Multiplying Entities

My regular correspondent sent me a link to Bp Lopes's new pastoral letter giving the OCSP's guidelines on Amoris Laetitia. Over the latter, as a new Catholic, I take no position, although authorities suggest that it is ambiguous enough to make taking a position difficult under any circumstances. However, the letter quotes extensively from the BDW, and since the BDW is largely not available online, I found the quotes interesting.

On page 1, the epigraph quotes from the BDW

I take thee, to [sic] my wedded Wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth.

I don't know if there has been any additional redaction over the "to my wedded wife" part, but otherwise this appears to have been lifted verbatim from the Church of England 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The US 1928 BCP is similar. The preferred version in the TEC 1979 BCP is

In the Name of God, I, N., take you, N., to be my (wife) (husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until we are parted by death. This is my solemn vow.

These are the vows my wife and I took, which the Catholic Church recognizes, and which, frankly, as an English major with further graduate work in the area, I like much better. The Catholic version is

In the United States, couples can choose from two different versions of the Catholic wedding vows (The Order of Celebrating Matrimony #62). The standard version goes like this:

Priest (or deacon): Since it is your intention to enter the convenant of Holy Matrimony, join your right hands and declare your consent before God and his Church.

Groom: I, (name), take you, (name), to be my wife. I promise to be faithful to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, to love you and to honor you all the days of my life.

Bride: I, (name), take you, (name), to be my husband. I promise to be faithful to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, to love you and to honor you all the days of my life.

The alternative version is:

Groom: I, (name), take you, (name), for my lawful wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.

Bride: I, (name), take you, (name), for my lawful husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.

I have a very serious reservation about "thereto I plight thee my troth". Let's face it, the only other time a normal person in the 21st century is going to talk this way is in a high school Shakespeare production -- and, of course, in doing that, they're play-acting, using language specifically reserved for play-acting.

Alternatively, if you're convenient to Kissimmee, FL, Buena Park, CA, Schaumburg, IL., Hanover, MD., Lyndhurst, NJ, Myrtle Beach, SC, Dallas, TX, Lawrenceville, GA., or Toronto, ON, you can attend a Medieval Times tournament complete with four-course dinner, where I assume such language or something like it is also on display.

20 Years ago, I saw a good example of the Precious Spiritual Treasures of the Anglican Patrimony: here's a wedding party boarding the Napa Valley Wine Train complete with fully vested Episcopal priestess. At least nobody will plight their troth on this thing -- but I wonder if that marriage has lasted.

Or, come to think of it, you can plight your troth at an OCSP parish.

Obviously, a wedding celebrated with contemporary but serious and elevated language is just as valid as one where people plight their troth -- but the more, in these times, we can focus clearly on what's actually being done and what it really means, the better.

On the other hand, I assume that so very few marriages are witnessed in OCSP parishes that the whole issue is moot.