Prelude Music?

agapecarrie

KJhowd,

I'm sorry, I don't mean to come across offensive, but please please understand...this is merely definitions...That's all. I am defining what a "liturgy" is. A liturgy in the catholic church is a public worship that has actual rituals that have happened for 2000 years and connect to the whole body of the Church. That is not lessening what protestants do for their weddings, it merely what "is".  Just as muslims have several different rituals that have different titles that define what they are, so does the Catholic church. It is a title of what is going on.

There has been absolutely no judgements from me. I have not commented on anyone state of soul, nor implied at all there is any "lesser" anywhere. Simply stating that many protestants don't consider marriage a sacrament and the Catholic church DOES I would think would be taken as a compliment not "air of superiority".  I think you are thinking I'm saying something that I'm not.

MrsMack10612

Agape I know what the liturgy. It is, in essence, no different than a standard Sunday Protestant service. There specific hymns and rituals that are part of our regular service as well, that every church of a specific denomination uses. As I said, you may not have intended to offend or come across as judgemental, but you did. Your statement of the Churches "2000 years" enhances that by implying that because the Catholic Liturgy has been around so long it has more authority. For the record, I lurk around here a lot and you often come across as holier than thou. I can appreciate and admire the strength and ferocity of your faith, but you can be a little harsh in your statements.

agapecarrie

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_prelude-music?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:34517810-60ab-4516-ae60-3b20c50eeb42Post:78891671-3d51-41a5-b3f8-2e304ee7edf0">Re: Prelude Music?</a>:
[QUOTE]Agape I know what the liturgy. It is, in essence, no different than a standard Sunday Protestant service. There specific hymns and rituals that are part of our regular service as well, that every church of a specific denomination uses. As I said, you may not have intended to offend or come across as judgemental, but you did. Your statement of the Churches "2000 years" enhances that by implying that because the Catholic Liturgy has been around so long it has more authority. For the record, I lurk around here a lot and you often come across as holier than thou. I can appreciate and admire the strength and ferocity of your faith, but you can be a little harsh in your statements.
Posted by kjhowd[/QUOTE]

Actually, the liturgy by its very essence and meaning is different than a standard protestant service. By stating that the same ritual has occurred for 2000 years is a statement of historical fact. Most protestant ministers will even agree with this...The catechsim will say the same thing.  The actual Liturgy of the word in its historical connection had very specific rites and practices that have been happening more or less the same way...and this liturgy of the word (and eucharist) by definition is what is connected the faith practice. Most protestant services do not follow the same rites as this (with the exception of some episcopals-- they have a liturgical action). This is absolutely NOT a statement of being "better than" this is a statement of historical fact.

I have NEVER ever said I'm holier than anyone. All I do is state church teaching and canonical practice. Go ahead, attack my character if thats what makes you feel better, but all I'm doing is stating church teaching. I was trying to explain to you so instead of being so disappointed instead maybe you can see the value and be happy that the church is guarding the liturgy to make it as holy and sacred as possible for you.

MrsMack10612

Agape First I am not attacking your character. As I said your words come across with the the holier than thou vibe; I never said you thought of yourself that way. As regs on these boards tell newbs all the - all we have is your written word, there is no tone of voice or body language cues to go from. I certainly didn't mean to come across as attacking your character. Nine times out of ten I really appreciate what you have to say, but there are times it can seem harsh. Second, and I don't mean this in a snide way at all, which Protestent faiths have you studied that you keep making references to how they believe or worship? I ask in regard to your comment re: the eucharist. Again, communion is just as ritualized in protestent faiths as in Catholocism. As discussed with our priest the primary and most substantial difference is that we don't believe in trans- substansiation (hope thats the right, I know I didn't spell it right). My recent knowledge of Catholocism is from the Catechism and our meetings with the priest. I know I still have a lot to learn and understand. I am trying, but when not raised in it, some of the "rules" can be hard to wrap your (general your) head around. ETA: That, up there, was meant to be an apology, but realized I never actually said I'm sorry. My stream of consciousness was moving faster than my typing. I'm sorry, I never meant it to get so personal.

agapecarrie

I've done a lot of study across faiths... That is my whole point...the information I am saying is given to me from the protestant denominations themselves. They will say they do not have a liturgy, even with communion. Most do not do communion every time. Most do not believe that the ritual acts are what unites the church. In fact, that is a big complaint from protestants against the catholic church because we do have rituals and rites. Btw, in our liturgies, every Latin rite mass has the same readings throughout the whole world every day. (with exceptions of optional saints, etc) Every church is following the same liturgical action throughout the world. Most protestant churches do not do this (Again, this is not a statement of being "better" just a statement of what exists) I think you were misunderstanding what the semantics of the word meant. It really surprised me that you insisted that the liturgy is the same because most protestants will insist it isn't.

My comment about the Eucharist was including it with the understanding of Liturgy. There are 3 liturgies in the Catholic church. Word, Eucharist, and Hours. There was a time when liturgy of the word took place separately from the Eucharist. The divine office, (hours) is a mandated prayer that all priests and deacons must do every day, and it is the same throughout the whole word.

I wasn't going to get into the Eucharist subject because there is way more to it than the basic explanation of liturgy here, it is really beside the point.

I get that the rules can be difficult to understand. This is why I'm trying to offer a deeper explanation so that the rules make sense.

MrsMack10612

I guess it is semantics to a point. I guess I was thinking of the liturgy more in a broad sense of the standard, everytime mass equaling the normal protestant service. (Good grief just realized I've bern spelling protestant wrong all night, don't I feel silly). It didn't occur that the word was very Catholic specific. I do know with my particular "brand" communion is only done on the first Sunday of every month. To be honest, I don't know why that is. As a protestant, my issue with the Church, isn't the rites & rituals, as someone who prefers tradition and consistency in my church, I find it comforting; it is what appears to an outsider as a lack of encouragement or the existence of a personal connection to God and the Bible. It seems everything must be done through the priests. Not bashing, just an observation of a non-Catholic. I also realize that is a blanket statement that does not apply to all Catholics. I appreciate you trying to provide deeper explanations, perhaps because I do not know or understand some of the verbage you use, it causes some misunderstanding on my part. Honestly, I hope we can have and look forward to more discussions. I am eager to learn. I want to understand as much as I can for the ceremony as I feel it would be disrepectful to my FI, the priest and the Church to be at the altar just "going through the motions". Though not my faith, I want to be able to take the meanings of the Sacrament to heart.

agapecarrie

I hope we can have more conversations too.

Just to quickly address what you are saying...and I appreciate the way you put it as it "appears" that way, almost all of the liturgy IS scripture. Not just the 3 readings, (which is the Gospel fulfilling the old testement along with a psalm and epistle) but the rest of the prayers are taken from scripture as well.

As you said already...Catholics believe in transubstantiation...we believe the bread and wine truly become the body of blood of Christ. This is the consumation of the marriage of Christ to His church, so Catholics believe we can't have a closer connection than consuming his very divine life inside of us physically/sacramentally. We do this ritual action every single day. That is the main substance of the connection to God. Also, we believe that a priest becomes "in persona Christi" which means " in the person of Christ" during certain sacraments (confecting the Eucharist and Reconciliation) This does not mean we think the priest is Christ, but by the power of the lineage of apostolic succession, when the Holy Spirit was breathed into the Apostles and Christ gave them the power to forgive sins, this is passed on. Our connection and interaction with priests during sacraments is connecting us to God.

Another thing: the priest does not become "in persona Christi" at a Latin Rite marriage. He is merely a representation of the Church as a witness as the couple ministers the sacrament to the other.

MrsMack10612

I have so much more that I'd like to say/discuss, but I need to call it a night. I will conclude with this: 1. I sort of knew that it all comes from scripture; I guess, unlike with protestants, it doesn't appear (keyword here) that Catholics are encouraged to go out and read the Bible themselves. More you (general) are told these are the important ones, don't worry about the rest. Of course even typing that out it sounds silly, and probably not even remotely true. Again, not meant to bash, just an outsider looking in. 2. I think if someone had told me about "in persona Christi" before it would have made more sense about the priest being so integral and a conduit. I guess I still can't quite get my head around it, but it's definitely clearer. 3. In re: to the Eucharist; it is one of those things that our priest agreed with me that it's all in the interpretation. Did Christ really mean that when he did this at the last supper, it did become his actually body/blood or did He simply mean it as representative. Have a good evening.

agapecarrie

2.: No one can get their head around it. God is beyond our understanding and we have faith and belief in certain things being true, although we don't quite understand the how or why. Certainly God has the power to do anything-- so we trust He is.

Eucharist: well, you can look at it in the context of the whole scripture. Jesus fulfilled the law. In the old testament, the lamb that was sacrificed HAD to be eaten. Jesus was placed in a feeding trough when he was born.

If you look at how many times in scripture the last supper is talked about (Which is many) and then look at John 6....he says it over and over. "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have eternal life". They questioned him over and over..."how are you doing this?" he kept repeating himself (by the way, the translation of "eat" is one that means to gnaw on, as well as the translation "is" in the context of "this is my body". There are different words for "is" and the one used here is not the symbolic one.)  In John 6:66, people walk away from the teaching because it is too hard for them. He let them walk away. If he was talking merely a symbol, people wouldn't walk away from that, because that's easy to believe. He wouldn't let them walk away on a misunderstanding. 

I should have just linked this. This site is good for many questions.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

ootmother2

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_prelude-music?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:34517810-60ab-4516-ae60-3b20c50eeb42Post:02f671f3-bd3f-4405-b69d-c7494ed1f512">Re: Prelude Music?</a>:
[QUOTE]I don't see what the issue is here. You're allowed to use music that speaks to you, as long as it is is in the confines of what is acceptable at a sacred Catholic ceremony (ie  not offensive to the Church's teachings). Everyone is saying the same thing. No need for dissent.
Posted by Riss91[/QUOTE]

Riss always says it better!

:)

MopsieB

We're not allowed at our parish, to use any music with verses that don't somehow pertain to God/spirituality. One of my friends who is Greek Orthodox will play guitar but we had to have his songs approved by the pastor. He's playing meditation songs that are basically secular but have references to "heaven" "the Lord," etc. I think that we will be able to use instrumental, classical pieces as most people have, also. This all makes sense because, afterall, the point of a religious ceremony is to engage in that religion.