in law if the correct words aren't used for the intent, vows and contract. It may be illegal fore the CofE but still a legal marriage. ...
It would be easier if that were the sole issue, but it may well not be. A Registrar's wedding takes effect from the Registrar being authorised.

What isn't clear is whether any wedding celebrated by a CofE priest in the right place and with the appropriate banns or notices is valid in law, or only one celebrated according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England. If the latter, then if you leave out a compulsory bit, the wedding wouldn't 'take'.

This is the anxiety I mentioned recently in another thread that a Vicar expressed to me in the 1970s. He wouldn't do weddings according to the 1928 book because it had never been properly authorised. So he wasn't sure whether in law such a wedding worked.

CW allows a lot of flexibility both as to content and as to what order the ingredients go in, but I rather think it says you must have at least one reading from scripture. Nothing stops you from having more than one, or - I think - adding other material, poems, the Velveteen Rabbit or whatever etc however glutinous.

The rubric in Comon Worship states that "at least one reading from the Bible is used".

One wonders if the liturgy is basically ignored and altered how the presiding C of E minister fills out the register as having married the couple "according to the rites of the Church of England" and afixes their signature thereto......

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anon four:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's only void in law if the correct words aren't used for the intent, vows and contract. It may be illegal for the CofE but still a legal marriage. ...
It would be easier if that were the sole issue, but it may well not be. A Registrar's wedding takes effect from the Registrar being authorised.

What isn't clear is whether any wedding celebrated by a CofE priest in the right place and with the appropriate banns or notices is valid in law, or only one celebrated according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England. If the latter, then if you leave out a compulsory bit, the wedding wouldn't 'take'.

This is the anxiety I mentioned recently in another thread that a Vicar expressed to me in the 1970s. He wouldn't do weddings according to the 1928 book because it had never been properly authorised. So he wasn't sure whether in law such a wedding worked.

CW allows a lot of flexibility both as to content and as to what order the ingredients go in, but I rather think it says you must have at least one reading from scripture. Nothing stops you from having more than one, or - I think - adding other material, poems, the Velveteen Rabbit or whatever etc however glutinous.
The rubric in Common Worship states that "at least one reading from the Bible is used".

One wonders if the liturgy is basically ignored and altered how the presiding C of E minister fills out the register as having married the couple "according to the rites of the Church of England" and affixes their signature thereto......

That's the very point I'm wondering about. Does a priest still have the legal power to marry a couple if he or she doesn't do so in accordance with the rites and ceremonies of the CofE? I have my doubts about this. Failing to observe a clearly stated rubric which most people expect to have to comply with may not be quite as fundamental as leaving out the "I take" bits, inventing your own vows or omitting "I now pronounce" but strikes me as serious. If the certificate is a lie, how big a lie has it got to be before the marriage is void?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by anon four:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's only void in law if the correct words aren't used for the intent, vows and contract. It may be illegal for the CofE but still a legal marriage. ...
It would be easier if that were the sole issue, but it may well not be. A Registrar's wedding takes effect from the Registrar being authorised.

What isn't clear is whether any wedding celebrated by a CofE priest in the right place and with the appropriate banns or notices is valid in law, or only one celebrated according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England. If the latter, then if you leave out a compulsory bit, the wedding wouldn't 'take'.

This is the anxiety I mentioned recently in another thread that a Vicar expressed to me in the 1970s. He wouldn't do weddings according to the 1928 book because it had never been properly authorised. So he wasn't sure whether in law such a wedding worked.

CW allows a lot of flexibility both as to content and as to what order the ingredients go in, but I rather think it says you must have at least one reading from scripture. Nothing stops you from having more than one, or - I think - adding other material, poems, the Velveteen Rabbit or whatever etc however glutinous.
The rubric in Common Worship states that "at least one reading from the Bible is used".

One wonders if the liturgy is basically ignored and altered how the presiding C of E minister fills out the register as having married the couple "according to the rites of the Church of England" and affixes their signature thereto......
That's the very point I'm wondering about. Does a priest still have the legal power to marry a couple if he or she doesn't do so in accordance with the rites and ceremonies of the CofE? I have my doubts about this. Failing to observe a clearly stated rubric which most people expect to have to comply with may not be quite as fundamental as leaving out the "I take" bits, inventing your own vows or omitting "I now pronounce" but strikes me as serious. If the certificate is a lie, how big a lie has it got to be before the marriage is void?

Two answers depending on what you're looking at

Any lie makes it null and void so far as the circumstances you describe for the CofE.

I doubt whether it makes much difference so far as the marriage itself is concerned. The vows have been given, the legal aspect completed, in law the marriage is valid, irrespective of whether the certificate is correct. It only confims the act that has been completed: it is not a constituent part of that act.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosina:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Just to say I think The Velveteen Rabbit is extremely moving, although no more appropriate for a wedding than a funeral.

Well it may work for you but as far as I'm concerned.

No. Never. If you want something about being born again go for a tried and tested route - the bible. If that's not ok, get someone else to do it who will talk about fluffy bunnies to make it sound all nice and warm. That's avoiding reality not emracing it AFAICS.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If the certificate is a lie, how big a lie has it got to be before the marriage is void?

You're thinking, presumably, of the case where a couple "marry" with a defective rite, then some time later one partner wants out, and claims that it wasn't a real marriage because of that defect.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but the 1949 Marriage Act does contain the phrase " knowingly and wilfully" in various places, which I think covers this.

So, for example, if the couple show up at a C of E church, believing that the banns have been correctly read, and the priest conducts their marriage, then they are married, regardless of whether the banns were actually correctly read.
The law requires the priest to have documented proof that this has happened, but if he marries them anyway, the couple have a valid marriage.

For the marriage to be void, they have to knowingly and wilfully break the rules, not just make a mistake with the paperwork.

And if they thought the priest was a priest, but he was actually the local publican, who pretended to be the priest for whatever implausible reason, it's still a marriage.

So although I can't find any explicit language dealing with a defective rite, I think the principle is clear - as long as the parties think it's valid, it's valid.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Does a priest still have the legal power to marry a couple if he or she doesn't do so in accordance with the rites and ceremonies of the CofE?

Well, no, the priest doesn't have the legal power to decide to use some unauthorized rite - he must use an authorized C of E form. But if he doesn't, and the couple are not at fault, it doesn't affect the validity of the marriage.

My reading of the Marriage Act says that a couple of walk-ins can marry, after due publication of banns etc., and if the priest lets them have squishy rabbit stories in place of scripture, they are still married. The priest is breaking the law, though, and is past due a little chat with his bishop.

If, on the other hand, a couple of regular Eccles readers were to ask the same priest to miss out the scripture, I think that there's a good case that they're not married, because they are wilfully and knowingly not using the correct rite.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Sorry: I can see that some people would find that very moving, but for me- especially as something to be read out in public-

What he said, except that I have to work very hard for the first bit.

But then I got into big, big trouble once for calling This piece of inane glurge the appalling piece of sentimental shite that it is on a forum once, so what do I know?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
posted by Karl
But then I got into big, big trouble once for calling This piece of inane glurge the appalling piece of sentimental shite that it is on a forum once

Thank you, Karl - I needed a lift.

OMG soooo dreadful.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

... and for those of you unfamiliar with the Dinosaur reading that gave rise to this thread ...

The fierce Dinosaur was trapped inside his cage of ice.
Although it was cold he was happy in there. It was, after all, his cage.
Then along came the Lovely Other Dinosaur.
The Lovely Other Dinosaur melted the Dinosaur’s cage with kind words and loving thoughts.
I like this Dinosaur thought the Lovely Other Dinosaur.
Although he is fierce he is also tender and he is funny.
He is also quite clever though I will not tell him this for now.
I like this Lovely Other Dinosaur, thought the Dinosaur.
She is beautiful and she is different and she smells so nice.
She is also a free spirit which is a quality I much admire in a dinosaur.
But he can be so distant and so peculiar at times, thought the Lovely Other Dinosaur.
He is also overly fond of things.
Are all Dinosaurs so overly fond of things?
But her mind skips from here to there so quickly thought the Dinosaur.
She is also uncommonly keen on shopping.
Are all Lovely Other Dinosaurs so uncommonly keen on shopping?
I will forgive his peculiarity and his concern for things, thought the Lovely Other Dinosaur.
For they are part of what makes him a richly charactered individual.
I will forgive her skipping mind and her fondness for shopping, thought the Dinosaur.
For she fills our life with beautiful thoughts and wonderful surprises. Besides,
I am not unkeen on shopping either.
Now the Dinosaur and the Lovely Other Dinosaur are old.
Look at them.
Together they stand on the hill telling each other stories and feeling the warmth of the sun on their backs.
And that, my friends, is how it is with love.
Let us all be Dinosaurs and Lovely Other Dinosaurs together.
For the sun is warm.
And the world is a beautiful place

[Projectile]

... and this was deemed a suitable alternative to scripture???

[ 16. April 2013, 11:51: Message edited by: L'organist ]

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

Not very comforting, given what happened to the dinosaurs...!

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
Not very comforting, given what happened to the dinosaurs...!

The large non-avian ones were remarkably successful, dominating life on earth for twice as long as the period from their extinction to now, and the other ones still with us now in feathery form. Not a bad record really.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

A wedding couple in my parish has just requested the dinosaur reading which gave rise to this thread. I blame Ecclesiantics.

(They are also having a goodly chunk of the Song of Songs. Nobody gets married or buried in these parishes without Holy Scripture).

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
... But then I got into big, big trouble once for calling This piece of inane glurge the appalling piece of sentimental shite that it is on a forum once, so what do I know?

The dinosaur gets a double [Projectile]

But that definitely gets a treble [Projectile]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I'm glad it's not just me.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
posted by Amos
A wedding couple in my parish has just requested the dinosaur reading which gave rise to this thread. I blame Ecclesiantics.

No, not my fault - blame the WEB.

Why? Well, I arrived all innocent one summer's day to play for a wedding that had asked for "Love Divine" - told me they had the words, got quite shirty in fact - and was faced with THIS:

O Love divine and golden,
Mysterious depth and height,
To Thee the world beholden,
Looks up for life and light;
O Love divine and gentle,
The blesser and the blest,
Beneath Thy care parental
The world lies down in rest.

O Love divine and tender,
That through our homes dost move,
Veiled in the softened splendor
O holy household love,
A throne without Thy blessing
Were labor without rest,
And cottages possessing
Thy blessedness are blest.

God bless these hands united;
God bless these hearts made one!
Unsevered and unblighted
May they through life go on,
Here in earth’s home preparing
For the bright home above,
And there forever sharing
Its joy where “God is Love.”
[Projectile]

- at least one!

Bride's mother (she hadn't seen O/S) was horrified: she knew what she wanted, sang the Stainer tune (sad, but better). Bride was adamant this was the hymn for her and knew the tune - sang me Bunessan (Morning has broken) which doesn't fit at all.

In the end the choir sang it to Aurelia (Church's One Foundation) just about managing to keep straight faces. Why choir only? Because rest of church didn't know tune...

Cavete telam - Beware the web!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0