But we don’t get water poured on our heads with the words “I baptize you…” The same way the marriage consent (which is called “vows” in the popular language) should not be repeated, because you can get married to a person validly only once.
I disagree. The liturgy must express the meaning of the sacrament, part of which is that you do this only once.
You are right that the marriage consent is something that you should continue to live out daily after your wedding. But that doesn’t make it right to do “renewal liturgies”. My question is strictly liturgical and I would like to know if the Church in general (not just in the US) has ever promulgated a rite of “renewal of the marriage vows”. That is not private bringing to mind I am talking about.
And they were very clear in this liturgy that it was not a repeat of their original vows, but a re-expression of those same vows. All of us present were well aware of this fact, we knew that this was** in no way** a remaking re-doing of their original vows.
They were not pretending to re-marry, they were not attempting to repeat their marriage. I really don’t understand why you think that a vow renewal is an attempt to remarry.If there is nothing wrong as such with a renewal then why is it wrong to perform such a renewal with others present? The only reason it would be wrong is if people thought it was an attempt to ‘remarry’. However, if there is no danger of such thinking how could there be anything wrong with such a renewal seeing as you yoursself have admitted that there is nothing wrong as such with renewing ones vows?
Unfortunately, the person who posted on that blog that you have linked to is misinformed. There is in fact a rite provided - a very ample rite with several prayers for different parts of the Mass - in the second Latin edition of the Ordo Celebrandi Matrimonium - with a formula for a renewal (renovare) of vows (which is different from the words used at a wedding) and several other features of the marriage rite such as proper intercessions, a blessing after the Our Father, and a special solemn blessing formulary. The translation of the second edition will be up for the bishops’ approval later this year.
It is found at EWTN Here: ewtn.com/library/PRAYER/ROMAN1.TXT
When a priest gets ordained he he makes vows which he intends to keep for life. Why do priests renew their vows every year?
Apples and oranges. A renewal of priestly vows (like a renewal of baptismal promises) is not what makes a sacrament. On the other hand, when a priest asks for and receives the declaration of consent from a couple, that’s what makes a marriage.
On the other hand, wouldn’t it be as ‘meaningful’ to have a blessing of the couple? ‘Vow renewal’ ceremonies, IMHO, are a bad idea – they dilute the meaning of the sacrament, and they can have unforeseen consequences…
The entire rite of marriage is not repeated in a renewal of vows.
Many people feel that a public reaffirming of their love and commitment is important. The Church in her wisdom has graciously provided a rite for this. It may not be your cup of tea, or mine for that matter, so feel free not to do it. For folks like my parents, who renewed theirs on their 25th anniversary, it was important. In that ceremony they exchanged rings, since Dad had never had one (double-ring ceremonies were rare in the early '50s where I grew up) and Mom’s had broken from contact with mercury. Why would you deny them that?
You are just repeating the argument the blogger made which completely fails as can be shown by the fact that the Church herself has a proscribed ritual for renewing the wedding vows as I have shown above. If it were wrong to renew vows because vow renewal is a second attempt at matrimony then the Church would never have allowed it, but it has, and does, allow it. It is not a second attempt at matrimony because the words used for the vows are different to show that this is just a reaffirmation and reminder of the original vows which were the ones that made the sacrament.
Not always, no. And vow renewal ceremonies only “dilute the meaning of the sacrament” if they are misunderstood to be a second attempt at matrimony, which they are most decidedly not.
It should be noted that the ceremony is not identical around the world. In the US the wording of the vows is different. In Canada they are identical to the original vows and it is the introduction by the priest that differs and makes it clear that this is not a ‘marriage ceremony’.
But that’s not the point. If one wishes to convalidate a marriage, in some cases, the exchange of consent is all that’s required (all other issues being resolved).
Which rite, by the way? The one that TheWanderer linked, from EWTN? I would assert that what’s there isn’t what we’re talking about here – although it’s called “renewal of vows”, it’s clearly just asking the couple to re-affirm what they did 25 or 50 years earlier. That’s a whole different thing than asking for a new act of consent.
Not at all… but I would ask them to “re-affirm”, and would bless their rings. I wouldn’t ask them for a new act of consent, which is the point I’m taking issue with…
Not in the least. The blogger claimed that a renewal of vows demonstrates that the person thinks that they didn’t really participate in a valid wedding, way back when. I’m not making that claim.
The link you provided was for couples at their anniversaries. Its title is “renewal”, but it speaks only to “re-affirmation” of the prior vows. If all you’re talking about is such a reaffirmation, then there’s no problem. My issue is with ceremonies which repeat the marriage rite (which is what I suspect the blogger is complaining about, too). Your insertion of this other rite clouds the issue at hand.
Right – if that reaffirmation is all you have in mind, then no problems. But that’s not what I see and hear about in practice – folks wish to do their whole marriage vows over again, and that’s what I have a problem with. Sorry if I’m the one causing the confusion, but if we’re interested in this subject and are confusing each other so thoroughly, what do you think is happening in the pews?
And what if they use the language of the original ceremony?
Nobody here is saying that a couple should be allowed to make a new act of consent.
What they are saying is that when people make a renewal of vows they are not making a new act of consent. The Church clearly agrees that this is at least possible in including a renewal of vows in the Rituale Romanum.And when the actual quasi-service literally has an act of consent? What then?Nobody here is saying that a couple should be allowed to make a new act of consent.
Perhaps. Yet, Phemie has said that, in Canada, the ‘renewal’ is exactly like the actual rite itself. I don’t think that you can argue that I’m making it up.You are arguing against a strawman of your own making.
