I
Irishgal49
Guest
I highly doubt anyone thinks they NEED renewing. It’s a way of celebrating God’s continued blessing on the marriage. Obviously it’s a personal choice. I think it’s nice at the big anniversaries, like 25, 50, etc.
- Status
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
May be I used the incorrect verb. I understand it is a matter of personal choice. Perhaps my opinion is affected by my experience of the one occasion when we went to a couple’s wedding vow renewal. It didn’t take a genius to work out that the renewal of their vows wasn’t the focus of that day.
I still don’t see the point or purpose. Celebrate wedding anniversaries by all means (even if just for health reasons
). Some people have replied to me by pointing out that priests renew their vows annually (although I don’t think priests make vows so it must be something else they renew). Religious renew vows too. That can be slightly different because some take only temporary vows. I suppose I believe that if you have made a vow or some solemn promise to do something for life then it does not have to be done again. That’s how I view it and my wife is of the same opinion.
N
nagyszakall
Guest
And the Church in her wisdom has graciously removed the rite… without saying that it is wrong, but there is another way to do it which therefore should be preferable.
P
Phemie
Guest
When did that happen?
There is a rite for a renewal of vows in the Canadian “Marriage” ritual book.
T
thewanderer
Guest
The rite is removed but there is still another way to do the same thing??? Thats really confusing, what exactly do you mean?
S
shipwrkd
Guest
The priest did not ask us for a new act of consent but rather to re - affirm. The rings were blessed at the original ceremony so you could make the same argument about re - blessing them.
It’s nice to see that in this day when one out of two marriages fail, there are those that can make it and they should be put on display. It’s the most controversial and talked about Sacrament and perhaps the most important (at least it was the first) so anything that can be done to preserve it should be done.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Cool… no problems there. I’m not saying all ‘renewals’ are evil; just that if a ‘renewal’ follows the form of the original wedding vows, then there’s a problem.
No, I wouldn’t, and here’s why: first off, a blessing isn’t a sacrament (and, at that, it isn’t a sacrament that can only be received once). So, re-blessing a ring isn’t something I’d say “you did once, so you can’t do it again”. Second, though, we know that we constantly ask for and receive blessings for ourselves personally (at Masses, one-on-one and directly, in the context of Grace before Meals), so a re-blessing of a ring fits in nicely with this custom.
S
shipwrkd
Guest
It was a different priest and forty years ago. For all I know, the words may have been identical. I think your statement that any renewal could even possibly be evil is a bit strong. And what would the problem be exactly? Our priest didn’t indicate there could be problem and said he would use his standard wedding vows. Some of the opinions on this forum are totally idiotic.
G
Gorgias
Guest
LOL … it’s called ‘hyperbole’!
In other words, both literally and implicitly, I’m saying “not evil”.
I’ve said it earlier in this thread: if there’s ever any question of the validity of the marriage, this ‘renewal’ – which might reasonably be construed not as a ‘renewal’ but as a separate and valid act – might itself then be considered a valid marriage act. The problem is that the participants might not be aware of the import of their actions.
(Let’s do a thought experiment: at the time of your wedding, your intention is ‘Catholic marriage’ and you think that your fiance’s is, too. Later, you find out that your spouse had other intentions (pick your poison: infidelity, no intent for a permanent marriage, or one of any more heinous situations). You can’t abide by this, and decide that divorce (and annulment) is the proper course of action – after all, you’re not in a valid marriage, based on your spouse’s actions. However, between then and now, you participated in a ‘renewal’. Whoops! If your spouse’s intent had changed, regardless of what you think of his behavior or original intent, you’re now in a valid marriage. Sorry – you’re now stuck! It doesn’t matter if he’s catted around with half the town – you have no recourse, since now, by virtue of the ‘renewal’, you’re in a valid marriage.)
Far-fetched? Not really; you hear of cases like this. Uncommon? Perhaps. But, are they a situation that’s a case of injustice for the innocent spouse? Yep. And the injustice wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the ‘renewal’.
Perhaps I’m making a mountain out of a molehill. But, I can assure you that the unwary and innocent spouse in this kind of case doesn’t think so.
A more likely situation is that the person who participates in this ‘renewal’ or witnesses it ends up losing a sense of the sacredness of the sacrament itself. As you yourself said, “For all I know, the words may have been identical.” In other words, you really couldn’t care whether you simulated a sacrament or not. That’s a seriously bad thing.
I would assert that unfortunately, he may be unaware of the problems that his actions might cause. Not your fault, certainly, but a problem nevertheless.
You have a nice day, too, shipwrkd…
V
Vico
Guest
The CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS likes it (December 2001):
The Feast of the Holy Family
- The feast of the holy family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph (Sunday in the Christmas octave) is a festive occasion particularly suitable for the celebration of rites or moments of prayer proper to the Christian family. The recollection of Joseph, Mary and Jesus’ going up to Jerusalem, together with other observant Jewish families, for the celebration of the Passover (cf. Lk 2, 41-42), should normally encourage a positive acceptance of the pastoral suggestion that all members of the family attend Mass on this day. This feast day also affords an opportunity for the renewal of our entrustment to the patronage of the Holy Family of Nazareth(120); the blessing of children as provided in the ritual(121); and where opportune, for the renewal of marriage vows taken by the spouses on their wedding day, and also for the exchange of promises between those engaged to be married in which they formalize their desire to found a new Christian family(122).
(120) Cf. Actus consecrationis familiarum, in EI, Aliae concessiones, 1, p. 50.
(121) Cf RITUALE ROMANUM, De benedictionibus, Ordo benedictionis filiorum, Editio Typica, Typis Polyglotis Vaticanis 1985, 174-194.
(122) Cf. ibid., Ordo benedictionis desponsatorum, 195-204.
(123) Erected by Leo XIII through the Apostolic Letter *Neminem fugit *(14 June 1892) in Leonis XIII Pontificis Maximi Acta, XII, Typographia Vaticana, Romae 1893, pp. 149-158: confirmed by John Paul II with the decree of the Pontifical Council for the Laity (25 November 1987).
(124) Cf. EI, Piae invocationes, p. 83.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20020513_vers-direttorio_en.html
P
Phemie
Guest
Why would anyone in that kind of marriage have a ‘renewal of vows’ at any point?
Your hypothetical situation reminds me of a very real one I experienced in my last couple of years at the parish.
A woman came to the office to arrange a renewal of vows for their 35 or 40th anniversary. She proceeded to tell me that her husband beat her, wouldn’t give her any money, that she’d charged him, etc. She had not a good word to say about him.
OTHO, I remember a former pastor saying that he pitied her husband because she made his life a living hell. The man was our organist and a prominent doctor in the community.
I soooo wanted to ask her why she wanted to get up in front of the community and renew her vows since she seemed to be so absolutely miserable with him, but I didn’t have the guts.
When the day came for them to do this, at the Saturday evening Mass, he so obviously didn’t want to be there that it was commented upon later. It was the first renewal of vows that made me sad because it wasn’t done out of a sense of wanting to reaffirm their vows but simply for show for her.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Good point. However, note that the footnote here references the “Order of Blessing of Spouses” from the Roman Ritual. I don’t think that anyone here has asserted that a blessing of spouses on their anniversary is a bad thing.
G
Gorgias
Guest
I guess I’m thinking more of folks who don’t know about their spouse’s issue until after the re-enactment of the vows…
N
nagyszakall
Guest
Sorry, I expressed myself poorly. What I mean is that there is a blessing for wedding anniversaries, which seems to be the Church’s preference (at least outside Canada and other places where the local bishops’ conference inserted a rite of renewal).
S
shipwrkd
Guest
If one renews invalid vows how does this make them valid? Is this opinion or is there Catholic documentation that affirms it.
Do ya think
Sorry, strong on my part.
G
Gorgias
Guest
If it’s just a re-affirmation, then there’s no problem. As you state, one cannot re-affirm an invalidity. However, if they are actual vows, then they will be judged on their own merits – in this case, the practical effect is much like a convalidation of an invalid marriage.
Here’s the case I’m making, as an example:
2000 – John and Sally are married in the Catholic Church; according to form, no impediments, an exchange of consent. It seems to be a valid marriage. Unbeknownst to all but John, he really doesn’t intend fidelity, and plans on keeping up a clandestine relationship on the side.
2005 – John and Sally ‘renew’ their marriage vows. The actual vows are just a ‘re-affirmation’, though.
2007 – John stops cheating on Sally. (Yay!)
2010 – John and Sally go to ‘renew’ their vows again (gee, we just love these renewals on our anniversary! they’re really meaningful to us!
). However, this time, the priest that celebrates the vows asks for and gets an act of consent.2011 – Sally finds out that John cheated on her for the first seven years of their marriage. Boo!
Due to the circumstances, Sally decides that she’s been living a charade – John never really meant to be part of a Catholic marriage. After the divorce, she starts the nullity process. Now, the 2000 ceremony may be found to be invalid – after all, John’s consent was defective. The 2005 ceremony is immaterial – it has no practical effect. However, because of the 2010 “renewal” (which was actually a new act of consent, and therefore, a valid marriage), they are found to be validly married. Sorry, Sally – no annulment possible. And why? Solely because of the 2010 “renewal”.
LOL. It certainly is a distinct and particular case I’m making, and definitely, doesn’t cover the majority of situations that people experience. But, when these situations pop up – and they do! – these are exactly the ones that folks use as a club against the Church. “Oh, the Church is sooo mean! Sally is completely innocent, and look how they’re forcing her to never be remarried! WWJD? What a horrible institution!”Do ya think
Yet, due to the seeming injustice involved, and the fact that most people in this situation don’t even know what real effects their “renewal” actually has, it seems like something that bears discussion.
I’ve explained my point ad nauseum. I’ll stop now, since hopefully, you can see where I’m coming from by now…
No problems…
T
thewanderer
Guest
Sorry, but how is this any different than a couple who marries validly and then later on find out that one of them had been cheating on the other while dating? If they are validly married they are validly married. If they both made valid acts of consent then they are married. Why all this talk about it being unfair?If it’s just a re-affirmation, then there’s no problem. As you state, one cannot re-affirm an invalidity. However, if they are actual vows, then they will be judged on their own merits – in this case, the practical effect is much like a convalidation of an invalid marriage.
Here’s the case I’m making, as an example:
2000 – John and Sally are married in the Catholic Church; according to form, no impediments, an exchange of consent. It seems to be a valid marriage. Unbeknownst to all but John, he really doesn’t intend fidelity, and plans on keeping up a clandestine relationship on the side.
2005 – John and Sally ‘renew’ their marriage vows. The actual vows are just a ‘re-affirmation’, though.
2007 – John stops cheating on Sally. (Yay!)
2010 – John and Sally go to ‘renew’ their vows again (gee, we just love these renewals on our anniversary! they’re really meaningful to us!
2011 – Sally finds out that John cheated on her for the first seven years of their marriage. Boo!
Due to the circumstances, Sally decides that she’s been living a charade – John never really meant to be part of a Catholic marriage. After the divorce, she starts the nullity process. Now, the 2000 ceremony may be found to be invalid – after all, John’s consent was defective. The 2005 ceremony is immaterial – it has no practical effect. However, because of the 2010 “renewal” (which was actually a new act of consent, and therefore, a valid marriage), they are found to be validly married. Sorry, Sally – no annulment possible. And why? Solely because of the 2010 “renewal”.
LOL. It certainly is a distinct and particular case I’m making, and definitely, doesn’t cover the majority of situations that people experience. But, when these situations pop up – and they do! – these are exactly the ones that folks use as a club against the Church. “Oh, the Church is sooo mean! Sally is completely innocent, and look how they’re forcing her to never be remarried! WWJD? What a horrible institution!”
Yet, due to the seeming injustice involved, and the fact that most people in this situation don’t even know what real effects their “renewal” actually has, it seems like something that bears discussion.
I’ve explained my point ad nauseum. I’ll stop now, since hopefully, you can see where I’m coming from by now…
No problems…
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
A lot of what you say revolves around your opinion rather than hard fact. I agree you present a good case. I understand that the couple are renewing their vows. However, doesn’t all this depend on what the Church says. The Church has a deep concern for marriage. I doubt the possibility you present hasn’t been considered by the Church. Marriage law in the Church is very complex but it might somewhere make provision that a renewal is just that, a renewal, but that it cannot in any way validate what is otherwise a invalid marriage.If it’s just a re-affirmation, then there’s no problem. As you state, one cannot re-affirm an invalidity. However, if they are actual vows, then they will be judged on their own merits – in this case, the practical effect is much like a convalidation of an invalid marriage.
Here’s the case I’m making, as an example:
2000 – John and Sally are married in the Catholic Church; according to form, no impediments, an exchange of consent. It seems to be a valid marriage. Unbeknownst to all but John, he really doesn’t intend fidelity, and plans on keeping up a clandestine relationship on the side.
2005 – John and Sally ‘renew’ their marriage vows. The actual vows are just a ‘re-affirmation’, though.
2007 – John stops cheating on Sally. (Yay!)
2010 – John and Sally go to ‘renew’ their vows again (gee, we just love these renewals on our anniversary! they’re really meaningful to us!
2011 – Sally finds out that John cheated on her for the first seven years of their marriage. Boo!
Due to the circumstances, Sally decides that she’s been living a charade – John never really meant to be part of a Catholic marriage. After the divorce, she starts the nullity process. Now, the 2000 ceremony may be found to be invalid – after all, John’s consent was defective. The 2005 ceremony is immaterial – it has no practical effect. However, because of the 2010 “renewal” (which was actually a new act of consent, and therefore, a valid marriage), they are found to be validly married. Sorry, Sally – no annulment possible. And why? Solely because of the 2010 “renewal”.
LOL. It certainly is a distinct and particular case I’m making, and definitely, doesn’t cover the majority of situations that people experience. But, when these situations pop up – and they do! – these are exactly the ones that folks use as a club against the Church. “Oh, the Church is sooo mean! Sally is completely innocent, and look how they’re forcing her to never be remarried! WWJD? What a horrible institution!”
Yet, due to the seeming injustice involved, and the fact that most people in this situation don’t even know what real effects their “renewal” actually has, it seems like something that bears discussion.
I’ve explained my point ad nauseum. I’ll stop now, since hopefully, you can see where I’m coming from by now…
No problems…
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
You really should have asked her
We have a friend who we don’t see too often. When we see her she spends the entire time criticising her husband. Sometimes I manage to sneak out of the room and leave my wife to listen. However, if you say anything even mildly critical of her husband she bites your head off. Fortunately, we see her husband even less often and he does the same: spends all his time calling her. It’s strange but some marriages seem to survive like this for years.
S
shipwrkd
Guest
Gorgias, I think ya hit the nail with this word. I wouldn’t need, or want, to renew my vows because they are as binding now as they were 40 years ago. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, I did want to re-enact them. That’s what 99.9% of married couples do. I think what MH stated is true, the Church must have safe guards regarding such an important Sacrament. Has your scenario, in fact, happened?
- Status