Communion at Wedding Non-Catholic Family

[InThePew]

This isn’t a “mixed religion” situation, though – both the bride and groom are Catholic (although one is a convert). The “mix” exists because of the families of the couple, one side of which is (largely?) Catholic and the other side of which is (largely?) not. The pastoral consideration comes down to how to deal with the difficulty of explaining to family members who are not Catholic that the Eucharist is reserved only to those who believe it truly to be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, and who are well disposed to receive it.

The pastoral consideration is, as the deacon @fj2020 referred to correctly noted that it creates disunity and division in a sacrament that’s supposed to be about celebrating union. While the couple are both Catholic they’re marrying into each other’s families as well as marrying each other. Besides this, on a practical level it’s also messy to have a large number of non-communicants mixed with communicants as well as the fact that only a small number will be familiar with the gestures / responses.

So, returning to the OP, 2 is pretty much a non-starter since in a nuptial mass the union of the couple is reflected in the the union with/through/in Christ through their sharing in the Eucharist. 4 is a possibility but the priest is likely to steer @Asinner and his fiancée towards having a wedding outside of a mass. You could however go to mass together the next day and, depending on the circumstances, even arrange a special mass - there’s a votive mass for any anniversary of marriage which could be used even for the 1 day anniversary. Ultimately though you need to discuss this with the priest who will be solemnising your marriage.

 

[FiveLinden]

In the US and Canada that “person mandated by the state” is the priest or deacon receiving the couple’s consent

Agreed. So why can’t they do the religious ceremony and later do the secular one, given that in reality each is taking place. Then everyone can go to a wedding.

 

[Phemie]

Phemie:

In the US and Canada that “person mandated by the state” is the priest or deacon receiving the couple’s consent

Agreed. So why can’t they do the religious ceremony and later do the secular one, given that in reality each is taking place. Then everyone can go to a wedding.

Or they can go with what the Church itself suggests for these situations, the wedding within the context of a Liturgy of the Word.

 

[Gorgias]

The pastoral consideration is, as the deacon @fj2020 referred to correctly noted that it creates disunity and division in a sacrament that’s supposed to be about celebrating union.

Right. But, I’ve seen it go both ways: in just the same way that it might create a kerfuffle if the non-Catholic family is present for communion, it might cause heartburn to the Catholic family if the wedding isn’t a Mass. So… the right answer isn’t “skip the Mass out of fear of offending”, but sometimes, it is “a service and not a Mass.”

Agreed. So why can’t they do the religious ceremony and later do the secular one, given that in reality each is taking place. Then everyone can go to a wedding.

The Church doesn’t permit that. It tends to create confusion – after all, which one is the “real” wedding? You can’t get married twice, after all…

 

[OldCAFMember]

I’m 65 and I’ve heard that announcement exactly once in all my years. It was done by a visiting priest who was ministering to us while the Pastor was a away at the Mission.

Wow. I’ve lived in three different U.S. archdioceses, and have been an altar server for decades, having served hundreds of Nuptial Masses. I’ve only NOT heard that announcement a few times. If there is a printed wedding program, the announcement is usually there, as well.

 

[on_the_hill]

Agreed. So why can’t they do the religious ceremony and later do the secular one, given that in reality each is taking place. Then everyone can go to a wedding.

It’s not a matter of people not being able to go to the wedding. Anyone can attend. It’s a matter of receiving Communion.

As for a second ceremony, as was stated above, there is only one ceremony in the U.S., whether it occurs in a church or at the courthouse. In a religious wedding, the priest/minister/ rabbi signs the legal document that records the marriage.

 

[FiveLinden]

As for a second ceremony, as was stated above, there is only one ceremony in the U.S., whether it occurs in a church or at the courthouse. In a religious wedding, the priest/minister/ rabbi signs the legal document that records the marriage.

I understand. But why does the signing have to happen at the liturgy? Why not separate the two?

 

[Phemie]

Phemie:

I’m 65 and I’ve heard that announcement exactly once in all my years. It was done by a visiting priest who was ministering to us while the Pastor was a away at the Mission.

Wow. I’ve lived in three different U.S. archdioceses, and have been an altar server for decades, having served hundreds of Nuptial Masses. I’ve only NOT heard that announcement a few times. If there is a printed wedding program, the announcement is usually there, as well.

Never seen it in the programs either.

An incident became national news in Canada. For most I believe it was their first suggestion that they weren’t supposed to receive.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/archbishop-defends-harper-amid-communion-controversy-1.848145

Of course I saw our former pastor receive communion at the Anglican Church several years ago. Catholics who had stayed in their pews until they saw him go up then felt that it was OK to receive so they went up too.

 

[1cthlctrth]

I would go with #3.

 

[InThePew]

in just the same way that it might create a kerfuffle if the non-Catholic family is present for communion, it might cause heartburn to the Catholic family if the wedding isn’t a Mass. So… the right answer isn’t “skip the Mass out of fear of offending”, but sometimes, it is “a service and not a Mass.”

FiveLinden:

The concenr isn’t “causing a kerfuffle” or “fear of offending” - sure that might happen but that’s not what I meant by division and disunity, I was more referring to the fact that having members of one family group receive communion while the other doesn’t is a sign of disunity and division (not sure I really made that clear sorry). Again, the spouse’s family comes along with the spouse.

The Church doesn’t permit that. It tends to create confusion – after all, which one is the “real” wedding? You can’t get married twice, after all…

In some parts of the world, a separate civil ceremony is required in addition to the Church ceremony. In answer to @FiveLinden’s question, the signing doesn’t have to happen at the liturgy - it can happen in the sacristy afterwards - but if anything, it’s easier to do it during the liturgy since everyone is there (bride, groom, minister, witnesses) rather than trying to round up people afterwards. Going out on a theological limb, I also think that there’s something to be said for the sealing/signing of the (civil) covenant in a liturgical context…

 

[Horton]

I understand. But why does the signing have to happen at the liturgy? Why not separate the two?

In the US there is only ONE ceremony. The priest is given the legal ability to conduct a marriage ceremony. The signing of the marriage document is done when the ceremony is over, not as part of the ceremony. There are not two separate events.

 

[FiveLinden]

They sound separate to me.

 

[CRV]

The signing of the marriage document is done when the ceremony is over, not as part of the ceremony. There are not two separate events.

As it was for my own wedding.

It was signed at a table set up for this purpose inside the Church to the left of the Altar but if memory is correct within the Sanctuary.

The Sacrament of Matrimony is a public ceremony, (as is Baptism) ard witnessed by the public - anyone can come into the Church and attend the wedding Mass itself (leaving aside etiquette) - but an invitation to the reception is needed.
So the signing of the documents took place in public, as it is also public record of the marriage bond.

 

[Horton]

Why are you continuing to argue this point? Nothing you say is going to make you right on this matter.

I live in the US, have been married in the US, and I work for my parish. The documents being signed are only attesting that John Doe and Jane Boe were married meeting state requirements. The bride & groom, the witnesses, and the priest sign these and then they are sent to the state records office for recording. There isn’t a civil AND religious ceremony for folks to do, the civil part is done within the wedding ceremony regardless of where it is held.

It is appears you do not like the ways things are done here. Come to the US, the work to change the law here regarding marriage. Let’s get back on topic, which is communion at a wedding with few Catholics who are able to receive.

 

[Gorgias]

I meant by division and disunity, I was more referring to the fact that having members of one family group receive communion while the other doesn’t is a sign of disunity and division (not sure I really made that clear sorry). Again, the spouse’s family comes along with the spouse.

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. The disunity and division pre-exists the wedding ceremony. It continues to exist once the ceremony is over. If it’s a sign… then it’s a sign of something that is real.

No, the pastoral concern is that this is not the best time to point out that the disunity exists.

In some parts of the world, a separate civil ceremony is required in addition to the Church ceremony.

Agreed, but that’s not the situation that we’re talking about here. The suggestion was in the context of an environment in which this is not the case. In that context, the Church does not allow what was suggested.

In answer to @FiveLinden’s question, the signing doesn’t have to happen at the liturgy - it can happen in the sacristy afterwards - but if anything, it’s easier to do it during the liturgy since everyone is there (bride, groom, minister, witnesses) rather than trying to round up people afterwards.

Actually, the signing per se isn’t an essential part of marriage (it’s just a legal requirement of recording the event). In my state, the bride, groom, and attendants don’t need to sign anything.

Going out on a theological limb, I also think that there’s something to be said for the sealing/signing of the (civil) covenant in a liturgical context…

Interesting observation. Yet, it’s not the ‘civil’ covenant that we’re celebrating, is it? It’s the actual liturgical act of covenanting in a Christian context. If it were what you suggest, then a prayer said at a JP’s office would have the same effect, right? (And, for a Catholic, it doesn’t.)

 

[Joe_5859]

I would like to know what people’s experiences are with this situation and how to get guests to follow instructions.

I’ve been to some weddings where the couple will put instructions on the Eucharist in their wedding program. I can’t remember if we did that or not, but I’m pretty sure the priest made some announcement. The priest who gave the homily at my wedding is great at these sorts of announcements. He has a knack for being able to ask a whole Church full of people to do something (e.g. not receive Communion when they aren’t supposed to; quiet down before Christmas Mass begins; etc.) and making people excited about doing whatever he is asking.

My dad’s side of the family is mostly non-Catholic, and my mom’s side is mostly non-practicing Catholic. I’m sure a few of the non-practicing Catholics received when they maybe shouldn’t have, but by and large everyone did what they were supposed to. I’ve been to a lot of weddings where large groups of people did not go up to receive Communion. To me, it doesn’t seem like that big of a deal for some of the guests to simply stay in their pew. But not all families are the same. You or your fiance would know better than any of us how her family is likely to respond.

 

[maryjk]

Although we had a very small wedding, we had the same question.

The only people receiving would have been my mother, our best man and me. That’s it. Others that may have been baptized Catholic, were not in good standing with the Church. They had either formally left and joined another church or they simply fell away.

We had a wedding outside of Mass. No one was excluded, no one was embarrassed. And those of us that needed to meet our obligation, attended Mass that morning. (We were married on a Sunday.)

 

[Asinner]

The Church doesn’t permit that. It tends to create confusion – after all, which one is the “real” wedding? You can’t get married twice, after all…

And we are not interested in doing this anyway. Besides the fact that it is against the wishes of the Church, it would also be quite the extra hassle to plan two “weddings.”

Interestingly enough, this is what my cousin did recently. I think she wanted her dream wedding in the mountains by the lake, but they also needed to satisfy the Catholic grandmothers from both sides of the family. In any case, we will not be following their example.

 

[Asinner]

Thanks to everyone who has replied, especially with their own particular experiences in similar situations. Of course we will discuss what to do with our priest, but i think we will lean towards having the full Nuptial Mass with distribution to all eligible Catholics. Maybe other people in other situations will need to consider other options (and I hope this thread helps others too), but in my case, I believe our non-Catholic guests will be reasonable enough to follow instructions and stay in the pews if we ask them.

 

[TC3033]

I’m sure they will, I’m sure we would have at my wedding as well.

My wife actually never gave me the choice. She came home and said the priest asked if we want communion or not. I told him no, we didn’t want something that highlights disunity in our family at our wedding by performing a practice where you (me) and your family can’t participate.