Traditional Christian weddings and their hymns

[dzheremi]

I dunno why this is a thing I'm into lately (I'm not getting married or going to a wedding soon or anything like that), but I have stumbled upon some very nice wedding hymns/songs from the OO churches (probably because that's a lot of what comes up when you search for things from the Malankara Orthodox Church, for some reason), so I figured we could contrast and compare how our different traditional churches approach the holy mystery of matrimony -- the ceremony(/ies), but also the theology, ecclesiology, etc. of it.

With the caveat that I do not know Malayalam, the native language of the majority of Indian Orthodox Christians (Syrian 'Jacobite' and Malankara), so I'm relying on English translations as found in the book "Order of Holy Matrimony" put out by the Malankara Orthodox Church (I don't know if it's officially published or just online; I just have a PDF), what follows seems to be a very popular Malankara Orthodox wedding hymn, "Pathivruthayam", which I will provide a slightly modified translation of below the video (because in the book it appears to be very literal, preserving the word order in the original and thereby sounding unnatural in English):

Apologies to any who are offended or turned off by the musical accompaniment (I take it to be an "Indian thing"). I kind of like it, honestly , but at the same time wouldn't want it in my own Church. There is a Syriac version from which the Malayalam version comes, but as far as I could find it on YouTube it also has a similar general musical accompaniment.

Anyway, the English translation goes something like this:

The Holy Church was betrothed to the Heavenly Groom
Sacred and clean
Exhorted and commissioned were then Simon and John
Simon -- to keep the house safe
(While) the Gospel was entrusted to John
The Lord exhorted them again:
"This Church, which I have bought with mine own precious blood, thou keep safe." Barekmor (Syriac for "Lord bless")

There is a second verse after this, but it is not really understandable to me due to the strangeness of the translation (ex. "faithful be not afraid since thou not taketh alien"...um...what?). I'm sure it makes sense in Malayalam or Syriac, but that doesn't really help. But of what I can understand out of what is here, it is interesting to see this strong ecclesiological meaning emphasized in a marriage ceremony hymn. It reminds me of the principle, which should be well known to traditional Christians (or so I assume), of the home being the little church. Obviously then the forming of a new family/new home would also then be the forming of a new little church, and so it would make sense to recall the theological underpinnings of our ecclesiology -- that we, the Church, are the bride of Christ, the Heavenly Groom, and insofar as He has entrusted His living Church to us, it is as in the days of Simon and John and the other apostles and disciples: safeguard the house and preach the Gospel also in the "little church" the Church is now blessing the creation of with the matrimony of its believers.

At least that's how I'd interpret that.

The Armenians I think go even further in the explicitness of this connection, at least according to their own explanation of what their wedding ceremonies are about. I've never been to an Armenian wedding, but Fr. Daniel makes them sound amazing in this video:

(FYI, the hymn "Soorp Asdvadz" mentioned by the good Father is the Trisagion.)

It is good to see the crowning ceremony as a commonality across all of the churches claiming Orthodoxy (OO and EO), as we Copts also have it (I couldn't find a short enough video not filled with ululating Egyptians to illustrate it with), and the Tewahedo and Middle Eastern Syriacs too. And the EO have it, of course, and take sensible snapshots of it to show the world.

I don't think I've ever been to a religious Western Christian wedding (only funerals)...do Catholics, Anglicans, and other traditional Western Christians have similar ceremonies? Do you guys have crowning or something equivalent to it, or is that just in the East? Sorry for my ignorance; I didn't do any marrying while Catholic! (Probably a good thing, considering how I turned out, faith-wise. Heh.)

 

[Philip_B]

Some Anglicans in these parts use the Lighting of the wedding candle, where the Bride and Groom each rith a taper light the candle together (which has their names on it and some decoration) and they take the candle with them to light in anniversaries etc. The only hymn that springs readily to mind is Love Divine

 

[gordonhooker]

My wife and I did something similar then we shared that light with all the congregation as they lit each others candles.

 

[All4Christ]

Regarding hymnography - We have a common paraliturgical hymn that before the bride meets the priest and groom at the back of the church.

You are a vineyard newly blossomed.
Young, beautiful, growing in Eden,
(A fragrant poplar sapling in Paradise.)
(May God adorn you. No one is more worthy of praise.)
You yourself are the sun, shining brilliantly.

We tend to sing different words - Psalm 45: At Thy right hand stands the queen....

 

[Paidiske]

I have seen a crowning done at an Anglican wedding, for a couple where at least one of the party was Greek. Also the shared cup of wine at that wedding, which I think is also an Orthodox thing? But it's not a common thing for us to do.

The exchange of rings and binding of their hands with a stole would be our main symbolic actions; but in the west the emphasis has very much been on verbal consent and vow.

 

[All4Christ]

And of course we have the Dance of Isaiah with the crowning:

 

[dzheremi]

Thank you, everyone, for your very interesting replies.

I realized just now that I had meant to include a link in the OP to the PDF of the Malankara Orthodox wedding book, in case anyone would want to look at it. There's a lot more in it than just the hymns. It is available here. (Opens as a PDF.)

All4Christ: I love all of the hymns you've shared so far! Georgian hymns are incredibly beautiful.

Paidiske: When you say that Western weddings focus much more on verbal consent, what exactly do you mean? I've been to enough secular weddings that obviously focus on that, so I'm kind of wondering what then marks a Western Christian (say Anglican, since you are one) wedding as specifically Christian? Surely there must be particular hymns sung or Biblical passages read, or something like this? I really like the candle thing mentioned by our friends Philip_B and Gordon Hooker, but I suspect there's more to an Anglican wedding than that.

For instance, do you guys follow some other Western churches in the belief that the couple confer the sacrament upon one another, as symbolized by the exchange of rings, or is there a different idea behind this common practice? If you do share that understanding, is that why there is this emphasis upon consent, so as to make sure neither has malformed intention in the marriage that might be cause for later dissolution, as it is with RC annulments?

(Unrelated to the above questions, but related to Philip_B's good post) "Love Divine" is apparently this, for anyone who does not know it (e.g., me ):

 

[Paidiske]

Paidiske: When you say that Western weddings focus much more on verbal consent, what exactly do you mean? I've been to enough secular weddings that obviously focus on that, so I'm kind of wondering what then marks a Western Christian (say Anglican, since you are one) wedding as specifically Christian? Surely there must be particular hymns sung or Biblical passages read, or something like this? I really like the candle thing mentioned by our friends Philip_B and Gordon Hooker, but I suspect there's more to an Anglican wedding than that.

For instance, do you guys follow some other Western churches in the belief that the couple confer the sacrament upon one another, as symbolized by the exchange of rings, or is there a different idea behind this common practice? If you do share that understanding, is that why there is this emphasis upon consent, so as to make sure neither has malformed intention in the marriage that might be cause for later dissolution, as it is with RC annulments?

I mean that in our view, what makes a marriage is the two people getting married expressing verbally their consent and vow to marry. In theory you could strip everything else away and that would still be a valid marriage.

What makes it Christian? We do it before God, (The current prayer book my church uses expresses the vows as "I, N, in the presence of God, take you, N, to be my wife [husband]: to have and to hold..."), we do it in the context of worship, there is Scripture read and reflected on, and we have prayers for God's blessing on the couple.

Our service is unusual in that hymns are entirely optional.

The Anglican tradition in which I stand would say that marriage is not a sacrament, but a state of life. But it is entered into by the consent and vows of the couple (which is why, as a side note, you can't get married when you're drunk; if you're too cognitively impaired to consent, you can't marry!). My understanding is that the emphasis on consent actually goes all the way back to Roman law, which required the free consent of both parties to a marriage.

 

[dzheremi]

I had no idea that the Anglican Church does not view marriage as a sacrament.

Also, if there are no required hymns, then I'm tempted to ask just what is required, service-wise? The readings, the prayers, and intent? How long is the average Anglican wedding ceremony? Do most skip the hymns (except maybe "Love Divine")?

 

[All4Christ]

Some links to hymns from my own wedding

Dance of Isaiah _2.mp3

bless the Lord Audio Extracted.mp3

make a Joyful Noise Audio Extracted.wav

I’m enjoying looking back at it and listening to the wedding and looking at the photos

 

[dzheremi]

Wow! Those are from your own wedding? That's so cool! How special it is to have them to look back on, in addition to the more standard pictures!

Is it common for EO people to record liturgies and other services for posterity like this, or did you get special permission from your priest to do so because it was your wedding?

I think that's really neat!

 

[gordonhooker]

I had no idea that the Anglican Church does not view marriage as a sacrament.

Also, if there are no required hymns, then I'm tempted to ask just what is required, service-wise? The readings, the prayers, and intent? How long is the average Anglican wedding ceremony? Do most skip the hymns (except maybe "Love Divine")?

Some of us do view marriage as a sacrament we refer to it as a lesser sacrament meaning not a Gospel sacrament (Baptism and Eucharist) instigated by Jesus. Confirmation, Extreme Unction, Holy Mattimony, Reconciliation of a Pentitent and Holy Orders are classed as Sacraments in High Church Anglicanism.

 

[Paidiske]

I had no idea that the Anglican Church does not view marriage as a sacrament.

Also, if there are no required hymns, then I'm tempted to ask just what is required, service-wise? The readings, the prayers, and intent? How long is the average Anglican wedding ceremony? Do most skip the hymns (except maybe "Love Divine")?

As Gordon says; some Anglicans would view marriage as a sacrament, and this has historically been a matter of contention. The 39 Articles (our most binding doctrinal statement) say that:

"Of the Sacraments

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God."

What is required, service wise:

- There is a "gathering" portion of the rite, consisting of greetings and an explanatory/exhortatory opening address by the minister*
- Ministry of the word (one or more readings, homily)
- Consent and vows
- Prayers
- Blessing and dismissal

Communion is optional. The use of hymns is optional. The exchange of rings is optional. Sometimes the couple are presented with a Bible.

The signing of legal paperwork is not technically part of the liturgy but in my experience usually happens before the prayers. It could be done after the service has finished.

*I use minister here because it could be a priest or a deacon.

How long is the ceremony? Depends how long the preacher goes on for!
In all seriousness, I could do a simple wedding in half an hour. Most probably go for more like 45 minutes. If the couple choose to have communion, it could be longer than an hour depending how many communicants there are.

As for hymns, my advice to couples is generally, "If most of your family and friends are churchgoers and will be comfortable and willing to sing, by all means have hymns. If the majority of the congregation are going to be standing, awkwardly mute, with no idea how to participate, then maybe choose to have music played rather than asking them to sing." And that seems to work out reasonably well.

But there are no "set" hymns. If the couple do choose to have hymns, it would be up to them (and their minister) to work out between them what they want and what is liturgically appropriate.

 

[gordonhooker]

I think I made that clear when I made a distinction between Gospel Sacrament and Lesser Sacrament.

 

[Mountainmike]

Paidiske,

I would like to know how you resolve the conundrum...( not trick questions, I really do want to know why you think what you think)


1/ If a marriage is only a contract of two , not covenant of three parties. ie if God is not intimitately and irrevocably part of it, then how can Anglicans then reconcile with scripture that states a second marriage is adulterous (ie sinful, ie breach of Gods law) surely that only makes sense if God was an irrevocable part of the first one..

2/ And of course - I then point out that the gospels say that marriage of a man to a wife is the same relationship as Christ to his church. That surely makes it far more profound than a simple agreement between two parties.

It is the seeming ambivalence over such as sacraments that drove me away from Anglicanism. Every time I asked such questions I got "inclusive language" or if you like: "constructive ambiguity" - phrases designed to avoid upsetting believers of the two sides of each discussion. In the end a marriage either is or is not a sacrament. ie God either is or is not an essential part of it, joining at the time of the vows.

Constructive ambiguity cannot make it logical opposites however convenient that may be, to avoid rifts

As Gordon says; some Anglicans would view marriage as a sacrament, and this has historically been a matter of contention. The 39 Articles (our most binding doctrinal statement) say that:

"Of the Sacraments

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God."

What is required, service wise:

- There is a "gathering" portion of the rite, consisting of greetings and an explanatory/exhortatory opening address by the minister*
- Ministry of the word (one or more readings, homily)
- Consent and vows
- Prayers
- Blessing and dismissal

Communion is optional. The use of hymns is optional. The exchange of rings is optional. Sometimes the couple are presented with a Bible.

The signing of legal paperwork is not technically part of the liturgy but in my experience usually happens before the prayers. It could be done after the service has finished.

*I use minister here because it could be a priest or a deacon.

How long is the ceremony? Depends how long the preacher goes on for!
In all seriousness, I could do a simple wedding in half an hour. Most probably go for more like 45 minutes. If the couple choose to have communion, it could be longer than an hour depending how many communicants there are.

As for hymns, my advice to couples is generally, "If most of your family and friends are churchgoers and will be comfortable and willing to sing, by all means have hymns. If the majority of the congregation are going to be standing, awkwardly mute, with no idea how to participate, then maybe choose to have music played rather than asking them to sing." And that seems to work out reasonably well.

But there are no "set" hymns. If the couple do choose to have hymns, it would be up to them (and their minister) to work out between them what they want and what is liturgically appropriate.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't see why a second marriage wouldn't be a problem? If you vow to be married "as long as we both shall live," and then you don't act with integrity to that vow, of course God's going to have a problem with that.

As for the analogy between Christ and the Church and husband and wife, it's an analogy, and like all analogies it has limits. (As I am reminded every time my husband doesn't turn water into wine at the dinner table... ).

I don't know if that's helpful. I'm not sure how to answer the question of how I resolve a conundrum where I don't see a conundrum at all.

 

[Mountainmike]

I guess thats why we differ..

So are you saying that God is not a part of a marriage - it is purely a contract between people? Which case why it is celebrated in church?

I don't see why a second marriage wouldn't be a problem

 

[All4Christ]

Wow! Those are from your own wedding? That's so cool! How special it is to have them to look back on, in addition to the more standard pictures!

Is it common for EO people to record liturgies and other services for posterity like this, or did you get special permission from your priest to do so because it was your wedding?

I think that's really neat!

Yes it’s a special thing to have!

Regarding recording of services, most priests are fine with recording of a wedding, so long as they aren’t distracting to the service. My uncle recorded this at the back of the church. The photographers are instructed where they are permitted to go and how to stay out of the way of the liturgy (such as the altar being off limits). For normal liturgies, it isn’t extremely common, though some parishes have recordings for those who are unable to attend services due to things like being in a nursing home. I think there needs to be the blessing of the priest for that. Beyond that, typically it is special occasions where there would be any photography or videos.

 

[Paidiske]

I guess thats why we differ..

So are you saying that God is not a part of a marriage - it is purely a contract between people? Which case why it is celebrated in church?

Not exactly. I am saying a marriage is a covenant between two people; but when those people are Christians of course God is also present and involved. But - for example - I don't think the marriage of two Christians is fundamentally different in character to the marriage of two atheists.

As for why it's celebrated in church - you know it wasn't always, right? In the west it came into the church in about the 12th century (before that it was considered too secular and profane a matter for the church, which is why Chaucer describes weddings happening "at the church door;" which was a public gathering place but not a sacred space). I understand that initially it had more to do with the clergy being educated and literate witnesses and recorders of the event, and that liturgies of blessing developed later.

 

[Mountainmike]

My difficulty with that is mark 10
" what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder"

Which for me has several substantial takeaways
1/ God is the "glue" that joins it ( an imperfect analogy) , but clearly a fundamental part. So without Him it isn't marriage at all.

2/ The entering of Him as the " glue", or third party, makes it sacramental.

3/ In saying "no man ,can put asunder ", that includes the participants , so remarriage except in narrow circumstance Is not possible, So divorce is a separation not a dissolution and remarriage is not possible.

And that's what I thought long before I ever opened a catholic book! and it's why I felt the Anglican communions views on this ( and other things like Eucharist ) were designed to be a creative ambiguity.


In my view the British parliament made a big mistake in the marriage acts of 1840? When it described a civil contract using the word "marriage" And that was to come back to haunt the legislature in the last few decades , in others wanting to describe as marriage e.g. Gay something that is not.

Anyway... not trying to persuade anyone of anything other than the view from here...

Not exactly. I am saying a marriage is a covenant between two people; but when those people are Christians of course God is also present and involved. But - for example - I don't think the marriage of two Christians is fundamentally different in character to the marriage of two atheists.

As for why it's celebrated in church - you know it wasn't always, right? In the west it came into the church in about the 12th century (before that it was considered too secular and profane a matter for the church, which is why Chaucer describes weddings happening "at the church door;" which was a public gathering place but not a sacred space). I understand that initially it had more to do with the clergy being educated and literate witnesses and recorders of the event, and that liturgies of blessing developed later.