Engagement-wedding....does My Friend Have A Point

[Gabriela]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1344400795' post='2464387']
]

I'm jibbing to become the (heterosexual) sassy gay friend of phatmass. This is the point where I drop my sassy, take no the essence of cow exterior and try to make a human connection so as to both demonstrate to the audience that I'm actually a substantive character and move the action of the plot towards a pleasant conclusion.
[/quote]

And now Hasan is being hilarious.

[Gabriela]

[quote name='Amory' timestamp='1344410487' post='2464435']
I'm also not so sure about the idea reflected in this thread that the cultural supplements to the wedding ceremony aren't important. Of course, things like the wedding dress and the reception are neither essential to the sacrament nor necessary for its validity, but that doesn't mean they lack significance.

Man is not just a spirit, but a body and a soul that are fundamentally united. As corporeal creatures, we need external reminders of the significance of the events we are undertaking. A special dress reserved just for the wedding is a great way to remind both the bride and the others at the ceremony that she is partaking in great sacrament--one that she in all likelihood will never be able to receive again. Similarly, a banquent with food, drink, and dance is a great way to celebrate the beautiful event that has just taken place and which will be consummated later that evening. The reception allows the whole community of family and friends to share in the joy of the of the spouses, a joy which will come to fruition in the propagation of the community though the marriage itself. After all, Christ Himself (if perhaps with some nudging from His mother) considered a wedding reception an event important enough to merit the performance of His first miracle.
[/quote]

Hm. I was in total agreement with the "less is more" people up till now, but you make an excellent point. It's not inherently superior to strip things down to the bare minimum. We're not Protestants, after all. ;-)

I just went to the wedding of a friend who is po' like me, and she did it all for under $2,500. The ceremony was spiritually beautiful because of the Sacrament, the love, and the commitment they made to each other. Could it have been more [i]sensually[/i] beautiful if they had had another $50,000? Probably. And when the sensual beauty matches the spiritual beauty, that's really nice. But it's not absolutely necessary. I think the problem enters when people are so focused on the sensual beauty that they fail to give proper attention to the spiritual beauty.

[sixpence]

I used to serve mass at a lot of weddings (and funeral) when I was a kid... * waits to get stoned for altar serving *
Weddings varied from couple to couple, some had different little options, but overall they were pretty similar.
I know I would really like to have a full on mass, but I will not if there are going to be a lot of non-Catholics attending.
I would also like the guy to talk to my dad. I would like a nice dress too. This doesn't mean I want to spend a huge pile of money though.

[Amory]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1344525200' post='2465016']
I know I would really like to have a full on mass, but I will not if there are going to be a lot of non-Catholics attending.
[/quote]

If you want to avoid the awkwardness of asking family and friends to abstain from Communion, or if you'd like to avert the possibility of sacrilege by non-Catholics' receiving, you don't have to omit the Nuptial Mass altogether. There's no requirement in liturgical law that Communion be distributed to the people. You can simply ask the priest to distribute Communion only to yourself and your spouse. After all, it's a Mass at the beginning of the couple's sacramental relationship, and although every Mass is offered on behalf of the whole Church, this Mass in particular is a votive Mass said for the benefit of the couple.