My wedding day,,a throw back to a by-gone era

  • Thread starter Thread starter love4mary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So…you’re saying you will obey your husband, but not the Church? :confused:
 
love4mary said:
May 10th,in just 2 weeds:eek: I will be walking down the aisle.

When planning with my priest and music director, I told them that because my father is in heaven, I will be having my 14 year old son Walk me down the aisle. They both said that that was not normally done anymore as we no longer “give away” the bride as if “property”. He WILL be my escort down the aisle:thumbsup:

Both me and my fiancé want the word OBEY in our statement of promise to each other, both the priest and music director (who has tremendous influence) said that was “Old fashioned” and we use the word Honor or Cherish now. We, when exchanging our promises WILL use the word OBEY.👍

I was told that most brides choose Corinthians for their New Testament read, we have chosen Ephesians 5: 21-33 as our reading:thumbsup:

All the other planning of the wedding are going fine, but the frustration of working with our priest and music director is driving me NUTS:banghead:

Are we being to “Old Fashioned” in how we want our wedding ceremony to be? Even my dress is very conservative in style complete with a full Cathedral veil.
Click to expand...
I’m all in favor!! When my husband and I were married 8 years ago, we also chose the reading from Ephesians, had the veil, and my step-father walked me down the aisle.

We had several people in the congregation giggle when they heard the “wives submit to your husbands”…possibly because our friend, who was doing the reading, gave me a pointed look when he read it.

Then, as the priest was beginning his homily said “What, you don’t think she will obey him?” then he said to me, “love your husband” and to my husband he said “obey your wife!”

I still think that was excellent advice! 👍
 
Our priest also said that it is a cultural, not religious custom to have the bride given away and that he encourages couple to come up the aisle together. That’s true, but I’m still walking up the aisle and having my dad “pass me off” 😉 to FH. As far as “obey”, husband and wife are equals so I am not obliged to obey him.

Congratulations, May 10 was our first choice of date too but had to move it to accommodate the hall rental.

Just looking at the vows is making me tear up:crying: MUST…NOT…RUIN MAKEUP ON MY WEDDING DAY! 😛
 
Wow!! When dh and I got married (about 2 1/2 yrs ago) my ds1 &2 were best man and groomsman, and my dd and step dd were maid of honor and bridesmaid. We did the procession with the alter servers, cross bearer, priest and then step dd and ds2 then dd and ds1 then dh and I. The readings we selected were from the booklet and the music dh and I selected together, and priest approved. His only requirement for music was no secular music which wasn’t a problem. But the thing you said that surprised me was about the cathedral veil. I was told by the priest that a veil was not appropriate for a woman with children. I told the priest no problem… I was wearing roses in my hair not a veil anyway. And… ivory dress vs. a white one was appropriate for a woman with children.
 
kage_ar said:
Awhile back I did some research on the word “OBEY” and could not find where it was every part of the official Marriage Liturgy for the Catholic Church. I did find it as part of Protestant weddings.

Could you point me to the documents where you see where this is the way it used to be done?
Click to expand...
This is true. “Obey” is not in either the traditional or modern Catholic marriage rite, and its not in the Orthodox Jewish marriage rite either!

It must be a fully Protestant invention, perhaps rooted in Ephesians 5.
 
HashemEchad said:
This is true. “Obey” is not in either the traditional or modern Catholic marriage rite, and its not in the Orthodox Jewish marriage rite either!

It must be a fully Protestant invention, perhaps rooted in Ephesians 5.
Click to expand...
It is firmly rooted in Henry VIII. He added that to the Church of England vows. It seems to have flowed from there into the various denominations that were offshoots of that church and/or ruled by Britain.
 
The ‘old fashioned’ thing to do when you have been married before (you mention that you have a 14 year old son) is to forgo the white dress and veil, since that is a symbol of virginity. I hate to be a party pooper, but traditionally speaking a second marriage is supposed to be a modest affair, according to old-fashioned ettiquette.
 
thedavidwilson said:
Actually the Father did “give away” the bride in the marriage rite prior to 1962.
Click to expand...
Yes, but not the teenaged son from another marriage “giving away” the bride. I don’t think that was ever a part of the Catholic wedding rite.
 
lovesMary said:
The ‘old fashioned’ thing to do when you have been married before (you mention that you have a 14 year old son) is to forgo the white dress and veil, since that is a symbol of virginity. I hate to be a party pooper, but traditionally speaking a second marriage is supposed to be a modest affair, according to old-fashioned ettiquette.
Click to expand...
Did she say this was a second wedding? (not intending to be snide, but I didn’t read that anywhere… or I may have just missed it)
 
PatienceAndLove said:
Did she say this was a second wedding? (not intending to be snide, but I didn’t read that anywhere… or I may have just missed it)
Click to expand...
She said that she had a son. I gather from that that she is not a virgin. If she never was married that would mean that her son was born out of wedlock. Either way, an old fashioned woman would not go over board on a ‘traditional’ wedding.

In the old days, I’ve been told, women were ashamed of having had a child without marriage, and divorce was also a social stigma. So I find it ironic that the OP is trumpeting her wedding being a throwback to a bygone era.
 
Yes, second wedding should not be the big gala that a first wedding is, ditto if you already have kids but weren’t married.
I’ve been married twice–to the same guy. 😉 Really. Our first wedding was the big to-do, white dress, long veil, yada yada, but useless, since is wasn’t a Church wedding. Long story short, we got divorced, but then I converted to the Church, he reverted, and we got remarried, this time IN the Church 👍 😃 . Second time around was small, I wore ivory and sage, no veil, and our son was our best man–he did NOT walk me down the aisle. We were both hardcore Catholics by then, and we did everything the way the priest told us to, with NO INNOVATIONS IN THE LITURGY!
 
lovesMary said:
She said that she had a son. I gather from that that she is not a virgin. If she never was married that would mean that her son was born out of wedlock. Either way, an old fashioned woman would not go over board on a ‘traditional’ wedding.

In the old days, I’ve been told, women were ashamed of having had a child without marriage, and divorce was also a social stigma. So I find it ironic that the OP is trumpeting her wedding being a throwback to a bygone era.
Click to expand...
I had a child out of wedlock and I threw one heck of a party when I got married. The way I saw it, I was finally a respectable woman and I was gonna shout it from the roof tops.

Plus, as far as I know, the Church no longer has restrictions on what type of wedding a couple has. Cultural etiquette is what dictates that. Couples in second marriages are ENCOURAGED to have a smaller ceremony, but are not required.

Additionally- some of us do have a change of heart and wish to do things as they should be done, even if we screwed up in the past. Heck, I used to be a Lesbian Witch. Look at me now- a rosary-totin, mantilla-and-skirt-wearing, magistarium-and-tradition-lovin Catholic. So, people do change and wish to become respectable. Don’t judge us on our pasts.
 
I heard that the white a bride wears is an extension of her baptism.

Yes I’ve also heard the virginity thing, but that seems to be cultural.

The veil used to be worn by all bridesmaids too…so that evil didn’t know who the bride was…because that is a very vulnerable time for her.
 
I’m not judging you, Patience and Love, I’m commenting on the contradiction between what the OP said in her title and in her description of her situation.

From the title I assumed that her marriage was a throwback to a bygone era, meaning that she was a certified virgin, not that she was on her second time around and her teenage son was going to “give her away”. I just find that highly ironic.

She just wants the wedding to fit some pre-conceived notion that she has of a traditional wedding, which sounds as if it came from a Hollywood movie, updated to accomodate the fact that she is a typical modern woman with children from a previous relationship, who is not a virgin on her wedding day.

It’s not to say that I have anything against her son walking her up the aisle. I actually think that’s very sweet. But it’s not exactly an ancient tradition. (I think it must have started in California, actually 😉 )
 
lovesMary said:
I’m not judging you, Patience and Love, I’m commenting on the contradiction between what the OP said in her title and in her description of her situation.

From the title I assumed that her marriage was a throwback to a bygone era, meaning that she was a certified virgin, not that she was on her second time around and her teenage son was going to “give her away”. I just find that highly ironic.

She just wants the wedding to fit some pre-conceived notion that she has of a traditional wedding, which sounds as if it came from a Hollywood movie, updated to accomodate the fact that she is a typical modern woman with children from a previous relationship, who is not a virgin on her wedding day.

It’s not to say that I have anything against her son walking her up the aisle. I actually think that’s very sweet. But it’s not exactly an ancient tradition. (I think it must have started in California, actually 😉 )
Click to expand...
No offense taken- I have thick skin, but I sometimes forget that I do 😉

I think the OPs reference to the by-gone era was her desire to be walked down the aisle and to say “obey”, which have been proven, are not Catholic.
 
lovesMary said:
The ‘old fashioned’ thing to do when you have been married before (you mention that you have a 14 year old son) is to forgo the white dress and veil, since that is a symbol of virginity. I hate to be a party pooper, but traditionally speaking a second marriage is supposed to be a modest affair, according to old-fashioned ettiquette.
Click to expand...
Brides did not wear white at all prior to Queen Victoria choosing it for her wedding dress and making it a popular choice among the upper class and eventually couture designers and Hollywood celebrities. It has nothing to do with virginity or virtue. It has to do with pomp and wealth.

All women wore veils or hats for Mass prior to Vatican II, so in the Catholic Church the veil isn’t special either, nor a sign of anything.

And, in charity, perhaps one should also consider that a woman with a 14 year old son might be a widow, not a divorcee or out-of-wedlock parent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top