|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Isn't it a lovely day and aren't cute kittens wonderful?
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
You know, I began this post with a breakdown of the back and forth beginning on page two, but deleted as it has been repeated many times. If you've not got it now, you are incapable.
But really, I think the truth of the matter is that you cannot back the arguments you make and don't have the courage to admit it.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I'll do it for you, you fucking coward.
Zach: "I dunno. It seems to me that, if a couple decides to marry in a church, they are deciding to have their wedding be primarily a worship service to God, and the minster and organist need to make that clear."
You: "Dunno, I've read your book. I cannot help but think Jesus was hardly as stodgy as some of his adherents."
Zach: "It goes without saying that, if a coupe decides to marry outside the Church, they are free to incorporate any Jesus they like into their ceremony."
You: "So, I suppose what you are saying is that I'd do poorly as a stick merchant outside of most churches."
Just like I said, you prat. Prove that you are capable of self reflection.
[ 09. November 2013, 06:09: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Missed the edit window. Forget it. I am sure you will find plenty of people here to kiss away the sting of insult and tell you what a little peach you've been.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
lilBuddha - you've been a little peach.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
What are the limits that could be put on a church wedding?
Is it reasonable for a church to suggest hymns and other music that might be suitable, but be willing to discuss anything the wedding couple might want to suggest? (Because if it is discussed in advance some of the suggestions on the music thread currently running in hell might be avoided.)
Is it reasonable for a church with a white stone floor to say that scattering petals inside the building onto the floor (white stone stains) is not acceptable? Particularly when there are three weddings that afternoon and someone has to clear the floor of red petals because the next wedding has a yellow theme. Getting the cleaning gear out will mean someone will take offence at being swept out and it adds to the stress of that wedding party leaving and feeling rushed when they want to stage the photographs they didn't get as they wanted and the photos outside the church. (If you get the impression that it was me sweeping floors, you'd be right.)
Is it reasonable to say that wildlife or air traffic or local authority guidelines should be followed before any release of butterflies / doves / balloons can be allowed? (It is surprising how many regulations and guidelines there are about any of these things - and a church organising a wedding has to check them all.)
The problem is someone with their heart set on whatever they've seen on some film or in some celebrity magazine will take offence when the church comes back and says that they've checked to see if there are any regulations preventing whatever it is and the local authority won't allow it. And it's the church that gets blamed for being difficult.
What about this flash mob here? Is that something that should happen in a church wedding?
(Personally I have reservations about this one, not because they weren't entitled to have a flash mob dance in their wedding, but because it became more about the officiant, not the couple, and surely a wedding is about the wedding couple. And I'm not sure that was the moment in the service to do that, because there was a dramatic change of mood to come back to the prayers (and probably signing of the registers, the legal bit), and the people who walked out missed witnessing the legal bit of the wedding. It might have worked better as the final procession out - when the wedding couple could lead the whole thing?)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SyNoddy
Shipmate
# 17009
|
Posted
Fyi: the ladies who "walked out" were going to the toilet!
A call of nature not a act of disapproval and as likely to occur in a civil ceremony as often as a religious one.
Also, please remember that in the UK any overt spiritual and religious elements are not permitted at civil weddings - no prayers, music of a religious nature or readings from holy texts.
No debate, those are the rules. So a couple have to choose between either secular or religious. A 'light touch' religious service is only possible in a religious setting and there for requires an understanding minister not insisting on the "full" rites of his/her church,temple,synagogue etc
Posts: 53 | From: Somewhere near the Middle | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't think the wedding service can be rationally deduced from the nature of the universe, so citing an authority is the only other possibility.
Don't accept Christian authorities? That's why I keep repeating that I am only talking about church services.
This is a profound misrepresentation of what I said, Zach82. I'm struggling to see how someone as eloquent as you could have done it accidentally, I'm sorry. You and I are both Christians, but we are not both Anglicans. So quoting an Anglican source as your authority isn't necessarily going to persuade me.
I'm part of a Vineyard church. But for me to quote as authoritative for all Christians, something from the UK Vineyard statement of belief, for example, wouldn't exactly bolster my argument. I'm sure you'd shrug your shoulders and say 'So what?', and that would be a perfectly fair response. Likewise me with the Book of Common Prayer.
If you've cited the Bible, that would have been a different matter, because we both consider it authoritative (albeit I expect we interpret certain parts differently, but I'm sure that goes for any two Christians you'd care to select).
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SyNoddy:
Also, please remember that in the UK any overt spiritual and religious elements are not permitted at civil weddings - no prayers, music of a religious nature or readings from holy texts.
No debate, those are the rules. So a couple have to choose between either secular or religious. A 'light touch' religious service is only possible in a religious setting and there for requires an understanding minister not insisting on the "full" rites of his/her church,temple,synagogue etc
But insisting on the 'full rites of my church' (CofE) is how I ensure that I am legally marrying the couple in front of me. I am only licensed to conduct marriages according to the rites of the Church of England, in a Church of England Church.
I think that I do have a pastoral responsibility to ensure that the couple have a service that they can enjoy - in terms of readings, music and so on, but I am certain that I have a greater duty to ensure that they are legally married. And if they want to get married in an anglican church then I don't see how to reconcile "light touch religious' with 'legal'.
If I refuse to let the couple sing 'It's a nice day for a white wedding' before the prayers, I risk spoiling their day, but if I aim to be 'understanding' and agree an anodyne, let's not mention the God, 'light touch religious' service, I risk not legally marrying them - and that could ruin a lot more than one day for them.
Anne
PS
I'm not sure if it helps the (fascinating) debate about who a wedding is 'for' - God, the couple, the state, the families or whoever - but the preface to the CofE service states that "In the presence of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we have come together to witness the marriage of N and N, to pray for God's blessing on them, to share their joy and to celebrate their love" and seems to me to explain pretty well what we are all doing there.
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If I had claimed to be humble at any point, I might understand your pissy outrage at the proposition, Orfeo.
It wasn't pissy outrage, actually, it was a wonderful opportunity for a touch of malicious humour. Which I took, being a Hellhost 'n' all.
But I accept that tone is difficult to assess on the internet. Most of us, for example, are struggling to find any sense of tone from you at all.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
anne
Well said.
And the video clip with its flash mob tacky dance was, I think, breaking canon law on marriages.
But then the celebrant broke them with her "You may kiss your bride now" - YUCK.
IMO If people want a wedding like they see in the fillums - in other words an American wedding - then go to the States or explore the possibility of marrying at the American church in London.
Otherwise, if you're a Brit and are exercising your right to get married "according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England" then that should be what you have: no bride kissing, no inappropriate applause whilst the celebrant is attempting to deliver a nuptial blessing, no rose petals or doves in the building.
And a religious service in a religious setting is the place for religious/liturgical music: the reception is the place for secular music and customs.
Doctrinaire? Maybe. Harsh? Hmm.
You want a CofE church wedding then you stick to the rules - and in the case of the CofE a lot of those are the law of the land: for clergy to either allow or - worse - collude in those rules being broken risks the Proctors coming in to declare the marriage null and void.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SyNoddy
Shipmate
# 17009
|
Posted
But the flash mob wedding was in the CofE! like it or not. Maybe not to everyone's taste, maybe even bending Canon law a little, but a marriage conducted by the established church nevertheless.
My point is that many couples want a service in church, reflecting God's involvement in their marriage but that they don't want a 'full choral tradition' style service or one too heavy on religion.
Posts: 53 | From: Somewhere near the Middle | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I'm fully aware the flash mob video wedding was in a CofE church - but that part of the service was definitely not in accordance with Canon Law.
And if the celebrant was/is unaware of that fact then they shouldn't be officiating at weddings.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And if the celebrant was/is unaware of that fact then they shouldn't be officiating at weddings.
You'll be suggesting that celebrants must be in agreement with the 39 Articles next.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
lilBuddha - you've been a little peach.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'll do it for you, you fucking coward.
Zach: "I dunno. It seems to me that, if a couple decides to marry in a church, they are deciding to have their wedding be primarily a worship service to God, and the minster and organist need to make that clear."
You: "Dunno, I've read your book. I cannot help but think Jesus was hardly as stodgy as some of his adherents."
The posts preceding these were discussing appropriate behaviour in religious services. Your comment is suggesting a guideline. Mine is suggesting said guideline might not be divine.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Zach: "It goes without saying that, if a coupe decides to marry outside the Church, they are free to incorporate any Jesus they like into their ceremony."
You: "So, I suppose what you are saying is that I'd do poorly as a stick merchant outside of most churches."
Here, instead of address the issue of what might be appropriate, you issue the cavalier equivilant of "my way or the highway" implying anyone who does not follow behaviour rules is not truly a Christian.
As for the insult:
- I replied politely to l'organist and Jane R but not you. Care to work out why?
- Have you noticed what board this is posted within? Whilst insults may not be required, they are Lingua Franca around here.
- Not for the first time, and I doubt the last, it will be recalled you list this as your favourite board. Which is at complete odds with nearly every exchange you have here.
Prove to you? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Not sure this is possible. Given your behaviour on this thread, you are either a WUM or spectacularly incapable of a rational discussion.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
I'm not sure if it helps the (fascinating) debate about who a wedding is 'for' - God, the couple, the state, the families or whoever - but the preface to the CofE service states that "In the presence of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we have come together to witness the marriage of N and N, to pray for God's blessing on them, to share their joy and to celebrate their love" and seems to me to explain pretty well what we are all doing there.
Naught I've said contradicts this in any way.
CK,
What will, or will not be, permissible is certainly subject to practical considerations. And this is something which should be discussed by the participants in the ceremony, as was the wedding in your link.
My contention is that these discussion are regarding human, not Devine, concerns. And that some value form over function or conflate them.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm fully aware the flash mob video wedding was in a CofE church - but that part of the service was definitely not in accordance with Canon Law.
And if the celebrant was/is unaware of that fact then they shouldn't be officiating at weddings.
I've just read the canon law regarding to weddings and I can't find the part that said dancing is not allowed.
It does say that the choice of music is up to the minister of the parish to decide what to have.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Zaccheus the law of the land states that for church weddings in the CofE (which has special privileges for marriages, as you know, they should be conducted "according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England". Dance (liturgical or sad-Dad) kiss the bride, etc, DO NOT fall within that remit: they are not part of the rites and ceremonies.
Just because some spineless (or attention-seeking) vicar somewhere has allowed them to happen doesn't make these things right or legal.
And the same goes for those clergy who allow weddings to go on without a reading from scripture but with some garbage about a dinosaur or knackered rabbit.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Zaccheus the law of the land states that for church weddings in the CofE (which has special privileges for marriages, as you know, they should be conducted "according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England". Dance (liturgical or sad-Dad) kiss the bride, etc, DO NOT fall within that remit: they are not part of the rites and ceremonies.
By this logic, the only thing people are allowed to do is open the book, read the appointed words, close the book and walk out.
I think your interpretation skills need work. There's a difference between 'not part of the designated rites and ceremonies' and 'incompatible with the designated rites and ceremonies'
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
I suspect that England should allow humanist celebrants/locations so people can have the religious light marriage that is appropriate for them. The CoE might even be able to sell some redundant churches for that purpose.
On another note my local university chapel (in California) is very strict on music though it need not be Christian just traditional [but different musical traditions allowed] (the ceremony need not be Christian though no escaping the Christian symbolism in the church). Also no rice, no flower petals, certainly no birds, butterflies, or balloons (but on peak Saturdays they may have 5 weddings so no time for major cleanup between). Premarital counseling required (Catholics on one side, everyone else on the other). No wedding photography in the church except by a professional who has to be approved by the chapel (my guess is the professional who breaks the rules gets banned); admittedly there was the time when the photographer and wedding party tried getting photos in the church without even having a wedding (the minister who caught them in the act was not amused).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
England has registry offices and other venues for civil ceremonies - that would be your humanist weddings. You can get married in stately homes and a myriad of licensed venues. Couples will be able to book weddings on the top of that sculpture in the Olympic Park. All these ceremonies have to be civil ceremonies which
quote:
can include readings, songs or music, but must not include anything that’s religious - eg hymns or readings from the Bible
Parish churches (CofE) are required to perform any legal marriages of anyone who lives in, or has links to, that parish (geographical area). Church weddings are usually much cheaper venues and often in beautiful historic buildings. As an example, should I want to get married, I could choose any of the places I've lived and attended church and the churches where my parents and grandparents were married, and the church where I was baptised - I get lost counting up how many churches I could choose, some of which are very beautiful. But church weddings have to follow the Marriage Service.
And what I was pointing out in my previous post was that however much that church wedding website from the CofE linked to above suggests that anything goes, there are often practical considerations that disallow some of the wedding ideas that people come up with. And that any church refusing to allow certain things is seen as difficult.
And that's before we get as strict as L'Organist and Zach82 seem to be suggesting church weddings should be.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
But Curiosity, that covers the minimum that can be done. There's a whole host of things that can be done in addition, which is fine as long as the basics are covered.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
balaam, sorry if I haven't been clear.
I'm not disputing that the service is the basic outline and other things can be added. I was querying the impasse between Zach82 and lilBuddha and asking what limits should / could be put on weddings. And I don't disagree with lilBuddha that the whole shebang is a human construct, but wanted to know what Zach82 thought were the divine requirements.
That most recent post was answering NetSpinster who was suggesting the UK should have humanist weddings, when we do, pretty much, and trying to give some background as to the issues around church weddings and why the complications in England where there is the parish system and requirement to perform legal marriages.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Zaccheus the law of the land states that for church weddings in the CofE (which has special privileges for marriages, as you know, they should be conducted "according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England". Dance (liturgical or sad-Dad) kiss the bride, etc, DO NOT fall within that remit: they are not part of the rites and ceremonies.
By this logic, the only thing people are allowed to do is open the book, read the appointed words, close the book and walk out.
I think your interpretation skills need work. There's a difference between 'not part of the designated rites and ceremonies' and 'incompatible with the designated rites and ceremonies'
That's true, the service cannot have things taken away it can have things added.
IIRC from the flash dance wedding, the couple had been declared husband and wife, so legally they were already married it needed only the recording in the registers.
I have looked at the CofE service and can’t see either, where is says to play organ music when the couple are signing the register. Does that mean that if we do so, then the wedding is against canon law too?
Just because soemthing is not to our taste doesn't mean that it is illegal
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Zaccheus
I agree, things can be and are added to the basic words of the Marriage Service.
But it is to be hoped that clergy will have some idea of what is appropriate within the context of a religious service and what isn't.
Yes, the couple in the video had been pronounced but as they hadn't signed the register they were NOT, in fact, married at the time they started their gyrations.
As for organ music (or devotional motet/anthem) during the signing of the registers: the organ is a traditional instrument which has been in use for the accompaniment of spiritual hymns and songs for well over a thousand years: I'd suggest that playing of something like Schafe können sicher weiden (sheep may safely graze) or similar is far less wildly out-of-sync with normal day-to-day worship than the oeuvre from C+C Dance Factory Gonna make you sweat - which is the correct title of the piece in the video.
It all comes down to context: the place, the ceremony, the occasion. The BCP title for the service is The Solemnisation of Matrimony - the clue is in the word: it is a formal occasion and, as such, stunts like that in the video are misplaced - and the connivance and taking part in it of the cleric misguided and wrong.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But it is to be hoped that clergy will have some idea of what is appropriate within the context of a religious service and what isn't.
But what determines appropriate? Every Tradition which exist was once a new thing, once a contentious thing. Many things we see as this is how it is always done are things which came about as a change. So where is the boundary?
I think this a topic worthy of its own discussion.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
In this context I'd say that what determines "appropriate" should be what used to be called common sense.
And common sense would tell me that the middle of a religious ceremony is not the place to have played loud music written about an exercise routine with lyrics: quote:
Here is the dome back with the bass
The jam is live in effect and I don't waste time
Off the mic with a dope rhyme jump to the rhythm
Jump jump to the rhythm jump
And I'm here to combine beats and lyrics
To make you shake your pants take a chance
Come on and dance guys grab a girl don't wait make the twirl
It's your world and I'm just a squirrel
etc, etc, etc
Now maybe I'm missing something but there's nothing in there (or the rest of the lyrics) that even remotely says to me "lifetime, monogamous commitment" or "celebration of love" or even "lets give thanks to God that these people have met, fallen in love and chosen to get married".
Value judgement - you bet your sweet life and its the sort of judgement that the cleric in this video clip is clearly lacking.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Yes, the couple in the video had been pronounced but as they hadn't signed the register they were NOT, in fact, married at the time they started their gyrations.
I don't actually think that's right. When I was being trained as an Authorised Person the Registrar made great play of the fact that marriage was a spoken ceremony (which is why it has to be done in public, so people can see and hear it), with the Register being merely a written record of that. He was certainly insistent that a couple are married once the contracting words have been said.
That's in Nonconformist churches (UK) anyway - might be different elsewhere but I doubt it. I understand that Civil Partnerships are quite different, by the way.
[ 10. November 2013, 15:04: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
To be clear, I think that a rather questionable choice of song from several points of view.
However, what makes a particular song or action wrong?
Common sense, since it has no common context from person to person, is not a viable measure.
Even what is written down as a specific has been, and always should be, subject to review and potential change.
Not that tradition is always bad. But it is more temporal and terrestrial than many seem to hold.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
So, to summarize the thread, churches are an impediment to the institution of marriage.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
L'organist: quote:
Yes, the couple in the video had been pronounced but as they hadn't signed the register they were NOT, in fact, married at the time they started their gyrations.
The vicar who married us said that as far as God (and the congregation) was concerned we were married as soon as we'd exchanged vows, but we weren't legally married until we'd signed the register. So I suppose whether or not that couple were married when they did the flash mob dance depends on whether you think the legal bit is more important than the religious bit.
RooK, are you sure you want to continue touting for extra business after the experience you described in the OP?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Loved that flash mob video; also showed it to a few non-Christian friends, who said, wow, love it. is this the answer to falling congregations? Not really.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
The priest pronounces them husband and wife, and says what God has joined together let no one put asunder.
The registration is the is the state legal records, the marriage is made by the couple consenting to each other that they want to be married.
I had a relative where the priest messed the registers up, so much so that it didn’t relate to them at all. (her name wrong, his date of birth wrong) they discovered it when they needed a copy of the certificate 10 years later.
It was a hassle to sort it out but it didn’t mean that they hadn’t been married for 10 years.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I think you'll find, Zaccheus, that the legal opinion is that it is the written record that makes the marriage a fact.
In support of this look at the "divorce" of Jerry Hall and Mick Jagger. They were "married" in Bali but it later transpired that (a) the ceremony, and (b) the lack of any paperwork meant that, for legal purposes there had been no marriage - regardless of whether or not either or both parties thought there had been. (As it happened Sir Mick was happy to take on board the legal opinion and the financial settlement was out-of-court, not according to the usual legal formulae.)
If your relative was able to sort out the horror story you relate it will only have been because the registrar decided that it was not for the couple themselves to scrutinise the paperwork on the day: and in light of the number of "sham" marriages nowadays the official attitude to this sort of foul-up wouldn't be the same today.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
According to the CAB the following requirements need to be met for a marriage to have taken place:
quote:
How to marry
You can get married by a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony.
In both cases, the following legal requirements must be met:-
- the marriage must be conducted by a person or in the presence of a person authorised to register marriages in the district
- the marriage must be entered in the marriage register and signed by both parties, two witnesses, the person who conducted the ceremony and, if that person is not authorised to register marriages, the person who is registering the marriage.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
Mick and Jerry are not the same thing, that was a wedding in another country where it couldn’t be proved any of the necessary legalities were observed. And is why anybody who is getting married abroad is advised to make sure that they do it properly. There was also doubt to whether Mick Jagger intended it to be a marriage as well
We are talking of a situation where everything has been done in the correct way, banns or licenses etc. at least two witnesses and then where something is inserted into the service, before the registers were signed, that you don’t approve of and think makes the marriage illegal.
By that time they are married and nothing extra inserted into the service can un-marry them.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
So, to summarize the thread, churches are an impediment to the institution of marriage.
They've been impeding MY marriage for years.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As for organ music (or devotional motet/anthem) during the signing of the registers: the organ is a traditional instrument which has been in use for the accompaniment of spiritual hymns and songs for well over a thousand years:
Can you just imagine the arguments over a thousand years ago the first time someone tried to have one of those new-fangled organs playing during their wedding service? People were shocked. Everybody knows the only true church music is unaccompanied singing. Ask the Orthodox.
A comfort zone is not a principle.
[ 10. November 2013, 20:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
So, to summarize the thread, churches are an impediment to the institution of marriage.
They've been impeding MY marriage for years.
Sometimes I wish we had a 'like' button on here.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It's called the Quotes File....
EDIT: I wasn't trying to be especially comical, you understand. Churches have quite literally been impeding any prospect of me getting married. They've been striding up to politicians and explaining how me getting married would destroy the fabric of society, or something.
On one level I would give a lot to be able to have a heated argument with someone somewhere about what music was appropriate for my wedding service. Because that would mean I could have a wedding service. At the moment I think I would have to travel to Sweden or Norway in order to be allowed to get married in a church. Which isn't such a bad thing, there are pretty hot blokes in Sweden or Norway... but I don't know what their musical tastes are like.
Meanwhile the English-speaking world is buy reassuring churches that they can continue excluding homosexuals if they want, in the name of religious conscience. These assurances normally don't address the religious conscience of individual members of the churches who are homosexual and who would find the opportunity for a church wedding significant. But hey, my conscience is probably against canon law or something.
A YouTube video of MY wedding could cause a schism.
[ 10. November 2013, 20:40: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's called the Quotes File....
It's not the same, I never think to look there so the impact is lost...
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's called the Quotes File....
It's not the same, I never think to look there so the impact is lost...
So, it is bad because it is not in your tradition... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 10. November 2013, 22:33: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Can you just imagine the arguments over a thousand years ago the first time someone tried to have one of those new-fangled organs playing during their wedding service? People were shocked. Everybody knows the only true church music is unaccompanied singing. Ask the Orthodox.
A comfort zone is not a principle.
IIRC, there was a time and place when Protestants referred to the introduction of organs in churches as a "popish plot."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Zaccheus quote:
Mick and Jerry are not the same thing, that was a wedding in another country where it couldn’t be proved any of the necessary legalities were observed. And is why anybody who is getting married abroad is advised to make sure that they do it properly. There was also doubt to whether Mick Jagger intended it to be a marriage as well
We are talking of a situation where everything has been done in the correct way, banns or licenses etc. at least two witnesses and then where something is inserted into the service, before the registers were signed, that you don’t approve of and think makes the marriage illegal. By that time they are married and nothing extra inserted into the service can un-marry them.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Zaccheus quote:
Mick and Jerry are not the same thing, that was a wedding in another country where it couldn’t be proved any of the necessary legalities were observed. And is why anybody who is getting married abroad is advised to make sure that they do it properly. There was also doubt to whether Mick Jagger intended it to be a marriage as well
We are talking of a situation where everything has been done in the correct way, banns or licenses etc. at least two witnesses and then where something is inserted into the service, before the registers were signed, that you don’t approve of and think makes the marriage illegal. By that time they are married and nothing extra inserted into the service can un-marry them.
As I said about the Hall-Jagger "marriage" it was no such thing because the correct formalities of the country where it took place, Bali, hadn't been observed.
The law of England and Wales does not concern itself with whether or not an adult who is to all intents and purposes sane and non-delusional "intends" a ceremony to be a wedding: the judge at the time made that quite clear.
In the case of the exercise video wedding, all the formalities had NOT been observed by the time they decided to start their gyrations: the words had been spoken but the paperwork had not been completed. As the lady from the CAB told Curiosity killed quote:
the marriage must be entered in the marriage register and signed by both parties, two witnesses, the person who conducted the ceremony and, if that person is not authorised to register marriages, the person who is registering the marriage.
The exercising couple and cleric hadn't signed the book, nor had the witnesses - they were too busy exercising.
It's not just a case of my disapproval here: a lawyer - a civil lawyer as well as a canon lawyer - could reasonably argue that the exercise gyrations were so far outside the "acceptable norm" for a wedding service "according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England" as to put the legality of the whole "service" in doubt. You could (would?) argue that no one would go so far as to report the cleric in question to the Queen's Proctor (really the Treasury Solicitor) but the possibility does exist.
It is one thing to have a wishy-washy "anything goes" attitude to liturgy: it may make some of us shudder but hey, we won't be attending your church anytime soon. But it is quite another to allow a couple to over-ride not just accepted practice but to participate in such a dubious action that could place the validity of their ceremony in jeopardy.
And for anyone to persist in arguing that a "bit of fun" is not that serious shows a potentially catastrophic dislocate from reality and legality.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As for organ music (or devotional motet/anthem) during the signing of the registers: the organ is a traditional instrument which has been in use for the accompaniment of spiritual hymns and songs for well over a thousand years:
Can you just imagine the arguments over a thousand years ago the first time someone tried to have one of those new-fangled organs playing during their wedding service? People were shocked. Everybody knows the only true church music is unaccompanied singing. Ask the Orthodox.
A comfort zone is not a principle.
Actually, 1,000 years ago a version of the modern pipe organ could have been a more or less recognized part of worship. A marriage in the church, on the other hand, would have been almost unheard of.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
RooK, are you sure you want to continue touting for extra business after the experience you described in the OP?
HA HA HA HA!
You say that like I ask for payment¹. I figure that my friends putting up with me is more than enough to warrant helping them get married.
¹ Technically, I used to ask for payment in the form of "a ride in an exotic² sports car". Mostly as a joke, because all of us³ have ridden in each other's cars. But after a Brown Alert ride in a supercharged Z06 that ate a set of rear tires, I officially decided that it's not necessary. Because it is possible that the exotic-car-owning friend might feel like they have to express the depth of their feelings in the form of adrenalin. And I'm a terrible passenger.
² Exotic being applied loosely, including anything that has more than quadruple the original vehicles power, rides that typically require looking through side windows to see where you're going, or chassis that require wriggling through a cage to get to the seat.
³ "Us" being "mechanical engineers at DTNA who like cars" ∪ "goofs who waste money on cars". It's odd how mechanical engineers tend to either have nice cars or drive some P.O.S. into the ground. Admittedly, I do both.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
could reasonably argue that the exercise gyrations were so far outside the "acceptable norm" for a wedding service "according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England" as to put the legality of the whole "service" in doubt.
Here is the crux of the issue. Civil law does not truly give a toss about "the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England" and neither does God.
Rites and ceremonies are a flexible thing. This is documented church history.
What is done now is not what has been done and not what will be done.
Am I saying tradition is worthless? No. Am I saying anything goes? No.
But holding to the rules whilst missing the spirit is losing the plot.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
It's not just a case of my disapproval here: a lawyer - a civil lawyer as well as a canon lawyer - could reasonably argue that the exercise gyrations were so far outside the "acceptable norm" for a wedding service "according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England" as to put the legality of the whole "service" in doubt. You could (would?) argue that no one would go so far as to report the cleric in question to the Queen's Proctor (really the Treasury Solicitor) but the possibility does exist.
Oh what rubbish. Are you seriously suggesting that if there's a gap of a few minutes between the vows and the signing of the register, the process has somehow come to an end and can't be restarted?
What if they stood there admiringly for a couple of minutes while a classical singer sang some nice hymn you approve of? Would you declare that the whole thing has become a 'concert' and that the marriage hasn't been validly completed? I bet you ruddy well wouldn't declare any such thing.
[ 11. November 2013, 06:51: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Also, some of you need to learn what a 'flash mob' actually is. Yes, including the person who posted the video.
[ 11. November 2013, 06:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
It's not just a case of my disapproval here: a lawyer - a civil lawyer as well as a canon lawyer - could reasonably argue that the exercise gyrations were so far outside the "acceptable norm" for a wedding service "according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England" as to put the legality of the whole "service" in doubt. You could (would?) argue that no one would go so far as to report the cleric in question to the Queen's Proctor (really the Treasury Solicitor) but the possibility does exist.
Well, I think LilBuddha is right, and it is just a case of your disapproval - this putative lawyer that you've dragged in wouldn't have a leg to stand on. If the exchange of vows has been conducted according to an approved rite, and the register is later signed, it makes no odds what went on in between. It seems quite normal for there to be a hiatus in the service, filled with extras that aren't prescribed by the book: people make little speeches or read some poetry. The fact that their choice strikes you as weird is neither here nor there.
Who was the saint who, on first entering a monastery, got into trouble for juggling before the altar? Was it Caedmon? Google isn't being very co-operative.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
