Ship of Fools: Hatch, but not match and dispatch

Thread: Hatch, but not match and dispatch 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=028752

Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :

Last week we had a baptism in our Sunday morning service - a fairly frequent event. But we have never had a wedding or a funeral.

Would anyone want their wedding or funeral during the normal service and would any church want it? Has anyone heard of this happening?

Posted by Jante (# 9163) on :

I wanted my wedding in the normal service but our Vicar refused. We had our service on a Saturday but made it as much like the normal Sunday service as possible but included the vows.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

I have been to a wedding in the normal service. It was done very much "on the cheap" by a young couple who were regular members of the congregation, and wanted a no-fuss wedding. The bride wore her best dress, the groom wore his suit, and the congregation provided a pot-luck lunch / party in the church hall afterwards. Two or three of the better-off members of the congregation clubbed together to provide wine and fizz.

I thought it was great.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

We've also done a wedding in the normal service--in fact it was a double wedding, with the parents of the younger groom getting married at the same time as well. Their rationale for doing it during Sunday service was that they would invite all the same people anyway, and weren't interested in making a Hollywood production of it, so why not? It was way cool. And once they were done, they sat down, and we carried on with the rest of the service.

I doubt we'd do funerals that way, though, because the emotion involved would probably be seriously distracting to whatever else was going on in worship that day.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

I agree you can't really get away with it-- but I've actually fantasized about doing funerals during the regular service. There's too much cultural norms around doing funerals the way we do, but if I were "inventing" a culture from scratch, I'd plan on a monthly service of mourning at a regular scheduled date time (e.g. first Sunday of month). Planning the funeral can be so hard on families, it's just not something they do every day, and getting the word out and coordinating everyone's schedule can be challenging too. And often times if the deceased has been bedridden for sometime and is old enough that most of his/her friends have already died, the service can be so small it doesn' really give honor to the full life the person may have had. Whereas if we planned a single service of mourning once a month for everyone who happens to pass away that month, a lot of that could be done ahead of time. Music lined up, food for the reception, ushers, preacher, etc. You'd do some customization of course for the particular individuals who happened to pass away, but you've got the framework already in place to work from. If no one passes away that month, you could have a prayer/healing service instead-- or just a celebration of life and a bit of a feast.

But again, too many cultural norms working against it.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Since our funerals run to over an hour, and the Liturgy is already something between an hour and 90 minutes depending on incidentals and how many people are taking communion, and is often preceded with Matins which is a good 45 minutes to an hour anyway, I don't think the funeral during regular Sunday services is going to fly.

That said the last funeral I went to (two days ago) was preceded by Liturgy (but not by Matins). Then again it was for a priest, which adds another half hour anyway. So, yeah, it was about three hours. But for us that's almost nothing.

[ 26. January 2015, 00:58: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :

My father's funeral was held during the scheduled Friday morning mass, albeit more by accident (my sister was in charge of sorting it out, there was a locum priest in the parish at the time) than design. As I hadn't been to church regularly for nearly 20 years at that point, I found it very odd, but the congregation didn't seem to, so perhaps it goes on more in the RC church than I'd have thought, at least in weekday masses.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

A half dozen years ago, we had a marriage as a part of the 10 am Sunday service (the main service, and it was a Choral Eucharist). She had been twice widowed and he once; she had turned 80 the Sunday before and he would turn 80 the following Sunday. It fitted in very well indeed, with the reception taking the place of the usual after-service morning tea. Their point was that they did not want a large and elaborate wedding and that the parish was their community.

I can see problems with having a funeral fitting in though.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I can't offer an in-service wedding or funeral, but we did have an unscheduled baptism once. The bishop had come to town for a confirmation service, when one of the confirmands suddenly said, "Is it OK if I haven't been baptized? Will it still take?" Our rector hastily baptized him, just before the confirmation.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

I know of only one funeral held during the morning service which seemed weird to me at first, but was actually a wonderful service. The old lady concerned had been a faithful member for most of her life and the whole congregation wanted to be there to celebrate her life at the service which she so loyally attended. I'm not sure that it would be appropriate for many however.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I agree you can't really get away with it-- but I've actually fantasized about doing funerals during the regular service. There's too much cultural norms around doing funerals the way we do, but if I were "inventing" a culture from scratch, I'd plan on a monthly service of mourning at a regular scheduled date time (e.g. first Sunday of month). Planning the funeral can be so hard on families, it's just not something they do every day, and getting the word out and coordinating everyone's schedule can be challenging too. And often times if the deceased has been bedridden for sometime and is old enough that most of his/her friends have already died, the service can be so small it doesn' really give honor to the full life the person may have had. Whereas if we planned a single service of mourning once a month for everyone who happens to pass away that month, a lot of that could be done ahead of time. Music lined up, food for the reception, ushers, preacher, etc. You'd do some customization of course for the particular individuals who happened to pass away, but you've got the framework already in place to work from. If no one passes away that month, you could have a prayer/healing service instead-- or just a celebration of life and a bit of a feast.

But again, too many cultural norms working against it.

This would be awesome. [Overused]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

One general difference between baptisms and weddings and funerals is the role of the congregation.

In baptism, especially of infants, the church will make promises, for example to uphold a life of worship and service to provide a fellowship to help nurture the faith of the child (and all children).

I've never seen similar promises from the congregation at weddings or funerals. There may be promises by the family and friends of the bride and groom, but nothing for a church to support the marriages of all couples in the congregation.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I agree you can't really get away with it-- but I've actually fantasized about doing funerals during the regular service. There's too much cultural norms around doing funerals the way we do, but if I were "inventing" a culture from scratch, I'd plan on a monthly service of mourning at a regular scheduled date time (e.g. first Sunday of month). Planning the funeral can be so hard on families, it's just not something they do every day, and getting the word out and coordinating everyone's schedule can be challenging too. And often times if the deceased has been bedridden for sometime and is old enough that most of his/her friends have already died, the service can be so small it doesn' really give honor to the full life the person may have had. Whereas if we planned a single service of mourning once a month for everyone who happens to pass away that month, a lot of that could be done ahead of time. Music lined up, food for the reception, ushers, preacher, etc. You'd do some customization of course for the particular individuals who happened to pass away, but you've got the framework already in place to work from. If no one passes away that month, you could have a prayer/healing service instead-- or just a celebration of life and a bit of a feast.

But again, too many cultural norms working against it.
This would be awesome.

It's unusual that I find myself disagreeing with Lamb Chopped, but I do here.

General experiences, including how I've felt, is that for the family, the bereaved, the funeral is fundamental to the whole process. Between when the person has died and the funeral, one feels in transition. The funeral, with the laying to rest, marks moving on to the next stage. Even with modern cold stores I really don't it's a good idea to expect every family to wait until a specific Sunday for the funeral. It wouldn't even apply to those who had died the Monday after the previous one, with a wait of 30 days. Because of the way the process goes, with coroners etc, it would include most of those who had died in the 10 days before the monthly funeral.

Also, one might be able to produce theological arguments in favour of families sharing funerals, but would most people tolerate it?

Or for that matter, if one did this for weddings, would couples be comfortable about sharing their wedding with other couples who are complete strangers?

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

We had a baptism, after which the minister announced that the parents would be getting married immediately following the service, and everyone was invited to stay for it.

The parents wanted a low-key wedding, and had achieved it by inviting family and friends to the baptism, and then springing the wedding on them.

The family were regular attenders, and the congregation were thrilled to get to attend the wedding.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

(By way of further explanation re the above, the groom had been widowed young, with young children; and the congregation had mourned with him, then rejoiced with him when he met his second wife. So everyone was thrilled by the baptism / wedding during/after the normal service.)

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

The Ship of Fools Purgatory Hosts are proud to announce the removal of this thread to the sister board, Ecclesiantics.

We wish to congratulate the Ecclesiantics Hosts on their new arrival and wish them every success in watching over it as it grows.

/hosting

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
(By way of further explanation re the above, the groom had been widowed young, with young children; and the congregation had mourned with him, then rejoiced with him when he met his second wife. So everyone was thrilled by the baptism / wedding during/after the normal service.)

Still not quite clear! Were the children baptised those from his first marriage, or children he had with the lady who was to become his wife?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Does it actually matter?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

It might do in more conservative Christian communities which hold to the idea that children should come after marriage rather than before ... although I realise that this view is increasingly not normative, even (perhaps) in church circles.

[ 26. January 2015, 11:21: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

It was the baby of the second marriage. The children of the first marriage had been baptised when they were babies.

The only people in the church who knew about the forthcoming wedding were the couple themselves, their children, the minister and the organist. The baptism/wedding guests and congregation knew nothing till the announcement following the baptism.

Cue much delight and general rejoicing!

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

At least once, at the end of a service we have done short marriage blessings for couples who have had a civil wedding (which is mandatory in France, there is no such thing as a legally binding church wedding) and for whom, for one of the spouses, Christian vows would not have made sense as they made no profession of being a Christian, whereas the other wanted a Christian aspect to their marriage.

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
A half dozen years ago, we had a marriage as a part of the 10 am Sunday service (the main service, and it was a Choral Eucharist). She had been twice widowed and he once; she had turned 80 the Sunday before and he would turn 80 the following Sunday. It fitted in very well indeed, with the reception taking the place of the usual after-service morning tea. Their point was that they did not want a large and elaborate wedding and that the parish was their community.

I did exactly the same for a couple in similar circumstances in Wales about 20 year ago. It worked wonderfully.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

I've been to one wedding during the regular Sunday service (actually, it was the regular vigil Mass). The bride had originally wanted her and her groom to wear albs throughout, but I think her mother over-ruled her on that one. Bride and groom, dressed as is culturally normal here, did serve as greeters before the Mass, and took their place in the opening procession with the lectors (one of which was me), servers and clergy. They selected the readers, but the readings were the standard ones of the Sunday, as they would have to be.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
One general difference between baptisms and weddings and funerals is the role of the congregation.

In baptism, especially of infants, the church will make promises, for example to uphold a life of worship and service to provide a fellowship to help nurture the faith of the child (and all children).

I've never seen similar promises from the congregation at weddings or funerals. There may be promises by the family and friends of the bride and groom, but nothing for a church to support the marriages of all couples in the congregation.

From the U.S. Episcopal Book of Common Prayer marriage service:

quote:
The Celebrant then addresses the congregation, saying

Will all of you witnessing these promises do all in your
power to uphold these two persons in their marriage?

People We will.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

From the BUGB handbook "Gathering for Worship":

Affirmations of the Congregation.

The minister addresses the whole congregation.

Either:

Will all of you witnessing these vows
do everything in your power
to support A and C in their marriage?
We will.

Or:

Will all of you in this congregation,
by God’s grace,
do everything in your power
to uphold and care for these two in their life together.
As a sign that you will, please stand.
The congregation stands.

(To my total horror, I don't think I've ever asked people to do this ... I will, from now on!)

[ 26. January 2015, 14:12: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Peter Owen (# 134) on :

... and from the Church of England's Common Worship Marriage Service

The minister says to the congregation
Will you, the families and friends of N and N, support and uphold them in their marriage now and in the years to come?
All We will.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Yes, I know there are promises to support the couple in their marriage. But, my point was that a) they aren't specifically Christian (eg: nothing about regularly praying for them, providing an opportunity to experience Christian life and worship so that they continue to grow in faith), which would be part of the promises by the congregation at a baptism, b) are things that any friend or family member would agree to (probably related to a) and, c) don't make any commitments for anything that the church should do (unlike baptism, where the church is committing itself to being there for the next decade or more as the children grow, to provide a Sunday School or other provision to teach the children about the faith, etc).

So, for baptism because there are promises made by the church, and it's a welcoming of someone into the church, it makes a lot of sense for the regular congregation to be present, and during a regular service is the simplest way of doing that.

Weddings are not welcoming anyone into the church, and the promises that may be made are made by friends and family rather than the church. Thus, there seems to be less reason for the wedding to be conducted during a regular service, because there's no real reason for the regular congregation to be present (weddings where the bride and/or groom are regular attenders at the church are slightly different, but it could be simply that their friends include the regular congregation).

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Peter Owen:
... and from the Church of England's Common Worship Marriage Service

The minister says to the congregation
Will you, the families and friends of N and N, support and uphold them in their marriage now and in the years to come?
All We will.

We do something similar in Presbyterian wedding services.

Similarly, a funeral will include some exhortation (usually through the prayers) to support and care for the family during their time of mourning.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

CW has something very similar - all CoE weddings I've attended has used it, with the congregation affirming 'with the help of God, we will [support the couple]'.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, for baptism because there are promises made by the church, and it's a welcoming of someone into the church, it makes a lot of sense for the regular congregation to be present, and during a regular service is the simplest way of doing that.

Weddings are not welcoming anyone into the church, and the promises that may be made are made by friends and family rather than the church. Thus, there seems to be less reason for the wedding to be conducted during a regular service, because there's no real reason for the regular congregation to be present.

Yes, I agree - in fact, I would venture to suggest that, if it was known that a wedding was to be conducted within a regular service, that would completely "skew" the service. Folk would simply be waiting for "the happy couple" to appear and not concentrate on their worship; also, all the preparations and decorations would distract folk from their worship.

The only exception is as in NE Quine's case, where no-one knew that he wedding was about to happen and the decorations were minimal or non-existent. I think that was rather nice!

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

We had a wedding of an older couple who were very much part of the church, second marriage for both of them - they were able to have the service during the main part of the Sunday morning Eucharist. They already had many friends in the congregation so it was a chance for us all to be there and celebrate with them.

I've never seen a funeral happen in the same way, but when a member of the choir died, he had apparently requested a requiem mass, which turned out to be identical to our normal Eucharist. So, as far as the words are concerned, there would not need to be many changes. Perhaps the family could have a small, quiet funeral beforehand and then invite those who wish to stay and attend the following Mass.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
We had a wedding of an older couple who were very much part of the church, second marriage for both of them - they were able to have the service during the main part of the Sunday morning Eucharist. They already had many friends in the congregation so it was a chance for us all to be there and celebrate with them.

I wonder if the fact that this was an "older couple"/second weddings made it easier to fit into ordinary worship? Would the first wedding of a young couple have possibly generated more flummery and agitation?

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

I've done a reaffirmation of vows and blessing of a repaired ring during the principal Sunday service but not an actual wedding.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Yes, I've done a reaffirmation of vows too.

But not the other bit (never been asked).

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Would the first wedding of a young couple have possibly generated more flummery and agitation?

The "no fuss" wedding in the main Sunday service that I went to was of a young couple (mid-twenties).

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I quite like the idea of a wedding that takes place during a church service, especially for a couple who've been nurtured by their church, but it's certainly very uncommon in the UK.

These days the expectation is that any wedding will be as grand as the couple can afford to make it, and sharing your wedding with a regular church congregation on a regular Sunday wouldn't normally create that ambiance. Moreover, only a small proportion of church weddings involve couples who are churchgoers, so for most people that experience would feel like having a bunch of strangers at your wedding!

Many non-churchgoing baptismal parties already find it a bit of a strain to participate in a 'normal' church service, so it's unlikely that they'd want to do a similar thing for a wedding.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

Our wedding was during a service, after the sermon. Vows, blessings, then back to ordinary prayers to the end of the service. Big morning tea afterwards.

I have sung at one funeral during a service, an Evensong. It was a singular situation in that the gentleman had no family, and he had specifically requested a fauxbourdon setting of the evening canticles to be sung at his funeral. He had also been the verger at the Cathedral for a very long time. It was a lovely way to say goodbye to him.

Posted by Wm Dewy (# 16712) on :

My wife and I married each other at the principal Sunday morning Mass thirty-odd years ago. We were both converts to the little Anglo-Catholic parish and I was somewhat fearful that our families would be quite lost during the liturgy. It was lovely all around. The Sunday regulars were very nice hosts for our family and friends, handing them prayerbooks and hymnals open to the right pages.

When our banns were read out the rector said to the parish family that they were not only invited but expected, so it didn't take many church folk by surprise.

We were in our early twenties. Looking back, I wouldn't change a thing.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Except in the most unusual circumstances I can't easily imagine funerals and weddings, as they're usually performed, being taken during the normal Sunday service. I suppose because weddings and funerals aren't 'normal Sunday services' to begin with. I can see how funeral rites and marriage vows could be incorporated in an unusual Sunday service with the regular congregation prepared and willing to participate in such a hybrid creation - and as I say under certain circumstances it could even be appropriate.

But as I see it, if there's a wedding going on during the main Sunday service, then I must be at a wedding. And ditto for a funeral.

Of course, a main Sunday service might, atypically, celebrate or commemorate certain church community events on a specific Sunday, either as a one-off or an occasional thing: eg, a church anniversary, a significant bereavement. But two single out individuals in the way that funerals and weddings are destined to do, just seems to make the 'main' Sunday worship about not God and all of us, but God and those individuals, with us maybe thrown in.

The main Sunday act of worship is for 'Everyman' to worship God after the style of that particular church tradition. Weddings and funerals are particular liturgies designed to achieve those particular events. Not saying never the twain shall meet, just that it would have go be blindingly obviously the right thing to do.

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

I haven't witnessed a wedding on Sunday morning, but at our church a few couples have renewed their vows on the occasion of big round-numbered anniversaries (40/50 years). This took place after the Prayers of the People and before Communion.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
I've done a reaffirmation of vows and blessing of a repaired ring during the principal Sunday service but not an actual wedding.

I've seen an affirmation of vows for a 25th wedding anniversary within a service, but never more than that. It is an interesting question that I have never thought of before...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
[To] single out individuals in the way that funerals and weddings are destined to do, just seems to make the 'main' Sunday worship about not God and all of us, but God and those individuals, with us maybe thrown in.

The main Sunday act of worship is for 'Everyman' to worship God after the style of that particular church tradition. Weddings and funerals are particular liturgies designed to achieve those particular events.

Yet it could be said that church services sometimes do single out individuals, e.g. if there's an 'important' guest preacher, or a visiting mission partner or aid worker who gives a talk about their work as part of the regular service. They don't take God's place, but they clearly receive a degree of extra attention, because their presence and/or participation is out of the norm.

I understand that infant baptisms were once undertaken separately from the Sunday service, but not now. In fact, it's interesting to consider that adult baptisms are frequently held during Sunday church services (although perhaps this depends on the denomination). Both baptisms and weddings (and funerals) require us to focus on specific individuals, so it's not obviously apparent why a wedding is considered to be so significantly different and 'special' that it needs to be hived off and celebrated on its own.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Well, I can't improve upon the Prayer Book's explanation of why 'Baptism should not be administered but upon Sundays, and other Holy-days, when the most number of people come together: as well for that the Congregation there present may testify the receiving of them that be newly baptized, into the number of Christ’s Church; as also because in the Baptism [of Infants] every man present may be put in remembrance of his own profession made to God in his Baptism.'

The dynamic of marriage is a bit different. I certainly do think that declaring your vows before your friends and neighbours makes a powerful statement, but the union that is happening is just between the couple. Nice, and socially powerful, to have your friends and neighbours there, but it makes no theological point.

[ 26. January 2015, 20:40: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

I first heard of a wedding during SUnday service some 25 years ago. I wasn't there but my informant was. It was in a CHurch of Scotland parish in Edinburgh.

Bride and groom (ages unknown but not middle-aged or elderly) dressed as usual on a SUnday slipped into a couple of front pews at the beginning of the service. At the appointed place in the service, they stepped forward with their supporters, the marriage took place, and they returned to their pew. I never heard how they got out at the end, but no doubt they led the way out the centre aisle (if there was one) as I don't suppose there was a vested choir at the front to lead the way instead.

I think the thing is whether or not the marriage is going to conform to certain norms of what marriage services must be -- some (many?) people are willing to work outside the envelope, as they say, if encouraged or allowed to do so.

John

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

The dynamic of marriage [from baptism] is a bit different. I certainly do think that declaring your vows before your friends and neighbours makes a powerful statement, but the union that is happening is just between the couple. Nice, and socially powerful, to have your friends and neighbours there, but it makes no theological point.

The dynamic is very different, obviously.

It's food for thought that the inclusion of a baptism in the worship service shows that baptism is a more theologically serious event, whereas a separate, exclusive wedding service ceremony shows that a wedding is a more socially serious one. The practical outcome seems to be that the wedding ceremony benefits rather than the baptism. The church realises this, and charges for weddings but not for baptisms....

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I can imagine a situation where this might all work, easily and well.

If you had a small community (village, intentional community, remote outpost of some sort). one that was fairly tightly knit, and preferred a simple sort of service, then the service might be a coming together of everyone, as well as a religious occasion. So it might work well to slip in a very short, simple wedding or funeral, of the "we love(d) so-and-so, and we wish them well, and ask God's blessing on them" sort. That might actually be kind of nice. Possibly with a potluck afterwards.

Re joint wedding of multiple couples who are strangers to each other: the Unification Church (AKA Rev. Moon and co.) marries hordes of couples all at once. Not something I support, and it's not a Christian church; but there is precedent.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
... Re joint wedding of multiple couples who are strangers to each other: the Unification Church (AKA Rev. Moon and co.) marries hordes of couples all at once. Not something I support, and it's not a Christian church; but there is precedent.

Not a good one.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

The dynamic of marriage [from baptism] is a bit different. I certainly do think that declaring your vows before your friends and neighbours makes a powerful statement, but the union that is happening is just between the couple. Nice, and socially powerful, to have your friends and neighbours there, but it makes no theological point.
The dynamic is very different, obviously.

It's food for thought that the inclusion of a baptism in the worship service shows that baptism is a more theologically serious event, whereas a separate, exclusive wedding service ceremony shows that a wedding is a more socially serious one. The practical outcome seems to be that the wedding ceremony benefits rather than the baptism. The church realises this, and charges for weddings but not for baptisms....

I'd suggest- I don't know- that the reason the Church doesn't charge for baptism is that baptism conveys a special grace from God, or indeed regeneration, and so to charge for it would be simony. The marriage ceremony conveys no such special grace and in most traditions (AFAIK) has never been seen as necessary to in order to contract a valid marriage because the parties themselves are the ministers of the marriage (although a ceremony may well be necessary in order to make the marriage licit- but that is a matter of church and/or secular law rather than of theology).

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I thought most traditional churches don't charge actual "fees" for weddings or funerals - but just have suggested donations, and if you don't pay the donation, you are put at the very end of the line of people waiting for their ceremony - and whatever ceremony you get will be bones bare. Plus you will be glared at with a guilt-inducing stare at every second you spend in the church [Smile]

. Having set fees for any church service seems terribly Las Vegas. ESPECIALLY if the family is willing to have their wedding or funeral during the principal Sunday worship service with the congregation present, which is what this thread is all about.

I think the fact that so many families feel uncomfortable having their weddings, funerals, or even baptisms (and you could add first communions and confirmations, sadly) separate from the main worship service is that our congregations are too big and, even if they are not big, are not socially cohesive enough. A congregation should be a family -so by the time a couple gets married or someone passes away, the congregation should be the natural group of people who would attend their wedding or funeral, in addition to whatever family or friends also come.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Set fees for weddings are standard in the CofE and CinW. I'd rather they weren't, but they are, and are set nationally for each church.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

I'm not in favor of weddings or funerals during the normal Sunday service. Those are votive occasions, and displacing the observation dictated by the calendar for a wedding or funeral (each of which has its own set of propers) just doesn't seem right.

I have a vague objection to celebrating funerals on a Sunday, but it wouldn't stop me from doing it if it were the best day for the mourners. Just not at the principal Mass of the day.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
... Those are votive occasions, ...

I'm not sure what describing weddings and funerals that way means, but am sorely tempted to reactive the thread on Revspeak by quoting it there.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Nuptial and requiem Masses are votive Masses, meaning that they are celebrated with a particular purpose or wish in mind. A votive Mass has its own set of propers which revolve around the occasion. Votive Masses also exist for the purposes of praying for peace, relief from famine or plague, devotion to the BVM or the Sacred Heart, and so on and so on.

It would be strange to marry a couple on Lent V, for example, and use the propers for that Sunday instead of the ones more suited to weddings--just as it would be indefensible to skip Lent V at the parish's regular celebration and substitute wedding-specific propers instead.

Posted by Wm Dewy (# 16712) on :

A wedding in Lent? [Eek!]

I wouldn't be happy if a major day's propers were changed for a wedding, but I have no objection to having the wedding propers instead of the Sunday lessons for one of the green Sundays in the summertime.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

In highly sacramental churches I suppose weddings during normal services might be problematic, but for the other churches I think the only reasonable objections would be about customary church practice.

As I implied, though, I think external objections would probably carry the day; few non-religious couples would want their 'special day' to be demoted, in their eyes, by being set during a normal church service. And would they want to pay for that? Probably not, so the churches would lose money!

Regarding funerals, in my background they tend to be quite long, so that might be a problem. But the typical English funeral is fairly short, and many funeral sermons focus on the living anyway, not so much on the life of the dearly departed. So from that perspective I can't see that there would be a huge organisational difficulty. Again, it's a matter of demand and expectations.

[ 28. January 2015, 15:21: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I can't offer an in-service wedding or funeral, but we did have an unscheduled baptism once. The bishop had come to town for a confirmation service, when one of the confirmands suddenly said, "Is it OK if I haven't been baptized? Will it still take?" Our rector hastily baptized him, just before the confirmation.

The bishop should have performed the baptism within the confirmation service. Otherwise there is the danger of making the baptism look like an embarrassing formality that needs to be got over as soon as possible.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wm Dewy:
A wedding in Lent?

Ordinarily I would demur, but I can think of situations where the best thing would be just to go ahead (e.g. the groom is about to deploy overseas for combat).

Besides which, I'm fairly sure there's nothing in the BCP rubrics (at least in the 1928) that prohibits Lenten weddings. [Smile]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I've been to two weddings on Holy Saturday(s), which seemed to me to be a bit inappropriate. In both cases it was because the vicar was retiring/ resigning immediately after Easter.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Wm Dewy:
A wedding in Lent?

Ordinarily I would demur, but I can think of situations where the best thing would be just to go ahead (e.g. the groom is about to deploy overseas for combat).

Besides which, I'm fairly sure there's nothing in the BCP rubrics (at least in the 1928) that prohibits Lenten weddings.

Weddings in Lent are not unknown in my experience, but by exception. It happened once or twice when a close relative was terminally ill, so as to go ahead while they were still alive.

Weddings on Sundays do occasionally happen in my experience, but later in the day, not involving the principal Sunday service.

Sunday funerals appear to be unknown and (in my part of the world anyway) are undertakers prepared to work Sundays? I suspect not. If Sunday funerals were to take place during the principal service, I cannot imagine that, because it probably would not fit in with the theme of the service.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

On Sunday, I've been invited to a Requiem Mass (the principal mass of the day). However, it's not strictly a funeral as such, because that will already have taken place earlier in the week.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I can't offer an in-service wedding or funeral, but we did have an unscheduled baptism once. The bishop had come to town for a confirmation service, when one of the confirmands suddenly said, "Is it OK if I haven't been baptized? Will it still take?" Our rector hastily baptized him, just before the confirmation.
The bishop should have performed the baptism within the confirmation service. Otherwise there is the danger of making the baptism look like an embarrassing formality that needs to be got over as soon as possible.

At our confirmation service last year one of the candidates was unsure whether he'd been baptised or not, so the bishop performed a conditional baptism.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I've been to two weddings on Holy Saturday(s), which seemed to me to be a bit inappropriate. In both cases it was because the vicar was retiring/ resigning immediately after Easter.

The only time I'd countenance a Holy Week marriage (or indeed baptism) would be in the case of grave medical necessity.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

TBH it seemed to be to be in rather bad taste. But I was only a guest and had no say in either of them.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

I was unaware of anything untoward about lenten weddings until after my own, when it transpired that one or two older guests may have stayed away for that reason. But neither they nor anyone else told us, and so we went on in ignorance.

The church was partly decorated with flowers left over from a school service for lent, and in great big letters across the front of the altar was the banner 'REPENT'. We left it there, and of course have been ever since, at leisure... [Big Grin]

Posted by LostinChelsea (# 5305) on :

I officiated at a wedding as part of our main service (US Episcopal) just a few weeks ago. It was an exception to the rule, not the norm -- just as a Lenten wedding would be -- and all the principals involved seemed to understand that. It made lots of sense to me because of plenty of pastoral reasons I won't go into here. It may well be the only one I ever do, but it was the right thing for this couple and the congregation was quite pleased.

I used the propers of the day, the Gospel being the story of Mary and Joseph misplacing the young Jesus and finding him in his Father's house. It was about family and children, the importance of the place of worship and connecting it all with the love of God. In the homily, I talked about the Gospel and then tied it to the funeral we'd had days before and the wedding we were about to have. Might sound a stretch here, but it seemed to make sense at the time.

I couldn't find any clergy friends who had done such a service. The BCP 1979 wasn't much help, so it's clear that the compilers weren't encouraging it.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wm Dewy:
A wedding in Lent?

A friend of mine had to get special permission from the Pope, the Coptic Pope that is, in order to get married during Lent. U.S. Immigration law doesn't care about the liturgical calendar.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Oddly, I think I'm right in saying that there has been a general belief that one was not supposed to get married during Lent right back since at least the C18 - i.e. it's not an Oxford Movement innovation - but I don't think it's ever actually been illegal or invalid. One would imagine that the imminence of a birth would outweigh the preference for not having a wedding at any particular time.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I think that for the vast majority of people, whether a date was in Lent wouldn't be a consideration in choosing a date - with the possible exception of a thought about whether it's OK to declare a wedding an exception to not eating chocolate or drinking alcohol (or, whatever people may have given up for Lent). Probably the only date most people would automatically assume is not suitable for a wedding would be Dec 25th.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think that for the vast majority of people, whether a date was in Lent wouldn't be a consideration in choosing a date - with the possible exception of a thought about whether it's OK to declare a wedding an exception to not eating chocolate or drinking alcohol (or, whatever people may have given up for Lent). Probably the only date most people would automatically assume is not suitable for a wedding would be Dec 25th.

I would assume (hope?) that many people if not most would also not choose Good Friday - although weekday weddings are less common anyway.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[qb] I would assume (hope?) that many people if not most would also not choose Good Friday - although weekday weddings are less common anyway.

Do you mean most people or most Christians?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think that for the vast majority of people, whether a date was in Lent wouldn't be a consideration in choosing a date - with the possible exception of a thought about whether it's OK to declare a wedding an exception to not eating chocolate or drinking alcohol (or, whatever people may have given up for Lent). Probably the only date most people would automatically assume is not suitable for a wedding would be Dec 25th.
I would assume (hope?) that many people if not most would also not choose Good Friday - although weekday weddings are less common anyway.

If you look back in many church registers for the early part of the last century and before, there were many weddings on Christmas Day. It was one of the few days that nearly everyone had as a holiday. I don't know when the vicar got his Christmas dinner.

In England at least, state registrars will presumably not work on Good Friday, a public holiday, and I would think that most clergy would refuse to conduct weddings even if it is technically allowed. But I may be wrong on both counts.

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :

In Britain there used to be many weddings towards the end of March, because the tax year was coming to an end. I recall from my childhood that the phenomenon featuring on the television news. The married man's tax allowance applied for the whole of the tax year in which he married, so there was a pecuniary advantage to marry before 5th April. At some point this was changed to be pro-rata for the proportion of the year he was married.

(The same applied to child's tax allowances, which is why, my father told me, my sister and I were both born in March).

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

As it happens, we got married in late March - simply to be as close as possible to my wife's birthday. Neither tax implications nor Lent entered our thinking.

Although I wasn't involved in it, one church I served had had a wedding on Christmas Day, just before I became the Minister. A good time was had by all, I understand!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I've never heard of a wedding on Christmas Day, but did once go to one on Christmas Eve.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

My daughter got married on the 22nd of December. She became acquainted with him in the summer, became engaged in October. (Both she and her husband are in the armed forces and deployment was an issue.) Gearing up a wedding in such a short time just about killed me. You know how you can do it fast, do it good, or do it cheap, but you can never get more than two out of the three? Well, cheap went over the side.

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

We got married on a Sunday in Lent because (ahem) we already had a baby on the way. It was in the afternoon, not during the morning service.

One advantage we've found to having been married in March is that, no matter where we want to stay for our anniversary, there are rooms available.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

We've had a wedding on Christmas Day and also one on Easter Day. The then vicar believed in making anything possible, in as far as he could. Sometimes the choir weren't too keen though....

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I vaguely recall a tradition that said you got married for free in the CofE if you did it on Christmas Day. Am I imagining this?

Our local CofS minister booked a wedding for Maundy Thursday and was pulled up slightly when I pointed out that as I wasn't ordained I couldn't really lead the Maundy Thursday service and let her go to the reception as I wasn't ordained and hence couldn't celebrate communion!

Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :

I've picked up from somewhere that the couple can specify whatever day they want and a CofE minister must agree. However, the church can lay down the time of day.

Thanks for your replies to my initial musings. In my church I could see a wedding fitting in with a normal service but not a funeral although a memorial might. I would be very surprised if either did actually happen although if someone asked our vicar about it he would think it through very carefully from the church's point of view as well as that of the happy couple/deceased's family.

I suspect that almost every couple and grieving family would not even think about the possibility but in my ideal world it could happen for no other reason than "why not?" A church service should be loose enough to cope with anything.

Oh, and I don't think I have ever posted in Ecclesiantics before. Hi there.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0