Thread: Non-UK Marriage rites 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=030469
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
In the C of E (and I think Wales too, and maybe Scotland) the minister officiating at a wedding is authorised by the state to perform legal marriage ceremonies, and the liturgy of the Church is regarded as equally valid with the secular formulas.
This is not the case in other jurisdictions. In most of mainland Europe and I think many if not most other countries as well, for a marriage to be legally valid it must be registered according to the legal forms by a state-appointed registrar, and in most cases in secular premises such as a town hall; a church service, in the eyes of the law, is seen as an optional extra. At least that is the position as I understand it.
In such countries, the couple will then come to church for a marriage service in the normal way. Does the Church disregard the fact that they are already legally married and use a liturgy which implies this is the real marriage? In other words, taking the vows such as (in the C of E rite) 'I, N, take you, N, to be my wife/husband...' Or does it amend them to say 'I have taken you...'?
Quite possibly the answer to this will depend on the Church's theology. Anglicans are happy to accept that a secular marriage is nonetheless a real one; Catholics I understand may want to say that to be a true marriage it must be blessed by God within the context of a sacramental ceremony.
But what I would like an answer to is the question, if a couple come to church after a civil ceremony, only because this is a legal requirement and otherwise they would have dispensed with it, do we use the official marriage rite or a 'blessing after a civil ceremony'? It's relevant to me because I will be presiding at such a wedding in an Anglican church in Italy in a few months time.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
In the Netherlands (as I think in most of Continental Europe), the church service is not called a marriage ceremony, it is called "a ceremony to ask God's blessing for the marriage of X and Y".
There are some fixed forms of the questions within the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, I don't think they include "do you take X as your husband / wife?" I'll try to look them up for you.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Would it be worth checking with the Diocese of Europe, who ought to know the answer?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Found them! This is the more traditional question that is asked in the Protestant Church of the Netherlands (my translation):
Do you profess
that in your marriage, you are called by God himself
into love and faithfulness towards each other
(In good days and in the bad, in wealth and in poverty,
in health and in disease, as long as you both shall live)
and do you wish, in God’s name,
to accept responsibility for each other,
for those who will be entrusted to you, [this refers to children]
and for your service as a family within society?
What is your answer to this?
[ 12. April 2016, 15:45: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
RC Canon law makes a distinction between the "civil effects" and the marriage proper. So when a situation requires that a civil marriage needs to precede Church marriage, we celebrate what is known as a convalidation - it is the full marriage rite, not a "blessing of a marriage already contracted" which is not a thing which exists in the RC Church.
This applies if at least one of the parties is a Catholic - the Church will recognise a civil marriage if neither of the parties is a Catholic.
This can sometimes happen in the UK as well, if for various reasons the couple have had a registry office wedding already.
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on
:
The situation is the same in the United States--having derived a good deal of its legal system from England--in that the rite of marriage celebrated by a minister of a church is also recognized as a civil marriage, with no other ceremony needed. It is so recognized once the officiating cleric has submitted the signed civil marriage license to the state, usually the city or county hall. This is done within days.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Yes I've had one sort-of-official answer from the Diocese of Europe (more or less, that as there are no legal constraints you can adapt the marriage service as seems right... at least as I understand the advice). While not holding to the RC doctrine about civil marriage as outlined by Triple Tiara, I am inclined to act as if 'this is the actual wedding' rather than treat it as a 'service of blessing'. I just wondered what the practice of other traditions is. I will probably make reference to the fact that the legalities have already been completed, and then just plough ahead more or less with the service as in CW. And partly bilingually!
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Angloid: I am inclined to act as if 'this is the actual wedding' rather than treat it as a 'service of blessing'.
A lot of European couples think like this, at least in their minds.
Often, when a couple has a church service after the civil one, the rings are not exchange at the civil wedding but in church.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
In the C of E (and I think Wales too, and maybe Scotland) the minister officiating at a wedding is authorised by the state to perform legal marriage ceremonies, and the liturgy of the Church is regarded as equally valid with the secular formulas.
This is not the case in other jurisdictions. In most of mainland Europe and I think many if not most other countries as well, for a marriage to be legally valid it must be registered according to the legal forms by a state-appointed registrar, and in most cases in secular premises such as a town hall; a church service, in the eyes of the law, is seen as an optional extra.
Just to say that the situation of Nonconformist churches in England is half-way between the two (Scotland is different, can't speak for Wales or NI).
The building has to be civilly registered for weddings, and certain forms of wording must be used in the service. But it is not the presence of the Minister which makes it legal from a civil point of view, but of a duly authorised person.
The person may be the Minister; or (very often) a lay-person chosen by the church and authorised by the local authority; or a Registrar from the authority itself. In my church my wife and one other person are Authorised Persons; one of them has to witness the wedding. I tell couples that, if I drop dead, anyone can just pick up the book and continue the service; but if the AP drops dead, then we are in trouble!
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I am learning that in Canada, simply living together represents most of the aspects of a civil marriage after 1 year of doing so, varying a bit province to province. A priest told me that marriage after a number of years of common-law marriage is an interesting discussion with couples who now want to be married.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
And, although this is a tangent and heading into DH territory, I think that it is because the law recognises CofE and CinW marriages in themselves that those two, alone of all the churches in E&W, were actually forbidden by the same sex marriage legislation to conduct same sex marriages unless and until they asked for the law to be changed to allow them to do so. I have never seen this properly explained but I think that because there is no need for a registrar or an AP there these churches could be seen, in celebrating marriages, as performing a public function on behalf of the state and therefore for those purposes brought within the ambit of the Human Rights Act and potentially open to legal challenge for denying on the grounds of sexual orientation the whatever Article it is Right to marry and found a family. But a public body or a body performing a public function does not have to abide by the Human Rights Act if there is other legislation which specifically forbids it to do so (as in this case there is).
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
We were present a couple of years ago in Calgary, when a couple who had been civilly married several years before when the husband was not a CHristian, first brought their children for baptism (with others) and then, before the Offertory, had their marriage blessed.
Friends of ours, he a priest, married civilly the day before their wedding blessing. (As they had been living together for several years, the civil wedding had to do with clearing up paper work -- they believed they had been "really" married before the civil ceremony.)
Other friends, a same-sex couple, had their civil marriage blessed as soon as they were able after the bishop would allow it.
I draw from this that when there has been a civil marriage at any time, the proper thing to do in the Canadian Anglican church is to bless the marriage, not go through the form of a wedding that has already happened. Maybe you can get away with it if you have the civil service in the morning and the church service directly after, but even that seems to be stretching it.
Because either the couple are married already, as everybody including the church agrees, or they are not -- which would be a hard position to argue in any place that recognizes civil marriage, or even common law marriage (so called) as legal.
John
Posted by keibat (# 5287) on
:
In jurisdictions which require a civil marriage procedure, as is true in many Continental European countries, then yes: in civil law, that is when the couple become legally married, with all the rights and obligations appertaining thereto – in civil law. What then happens in church is indeed a blessing of the married couple; but it may well be carried out with much ceremony splendour and extravagance, and so be experienced as the more significant of the two procedures. – There are also, on the other hand, European jurisdictions where, as in Anglo countries, a wedding presided at by a minister of religion may be recognized by the civil state – which typically means that the minister of religion has the status of a marriage registrar in civil law.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
How different is the C of E (or any other) Blessing of a Marriage service from the Wedding service? In the US Episcopal 1979 BCP, they look almost identical to me.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Marriages here (at least those sine 1961) are valid because they have been performed by a person licensed under the uniform Marriage Act of that year and the formalities required by that Act are observed. Before then, it was a matter for each State and Territory. Basically, clergy of the mainstream Christian churches are automatically licensed. Clergy of other faiths and denominations must make separate application for a licence as do lay people who wish to become marriage celebrants. I don't have any figures, but my impression is that the most marriages these days are conducted by civil celebrants.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
How different is the C of E (or any other) Blessing of a Marriage service from the Wedding service? In the US Episcopal 1979 BCP, they look almost identical to me.
The C of E calls the former 'Prayer and Dedication after Civil Marriage'. Although it has the same structure, there is no exchange of vows, just a recap of the vows already made. So quite noticeable differences.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Marriages here (at least those sine 1961) are valid because they have been performed by a person licensed under the uniform Marriage Act of that year and the formalities required by that Act are observed. Before then, it was a matter for each State and Territory. Basically, clergy of the mainstream Christian churches are automatically licensed. Clergy of other faiths and denominations must make separate application for a licence as do lay people who wish to become marriage celebrants. I don't have any figures, but my impression is that the most marriages these days are conducted by civil celebrants.
Aside from RC, Anglican, Uniting, and Eastern Orthodox, what are the mainstream Christian churches whose clergy would be automatically licensed in Australia?
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
At the risk of sounding grumpy, I'd be grateful if the C of E had nothing to do with weddings at all.
I wish Angloid's couple every happiness with each other.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
AFAIK, only the Lutherans, Baptists and Seventh Day Adventists. Perhaps the Church of Christ as well, but they are a very small group indeed. Basically, the reason is the training undergone covers the sorts of things which those seeking to become civil celebrants take in the course they must do - and on which they are examined fairly thoroughly I understand.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Of the two weddings I've attended most recently, one was in church, one was a civil ceremony in an upmarket location.
The civil registrar had far, far more liturgical sense than the priest.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
One interesting thing that's happening in the Netherlands is that the non-churched are demanding more and more 'liturgical' elements from their civil registrar: a speech about the meaning of life, music, poems …
It is easy to draw conclusions about the need for transcendence in our lives.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
We discussed this a while back on a Dead Horses thread re. what makes a marriage in France. A particular denomination had decided to offer same sex couples a “blessing”. I was, and am convinced that this is a fudge, because without getting in the specifics of the Dead Horse, a religious marriage ceremony in France is always a “blessing”. IME most religious people don’t make much distinction between “perform a blessing ceremony” and “perform a marriage”.
Prior to our wedding, some of our GLE friends would sometimes ask us who was going to marry us, meaning which pastor was going to preside. Husband en rouge, who is Very Naughty™ would answer “the Mayor”, partly to annoy the GLEs and partly because it’s true. By time you get to your religious ceremony, you are already married, and indeed most ministers of religion would not carry out a ceremony for a couple who couldn’t show them the civil marriage certificate. As far as the civil ceremony goes, it is usually short and rather perfunctory, especially if you get married in a big town on a Saturday in the summer when it can turn into a bit of a conveyor belt. We were lucky – we had an elected official who hadn’t performed many weddings before, was taking it to heart and wanted to make us happy. He gave a brief speech on marriage as an example of liberty, fraternity and equality. At the religious ceremony afterwards, our vows included “take X for spouse”, but the word “lawful” was specifically excluded. There is no effects in law whatsoever. The State doesn’t care.
However, I think Joe Public is much fuzzier on this than ministers of religion, as the “who is going to marry you” question shows. I think many (religious) people consider the bit at the Town Hall to be a bit of a formality, and the religious ceremony as the real deal that actually makes you married. This is further muddied because most people exchange rings at the religious, not the civil ceremony. Personally I think they’re wrong, but I admit to not having the same view on sacraments as Roman Catholics, for example.
I think some people make a sort of “married in the eyes of God” argument. I don’t really agree with this, because I figure that God probably heard “do you, Mademoiselle firstname middlename la vie en rouge take Monsieur firstname middlename extra Catholic middlename Parisien for husband? – yes”. Furthermore the New Testament clearly tells us to respect wordly authorities. I think there might be mileage in “married in the eyes of the church”.
Posted by gog (# 15615) on
:
Wales operates on the same system as England.
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And, although this is a tangent and heading into DH territory, I think that it is because the law recognises CofE and CinW marriages in themselves that those two, alone of all the churches in E&W, were actually forbidden by the same sex marriage legislation to conduct same sex marriages unless and until they asked for the law to be changed to allow them to do so. I have never seen this properly explained but I think that because there is no need for a registrar or an AP there these churches could be seen, in celebrating marriages, as performing a public function on behalf of the state and therefore for those purposes brought within the ambit of the Human Rights Act and potentially open to legal challenge for denying on the grounds of sexual orientation the whatever Article it is Right to marry and found a family. But a public body or a body performing a public function does not have to abide by the Human Rights Act if there is other legislation which specifically forbids it to do so (as in this case there is).
My understanding along side this is that it is to do with the requirement to marry those who live in the parish, thus without the legal bits mentioned above the CofE and CinW would be forced to conduct same sex marriages regardless of what the denomination wished to do, while every one else gets to decide. Thus the legal bits put them on the same footing as all the other churches and chapel (ie no change until the authoritative body decides)
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
AFAIK, only the Lutherans, Baptists and Seventh Day Adventists. Perhaps the Church of Christ as well, but they are a very small group indeed. Basically, the reason is the training undergone covers the sorts of things which those seeking to become civil celebrants take in the course they must do - and on which they are examined fairly thoroughly I understand.
I should, of course, included the continuing Presbyterians. All Methodists and Congregationalists joined the new Uniting Church, but not all Presbyterians did. They retained their old structure, and a grand arbitration conducted by Handley QC divided the properties between the new and continuing churches. Don't know why I did not include them before, as the school to which my father, his brothers, I and several cousins went was one which became Uniting - although there was still a strong Presbyterian smell about the school for 20 years or so after the split.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Ah, yes, gog, you're right. Thanks for that. In fact that might on its own account for it.
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on
:
I was married in a CofE church in the Netherlands. As mentioned above, technically it was a blessing on a marriage as we had been down to the town hall a couple of days earlier with parents and close family. The civil wedding was perfectly nice and tastefully done but we considered the church ceremony as the big event for us. The priest explained that because it was a blessing the service would be slightly different than a wedding as such. Now, I am not a real liturgy buff but I couldn't tell you in what way it was different.
A friend of ours got married in a CofE church in England a few years later, and since he was a divorcé their service was also a blessing. However either they had different liturgy or a strange priest because he seemed to go to great lengths to point out the fact that it wasn't a real wedding. My son was married in the same church as me just a few years ago, and again the service (to me) seemed almost indistinguishable from a regular wedding service. Perhaps the priest just has a lot of leeway.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
... although there was still a strong Presbyterian smell about the school for 20 years or so ...
This intrigues me. Is it a delicate blend of Haggis, Scotch, heather and Harris Tweed, with dashes of Parsimony, Erudition and Disapproval?
[ 15. April 2016, 13:00: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Patent that and get onto Chanel with it, BT. You'll be a millionaire in no time.
Slight tangent- there is or was a pipe tobacco called Presbyterian Blend, or something like that. I wonder whether it had a distinctive aroma?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
How can you have a Presbyterian Blend? I thought - from looking at the history of the Kirk - that Presbys were intrinsically fissiparous?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I imagine there are also Free Presbyterian, United Presbyterian, United Free Presbyterian, Non-Subscribing Presbyterian... etc Blends.
Discussing with a friend some time ago the various Frees, Wee Frees, Wee Wee Frees etc- I posited the existence of the Free Wee Wees, who split from the rest of the Kirk over their conscientious objection to payment for the use of public lavatories.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I imagine there are also Free Presbyterian, United Presbyterian, United Free Presbyterian, Non-Subscribing Presbyterian... etc Blends.
Discussing with a friend some time ago the various Frees, Wee Frees, Wee Wee Frees etc- I posited the existence of the Free Wee Wees, who split from the rest of the Kirk over their conscientious objection to payment for the use of public lavatories.
I hope they express their protests in the proper biblical manner by all the males in their congregations visibly and ostentatiously urinating against the outside walls of those conveniences that charge in accordance with the AV versions of 1 Sam 25:22 & 34, 1 Ki 14:10, 2Ki 9:8 etc. (note: this reference only works with the AV. Other translations all bowdlerise the text)
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I believe that that is part of their objection. They argue that without free access to lavatories men will be tempted to piss on the wall and so be cut off by God.
I wonder what the American translations make of those verses- 'he that goes to the bathroom on the wall', perhaps? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I believe that that is part of their objection. They argue that without free access to lavatories men will be tempted to piss on the wall and so be cut off by God. ...
In which case, being good KJV only folk, in accordance with Deut 23:1, they will of course, as a direct consequence of the actions of the local council for which they will be entitled to hold the Provost personally responsible, be barred from the congregation of the Lord.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
... although there was still a strong Presbyterian smell about the school for 20 years or so ...
This intrigues me. Is it a delicate blend of Haggis, Scotch, heather and Harris Tweed, with dashes of Parsimony, Erudition and Disapproval?
All of these, along with cold showers and long winter runs (preferably the shower after the run but sometimes the run bracketed by showers). Solid doses of the last three, not dashes. The Presbyterians who continued liked their existing form of government and have also maintained the ban on women ministers.
In our are, the Uniting Church not only got the school, but also the former Presbyterian Church and manse. The continuers got the old Methodist church and had to buy a residence for the minister - neither anywhere in style or size near what they had lost.
Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
How different is the C of E (or any other) Blessing of a Marriage service from the Wedding service? In the US Episcopal 1979 BCP, they look almost identical to me.
They seem very different to me.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
... although there was still a strong Presbyterian smell about the school for 20 years or so ...
This intrigues me. Is it a delicate blend of Haggis, Scotch, heather and Harris Tweed, with dashes of Parsimony, Erudition and Disapproval?
All of these, along with cold showers and long winter runs (preferably the shower after the run but sometimes the run bracketed by showers). Solid doses of the last three, not dashes.
Ha! And here I was thinking it was simply the smell of a bush burning.
Dourly, of course.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
How can you have a Presbyterian Blend? I thought - from looking at the history of the Kirk - that Presbys were intrinsically fissiparous?
Not so like all Reformed they are either in the process of splitting or uniting and actually uniting is the primary. The CofS is,of course, a blend of several Presbyterian denominations.
Jengie
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Yes ... but my wife comes from the United Free Church (Continuing) - UFCoS. As you will know, this is the rump of the United Free Church (itself a reamalgamation of disrupted groups) which refused to come back into the CofS in 1929.
And, indeed, having a few years ago entered into a Covenant of Understanding with the CofS, it broke it off again in 2014 over the Kirk's more open attitude to same-sex relationships.
(I sometimes wish that UFCoS would join with the Scottish Synod of the URC, giving a "Presby" balance to what is largely an ex-Congregational grouping. But UFCoS considers the URC to be theologically beyond the pale).
And of course UFCoS is not to be confused with the other "Free Churches" of Scotland.
[ 18. April 2016, 10:46: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Patent that and get onto Chanel with it, BT. You'll be a millionaire in no time.
Slight tangent- there is or was a pipe tobacco called Presbyterian Blend, or something like that. I wonder whether it had a distinctive aroma?
Hmm. Yes Presbyterian Mixture
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Patent that and get onto Chanel with it, BT. You'll be a millionaire in no time.
Slight tangent- there is or was a pipe tobacco called Presbyterian Blend, or something like that. I wonder whether it had a distinctive aroma?
Hmm. Yes Presbyterian Mixture
"My thoughts grow in the aroma of that particular tobacco" - Stanley Baldwin, sometime prime minister. My father had several empty tins like this which came in handy for storing screws, hooks and the like. They probably dated from the 1930s.
Posted by jugular (# 4174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Aside from RC, Anglican, Uniting, and Eastern Orthodox, what are the mainstream Christian churches whose clergy would be automatically licensed in Australia?
Any religious organisation can apply for recognition. Once they have it, they are empowered to nominate appropriate people as registered ministers of religion. The state licenses those people, basically without question, on the strength of the religious organisation's nomination.
Here is how it works. There are A LOT of recognised religious organisations, including Zoroastrians and Samoan Westminster Presbyterians.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes ... but my wife comes from the United Free Church (Continuing) - UFCoS. As you will know, this is the rump of the United Free Church (itself a reamalgamation of disrupted groups) which refused to come back into the CofS in 1929.
....
And of course UFCoS is not to be confused with the other "Free Churches" of Scotland.
Well just so you know here is the Scottish Churches timeline.
However, there has never been a merger where everyone agreed. The first one it was those pesky Lutherans who were not for joining. It was a merger therefore only between Calvinists and the Zwinglians or Geneva and Strasbourg.
Jengie
[ 24. April 2016, 08:42: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Thanks Jugular - they are 2 churches I did not know existed, let alone done any work involving their adherents.
Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on
:
One interesting UK development is a marriage where there is
a) A civil ceremony
b) A wedding performed by unlicensed "minister" chosen by the couple with a service incl vows, written by the couple.Although this "service" would not be recognised by church or state, there is nothing to forbid it.
I went to one such last year and it was beautiful, moving full of happiness, song dancing and joy.
Just observing, not advocating. My own wedding 2 tears ago was a CofE wedding with nuptial mass.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Sorry, I misread the above post and so deleted the post I'd written.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0