By: Vincent Murphy

Vincent Murphy — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 04:46:58 +0000

It is a fascinating subject, but the real understanding of the way in which it relates to the remainder of the service is found in the early parts of the marriage rite itself being twofold; later threefold, and only latterly united. In the pre-reformation Church the marriage consisted of three parts, the betrothal, the solemnisation, and the nuptial mass. The betrothal was the promise of marriage through making of vows and signified by the giving of the ring as pledge, and predates Christianity itself. Although we conjoin prayer at this point, and muddle the order, yet this section retains its essential nature as a civil contract. It is interesting to note that in the Sarum Rite these vows were amongst the very few lines which were in English rather than Latin – underscoring the fact that it is not the Church through the priest that acts here but the couple themselves, in their own tongue.

The solemnisation has its root in the concept of approval or acceptance of the marriage. In theory, the minister could here object to the marriage, and stop proceedings. The present practice of asking for just cause or impediment is directly related to this; although the order has shifted over time. The other part of the qualification is the valid assent by both parties, which is seen in asking if “N will take N as his lawful wedded wife” – this is not a wedding vow but a declaration of agreement. The couple then proceed to the solemnise their vows to a state of matrimony in the presence of the witnesses and with the approval of the community of the Church in which they are to continue to live and worship.

The nuptial mass is the newcomer to the proceedings, being probably associated due to the holding of weddings on days when communion was shared; yet, over time it became seen as the focal point of a three-fold rite and gained a doctrinal position above its origin. The reformation in England did not remove this celebration of the Eucharist, but did not make it compulsory (as it had previously been). Properly understood, it can be seen as the newly wed couple partaking along with their whole community in Christ, underscoring both the place of the couple as part of the people of God, and their lives together in Christ.

Addressing at last the placement of the Marriage Rite within another service, answers are found from referring to what has just been discussed. It makes sense to have the betrothal (and if wished, the solemnisation) before the service proper, because it is not divine service proper – but rather a civil contract formed with the church as witness. Given the theoretically possibility of an objection being raised, holding the Eucharist before the solemnisation presents a challenge – it being plainly repugnant to admit to the Lord’s Supper those betrothed which the church is unwilling to see married. That being said, if there is no Eucharist, then there would be no problem with solemnising at the end of the service should it be preferred for pastoral or practical reasons.

It is also important to remember that our Marriage Rites are confused and muddled from their origin; and this is not necessarily a bad thing. The historical origin of the Rite does not need to dictate the contemporary use, although it may aid our understanding of the intention of each part so we are more informed in the pastoral presentation of what is taking place.

Comments on: Update: Placement of the Marriage Rite

By: Vincent Murphy