A reader offered the following objection to my essay:
"The two texts he compares from the old and newer rites clearly disproves his whole thesis. The question from the old rite is vauge and doesn't say anything about the nature of marriage. the new rite question literally gets to the heart of the nature of marriage....life long and the begetting of children."
My response was as follows:
"I appreciate the point you're making about the questioning in the old and new rites. You're right to say that the Novus Ordo version mentions the life-long character of marriage and its orientation toward children (though the latter may be omitted in some circumstances, according to the rubrics). Those aspects of marriage are clear in other parts of the old rite of marriage too. Their presence in the new rite does not necessarily contradict my thesis that the nature of the sacrament shines forth more clearly in the old rite than in the new. My thesis would, however, be disproved if the new rite did not remove/deemphasize/optionalize any aspects of the reality of marriage that were present in the old rite. As I demonstrate in the article, it did remove/deemphasize/optionalize multiple aspects of the reality of marriage: in the questioning, the legal character of the sacrament; in the prayer after the blessing of rings, the primary procreative orientation of the sacrament (note the word primary, which is essential to what I'm explaining was deemphasized—not mere mention of the procreative end of marriage, but its hierarchical priority). God bless, and thanks for reading!"
Precisely. There is no question at all of the truth of your thesis once you place the ENTIRETY of the two rites side by side, and once you realize that the entirety of the old rite is always required, whereas the new rite is loaded with options galore.
Yes, and readers of part 2 of this series (out this Thursday, 5/29) will see why the inherent optionality of the traditional remnants in the Novus Ordo rite of marriage is deeply problematic—as you have explained so well in your work concerning the new Mass.
Thank you, Fr Sia, for the kind words and the gentle correction. You are certainly right, and I admire your fidelity to tradition when possible within the context of the Novus Ordo. I have adjusted the essay accordingly, surrounding footnote 39!
I will pray for your ministry; please pray for me too. I hope you enjoy next Thursday's installment as well.
I was married in the Ordinariate form of the Roman Rite via the Divine Worship Missal. We literally all started at the back of the church, the father and bride behind me, and then met at the altar with the celebrant. Readings and a homily. Exchange of vows and rings. Then our hands were joined together and a knot was tied over them with the priest’s stole. The nuptial blessing from the altar. Then the Eucharist via the Roman canon. I think we shocked our Protestant relatives (we were both converts) that there was no “you may kiss the bride” moment. I’m glad, at the very least, that the wedding was an evangelization opportunity, even if it did shock the non-Catholics.
Thank you for sharing your experience with an Ordinariate wedding! I have never been to one, and I would love to study how it is similar to or differs from the Sarum rite of marriage. You are so right about traditional rites of marriage being opportunities for evangelization. The same was true of my wedding, as I'll explain in next Thursday's essay!
Regarding the lack of a "you may kiss the bride" moment: Dr. Michael Foley once told me about a Roman Rite tradition called the nuptial exchange of peace (originating in France) that occurs during the normal place within the Nuptial Mass where the ministers would exchange peace. The priest/deacon, even outside of a solemn high mass, extends the kiss of peace to the groom, who then gives it to the bride. This practice is rich in symbolism: The new bride can be seen as receiving the peace on behalf of the entire congregation, as the Church is often referred to as the “bride of Christ.” This is the first manifestation of her role in receiving and cultivating the peace of Christ within the family that has just been formed with her husband. Since the "exchange of peace" is traditionally called the "kiss of peace," one could call this custom the "nuptial kiss of peace"—making it a liturgically appropriate version of the "you may kiss the bride" moment! Catholic tradition is always ten steps ahead, eh? 😉
Everything in the Ordinariate missal is better than the Novus Ordo, because of the experience of the decades that led to the proposals it incorporates, and the Sarum and Anglican traditions it could draw upon.
A reader offered the following objection to my essay:
"The two texts he compares from the old and newer rites clearly disproves his whole thesis. The question from the old rite is vauge and doesn't say anything about the nature of marriage. the new rite question literally gets to the heart of the nature of marriage....life long and the begetting of children."
My response was as follows:
"I appreciate the point you're making about the questioning in the old and new rites. You're right to say that the Novus Ordo version mentions the life-long character of marriage and its orientation toward children (though the latter may be omitted in some circumstances, according to the rubrics). Those aspects of marriage are clear in other parts of the old rite of marriage too. Their presence in the new rite does not necessarily contradict my thesis that the nature of the sacrament shines forth more clearly in the old rite than in the new. My thesis would, however, be disproved if the new rite did not remove/deemphasize/optionalize any aspects of the reality of marriage that were present in the old rite. As I demonstrate in the article, it did remove/deemphasize/optionalize multiple aspects of the reality of marriage: in the questioning, the legal character of the sacrament; in the prayer after the blessing of rings, the primary procreative orientation of the sacrament (note the word primary, which is essential to what I'm explaining was deemphasized—not mere mention of the procreative end of marriage, but its hierarchical priority). God bless, and thanks for reading!"
Precisely. There is no question at all of the truth of your thesis once you place the ENTIRETY of the two rites side by side, and once you realize that the entirety of the old rite is always required, whereas the new rite is loaded with options galore.
Yes, and readers of part 2 of this series (out this Thursday, 5/29) will see why the inherent optionality of the traditional remnants in the Novus Ordo rite of marriage is deeply problematic—as you have explained so well in your work concerning the new Mass.
The prayer after the exchange of rings in the Vetus Ordo is actually retained in the Novus Ordo but recast as one of the options for the Collect.
For that reason, I usually use it when celebrating a Novus Ordo wedding. However, the article has helped me appreciate its catechetical value.
Thank you, Fr Sia, for the kind words and the gentle correction. You are certainly right, and I admire your fidelity to tradition when possible within the context of the Novus Ordo. I have adjusted the essay accordingly, surrounding footnote 39!
I will pray for your ministry; please pray for me too. I hope you enjoy next Thursday's installment as well.
Very interesting subject matter.
I was married in the Ordinariate form of the Roman Rite via the Divine Worship Missal. We literally all started at the back of the church, the father and bride behind me, and then met at the altar with the celebrant. Readings and a homily. Exchange of vows and rings. Then our hands were joined together and a knot was tied over them with the priest’s stole. The nuptial blessing from the altar. Then the Eucharist via the Roman canon. I think we shocked our Protestant relatives (we were both converts) that there was no “you may kiss the bride” moment. I’m glad, at the very least, that the wedding was an evangelization opportunity, even if it did shock the non-Catholics.
Will stay tuned for the other parts!
Thank you for sharing your experience with an Ordinariate wedding! I have never been to one, and I would love to study how it is similar to or differs from the Sarum rite of marriage. You are so right about traditional rites of marriage being opportunities for evangelization. The same was true of my wedding, as I'll explain in next Thursday's essay!
Regarding the lack of a "you may kiss the bride" moment: Dr. Michael Foley once told me about a Roman Rite tradition called the nuptial exchange of peace (originating in France) that occurs during the normal place within the Nuptial Mass where the ministers would exchange peace. The priest/deacon, even outside of a solemn high mass, extends the kiss of peace to the groom, who then gives it to the bride. This practice is rich in symbolism: The new bride can be seen as receiving the peace on behalf of the entire congregation, as the Church is often referred to as the “bride of Christ.” This is the first manifestation of her role in receiving and cultivating the peace of Christ within the family that has just been formed with her husband. Since the "exchange of peace" is traditionally called the "kiss of peace," one could call this custom the "nuptial kiss of peace"—making it a liturgically appropriate version of the "you may kiss the bride" moment! Catholic tradition is always ten steps ahead, eh? 😉
Everything in the Ordinariate missal is better than the Novus Ordo, because of the experience of the decades that led to the proposals it incorporates, and the Sarum and Anglican traditions it could draw upon.
Great work, Anthony!
Thanks, Angela!
AMDG
Thanks Anthony!
You're very welcome, Dominic! Thanks for reading!
"Enriching" the one sacrament that modern people most seek to get out of.