EF Nuptial Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter A.Pelliccio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

A.Pelliccio

Guest
So, I convinced my fiancee to agree to the a EF Nuptial Mass for our marriage. She was disappointed at first because she wanted the “active participation” of her family at Mass - lay readings, her deceased family members audibly remembered etc. :rolleyes:

Anyway she got over that when I explained they would still have prayer intentions for the dead in the EF, but one thing she could not get over was the actual readings. The Epistle Ephesians v. 22-23, Gospel Matt.xix 3-6, and the blessing at the end are one sided and borderline sexist.

I know that St. Paul is from a different era and the role of women were different but some of it is very one sided. St. Paul spoke about women fearing their husbands and being subject to them, and in the Gospel it deals basically with divoice (bit depressing for a nuptial mass), and prayer deals almost entirely with the sin and moral failings of women.

I really wanted a EF nuptial mass, I attend the EF-unless I am deployed with the Army, no EF:(- and really was looking forward to it. But I can not force this one her, or her family because of some of these readings. I know it was done this way for 1970 years, but my Grandparents marriage will be much different than my own. Any advice, are the readings optional like in the OF ? Has anything change since the Pope liberated the EF?

I think a compromise would be an OF celebrated with the bells and smells ad orientum.
 
Are these your fiancee’s sentiments or yours? Either way it sounds like great troubles lie ahead for both of you… :o
 
Well thanks for your support, I really didn’t ask for an opinion about my relationship. I have been together for 5 years with this woman and it has held up for 2 years on a deployment with the Army and I am getting ready for another one overseas - to Iraq- and we will weather this one as well.

If you don’t have anything to respond to if their were other readings or updates to the rubrics of the EF, keep your keen insight to yourself.
 
The OF celebrated properly, Ad Orientem, would do, I suppose. I wonder if you could easily find a priest to do it that way? i.e. no EMCs, no altar girls, communion on the tongue etc. If you can, please post here.

I ask because such Masses are rare, and if a local priest would offer to do one it might be like admitting that the common way of doing it is wrong. Or is that my cynicism talking?

Pity you you can’t have the old rite. The EF is the EF. I assume it’s fixed in time, and that’s why traditional catholics like it.

My opinion: I think wives should obey their husbands, however. With men it’s “one mood, all the time”. With women it’s “what I want is what’s right and what’s right is what I want, but tomorrow I may have another opinion”. The man should have the last word, unless he’s a bounder, a fool or a weakling. In which case the woman will have to run the house regardless.

Is there such a thing as a totally egalitarian marriage anyway? Sounds like a modern fantasy to me.

“21. Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
22. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the Saviour of the body.
24. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26. that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word:
27. that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28. So ought men to love their wives, as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30. for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33. Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself: and the wife see that she reverence her husband.”

Y’know, I see that as an excellent passage. I can see why modern wives might not like it. But if a potential missus will not obey me, why would I get married? I ask myself, would I like to marry a ‘strong’ woman who would constantly countermand me? How would that sit in 30 years time? Could be very wearing.

You may have inadvertently discovered a good ‘potential wife test’. If she objects to an EF Nuptial Mass, I pass 😃

May I say, no reflection on your relationship with your fiance. It’s a reflection of my cynicism, and fear of being landed with a virago who would divorce me down the line, take all my money, alimony, alientated kids, arrrgh!

Anyway …

I remember when that Epistle was read in out my very Novus Ordo local church. It may have been my imagination, but the congregation seemed to perceptibly enjoy it. I could feel ears pricking up. Then the priest, who I would describe as a feminist (he says ‘Sisters and Brothers’ instead of ‘Brothers and Sisters’) played it down in his sermon. Made me smile.

*"Matthew 19:3-6

Some Pharisees approached Jesus, and to test him they said, “Is it against the Law for a man to divorce his wife on any pretext whatever?” He answered, “Have you not read that the creator from the beginning made them male and female and that he said: This is why a man must leave father and mother, and cling to his wife, and the two become one body? They are no longer two, therefore, but one body. So then, what God has united, man must not divide”*

If you have a problem with that passage, then you have a problem full stop. I assume it’s the Epistle from Paul that’s the ‘sticking point’?

I can’t find the prayers at the end of the Mass online. It’s late and I’m a bit tired. I’d be curious as to what they say. If someone else could oblige?
 
I consider myself a traditionalist and weekly attend the EF, and I wanted my pastor to celebrate the EF for my marriage at her OF Parish. The OF Parish said it was no issue to have a ‘guest priest’. So as for having someone celebrate and a proper Schola and all that it would not be an issue.

I guess your translation is a little more modern than my own, the Saint Andrew Daily Missal did not use reverence your husband, but fear him.

It is not that I do not agree with it, but marriage is a partnership; I look at my Grandparents marriage or marriage in places when I deploy and it makes me cringe. I am by no means a feminist, but that dominance and the ‘don’t speak unless spoken to’ and just general attitude towards women is uncomfortable. I know it deals mostly with humility, but it is hard for me to get that point across when it soley concetrates the speech of service or avoided sin to woman, there is nothing in their about men needing to be subject to his wife or fear her.

As for the Gospel it not that we do not agree or find the language offensive or anything, heavens no! Her concern - not my own- is that is a bit of a ‘downer’ for a wedding, that it focus on how divorce is wrong. think the OF Gospel maybe Cana or that , “love is patient” reading.She found it more appropriate for the occasion, the celebration of love… We both have no issue with the no divorce thing, it just not something she wanted to hear on her wedding day.

As for the final prayer it again dealt with what she sees as ‘one sided’, " May she be true to one husband and fly from forbidden approaches. May she fortify her weakness by strong discipline ect." Neither of us had issue with the language as we recognize we are sinners and need always divine aid. For her is seems that it is concentrated on women (Eve) as falling prey to sin and that man (Adam) is someone absolved from fault. There is nothing in the prayers or blessings the instruct men to be chaste etc. If it was equal in its application I would have more to go with.

As for her passing the sniff test she does, she has no issues with service or devotion, she just rightfully expects the same from me.
 
The translations were the first I found online. The could be protesant for all I know. Just shows you the **** problem we have nowadays; everyone’s putting their little nuances on things.

“Her concern - not my own- is that is a bit of a ‘downer’ for a wedding, that it focus on how divorce is wrong.”

**I suppose the readings are the way they are to stick it to the lovebirds that marriage is serious commitment, ** so don’t mess about or you will incur God’s displeasure. Procreation is serious business. Making babies is serious business; divine power is employed. Don’t think you can just dump your spouse and remain righteous.

If it was all billowing gowns and pink champagne and sentimental readings it wouldn’t be doing the rite or the couple justice. Probably why there’re so may divorces these days; Las Vegas-style weddings, unrealistic expectations and subconscious, mentally-crossed fingers at the altar.

My dad told me to change my tie before going to a wedding. He said “Son, a wedding is a solemn occasion”. I did, and he was right.

The final readings sound like they’re to remind you of the fact that Eve tempted Adam; she, after the Serpent, was responsible for the Fall. **Men badger women, but it’s women who do the tempting and who decide who’ll they take to their bed, so it fits. If she don’t want you, you can forget it, ‘cos y’aint gettin’ any. **

PS: I read a good idea is to sit down with your fiance and discuss exactly what you want the future to bring; how many kids, where you’ll live, what your respective duties will be; go over any grey areas. Where y’see yourselves in five, ten, fifteen years time.
 
i sympathize with your situation.

you can talk to your priest together. there may be a substitution of some kind or maybe he can explain to your fiance in a delicate manor why this particular reading is very important. it is much easier for her to argue with you than a priest.

however, the reality is when we fight the way God made things we only make ourselves more miserable.

when God first made man he was made for God in his image. man is the leader of his family. when roles are reversed, it seems men tend to get lost and become very unhappy.
women are made from man. God removed a rib from adam. she was made because man was lonely.
since women have decided to change their roles in life can your fiance really say that families and the world are so much happierr?

i thank God everyday that i am a woman, for i serve God by serving my husband. woe to the man who does not serve God by not leading his family by making sure his family does not go to church on sunday, say a family rosary, and lead his wife and children in a way that does not please God.

why is this more so a man’s problem than a womans? because God gave man woman. she is a gift and what comes from your woman is a gift (children). like all gifts from God they are to be cherished and loved and taken care of.
 
A.Pelliccio said:
Anyway she got over that when I explained they would still have prayer intentions for the dead in the EF, but one thing she could not get over was the actual readings. The Epistle Ephesians v. 22-23, Gospel Matt.xix 3-6, and the blessing at the end are one sided and borderline sexist.
Click to expand...
Is Holy Scripture really “sexist” or are you perhaps reading these passages through an “enlightened”, modern lens?

The world today has us so on edge that we’ve become increasingly quick to assume that something that doesn’t embrace our modern gender neutrality is either sexist or biased. Fortunately, part of the humility involved with being Catholic is understanding that, perhaps we don’t have the same wisdom as St. Paul and St.Matthew did.
Unfortunately, we’re quite quick to throw away all of that that humility if it means that we are going to feel uncomfortable in front of others.

I would posit (contrary to what appears to be your assertion) that the Bible is, in fact, not in error. It is we who are in error for falsely judging it in our own weak naivete. I would encourage you to read through those passages again and ask yourself (outside of your modern-day inclinations) whether the Bible is, actually, sexist or whether it simply talks about things that make people today uncomfortable (like the idea of God-given roles for men and women).

God’s unique and complementary roles for men and women are lovely, sacred things. Today’s society tears that apart, and by making us all “equal” men and women have chosen to disclaim the dignity that comes from their unique purposes. Men and women have always been equal in the eyes of God, but they are not the same.
 
I also wanted to post the full text of Ephesians 5:23-33 just so that those here who didn’t know the reference in question could read it.

Its a “counter-cultural” passage of the Bible, so I can see how it can raise hackles, but it is, all the same, a beautiful text:

Taken from the Douay-Rheims Bible:
*Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ. Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any; such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular love his wife as himself: and let the wife fear her husband. *
Click to expand...
 
**22. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
  1. Husbands, love your wives,**
I agree this is sexist, but it’s sexist AGAINST men.

Note that wives are not required to love their husbands, but merely to submit.

Looks like it’s the men who are really getting short-changed here. I’d rather be loved, myself.
 
As for the Gospel it not that we do not agree or find the language offensive or anything…Neither of us had issue with the language as we recognize we are sinners and need always divine aid.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, that seems a different story from what you posted earlier:
…Anyway she got over that when I explained they would still have prayer intentions for the dead in the EF, but one thing she could not get over was the actual readings. The Epistle Ephesians v. 22-23, Gospel Matt.xix 3-6, and the blessing at the end are one sided and borderline sexist.

I really wanted a EF nuptial mass, I attend the EF-unless I am deployed with the Army, no EF:(- and really was looking forward to it.** But I can not force this one her, or her family because of some of these readings. **
Click to expand...
 
A.Pelliccio:
But I can not force this one her, or her family because of some of these readings. I know it was done this way for 1970 years,
Click to expand...
Sorry to nitpick…but it is utterly absurd to suggest that these particular readings and prayers have been set in stone for the first 1970 years of Church history. I had to point it out because it drives me nuts when people forget that the 1963 Missal (the EF of today) was the product of centuries of organic development…not an unchanging replica of the Last Supper! It’s was only implemented as the standard liturgy of the Latin Church (and not just Rome) after Trent in the 16th centuries…prior to that the West had a multitude of local liturgical traditions. The Eastern Churches continue to have their own liturgical traditions. The point is, you shouldn’t feel like you are departing from the Church’s one and only way to celebrate marriage (if you don’t end up having an EF Nuptial Mass).

If you are concerned about your wife and family’s reactions to the readings, in the interest of what I would call “pastoral concerns”, you may, as another poster suggested, want to consider a reverent OF mass with reception at the altar rail, incense, chant etc…
 
So it’s been roughly the same for about 500 years? And prior to that the Roman Church with its Latin Rite used something similar, before it was regulated, I daresay.

Roman Catholic Church …
Latin Rite …

… … …

… I know, let’s have a Mass in English!

.
 
Cluny said:
**22. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
  1. Husbands, love your wives,**
I agree this is sexist, but it’s sexist AGAINST men.

Note that wives are not required to love their husbands, but merely to submit.

Looks like it’s the men who are really getting short-changed here. I’d rather be loved, myself.
Click to expand...
Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church! Yeah I’m sorry the husbands have the MUCH harder row to hoe here.
 
Layman said:
My opinion: I think wives should obey their husbands, however. With men it’s “one mood, all the time”. ****With women it’s “what I want is what’s right and what’s right is what I want, but tomorrow I may have another opinion”. ****The man should have the last word, unless he’s a bounder, a fool or a weakling. In which case the woman will have to run the house regardless.

Is there such a thing as a totally egalitarian marriage anyway? Sounds like a modern fantasy to me.

“21. Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
22. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the Saviour of the body.
24. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26. that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word:
27. that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28. So ought men to love their wives, as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30. for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33. Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself: and the wife see that she reverence her husband.”

Y’know, I see that as an excellent passage. I can see why modern wives might not like it. But if a potential missus will not obey me, why would I get married? I ask myself, would I like to marry a ‘strong’ woman who would constantly countermand me? How would that sit in 30 years time? Could be very wearing.

You may have inadvertently discovered a good ‘potential wife test’. If she objects to an EF Nuptial Mass, I pass:D

May I say, no reflection on your relationship with your fiance. It’s a reflection of my cynicism, and fear of being landed with a virago who would divorce me down the line, take all my money, alimony, alientated kids, arrrgh!
Click to expand...
Honey, if you really feel this way ("virago"???) you likely won’t have to worry about a nuptial Mass.
 
*"About dixieagle

Biography
Married, 2 grown daughters"*

Dang, I missed my chance! 😉
 
Aye, I’ve had some lucky escapes so far. You shouldn’t get married unless you’re pretty sure it’s ordained by God (and not yer hormones).

If it’s a true love match, I think your wife would be happy to obey you. And you would rarely have to put your foot down about anything.
 
Write a 1000 word essay: “How Divorce Laws And The Sexual Revolution Have Helped Destroy The Institution Of Marriage”. 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top