Jewish wedding traditions adopted by non-Jewish couple
 

from a Washington Post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/ima..._7283_1208.jpg

Rabbi Kenneth Block stood waiting under the white canopy with Melanie’s husband-to-be, Michael Pezzula. Next to them were a decorated ketubah (a Jewish marriage contract) and a tall, white table that held a wine glass for the Kiddush, a blessing over the wine that would be recited as Melanie, 28, and Michael, 32, drank from the same cup to symbolize the sharing of their life together.

In many ways, it looked like a typical Jewish wedding ceremony. Yet neither bride nor groom is Jewish.

The inclusion of so many Jewish traditions in the ceremony uniting Melanie, raised Episcopalian, and Michael, raised Catholic, was their way of making their wedding special, they said.

A Jewish wedding was “a refreshing departure from what everybody that is close to us is used to,” Melanie said.

read the rest here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifest...vYN_story.html

your thoughts?

I'm not opposed to stealing traditions if you feel they can have meaning for you. Doing it because they look pretty and will impress your friends, though...well, that's a bit tackier.

So, like, "We want a chuppah because we love the symbolism of our friends and family supporting us in our marriage" is cool. "We want a chuppah because it's a cool decoration" is not cool.

As the article states I think as long as you do it out of respect and good taste it is okay.

The groom, despite being Catholic, is an AEPi. And, from reading the article, they weren't entirely ignorant of Jewish customs and the symbolism behind them. I think that makes all the difference.

It seems that everyone's looking for something to make their wedding "different" or "quirky," and is this part of this? Will Irish-Catholic couples start doing henna because it's "different and exotic," without fully understanding the meaning?

It really rubs me the wrong way that the idea came from someone else having a pretty Chuppah, and the bride not knowing what else to put in that space.

Oh, no...I totally agree with that. It does sound like, even though that was the initial impetus, they did it fairly respectfully.

Like I said before, people these days are all about having a "different" or "quirky" wedding--and what point does that become aping someone else's culture for ishts and grins? These people did it okay...but it's a thin line.

I just think it's weird.

To me, weddings are about making a covenant with your spouse and God, and it's the appropriate time for the traditions of your family and faith, not to do something just to be different. There is significant meaning behind the traditions of other cultures, and it's not anyone's place to co-opt those willy nilly just for kicks.

Despite my grouchy opinion about sticking with what you know, I do think that other faiths and cultures have beautiful wedding traditions.

I guess I just don't understand...

I mean, I don't think I'd be happy if someone had a Catholic wedding because they thought the mass was "pretty" or because they liked the church for their pictures (not that that would happen...meetings with the priest, pre cana, the fact that Catholics consider marriage as a sacrament in the vein of taking holy orders, etc).

I'd just be totally weirded out by it, like I was pretending to be something I wasn't.

We don't have to worry about anyone non-Catholic wanting a Catholic wedding. The "stand up sit down" scares them away ;)

I think it would be just the length of the mass that is associated with it... The first time I went to a non-Catholic wedding it was done in 15 mins. I was so not prepared for that and had to turn to my mom and ask if that was it.

Have any of you been inside Old St. Pat's in Chicago? It is so pretty, I told the tour guide I wanted to get married there!

Hah, shortly after my husband and I got married (full mass), we went to the wedding of a mutual friend that was 5 minutes long. That was it. Ever since we had our wedding I've been somewhat mortified that ours was so long.

But to be fair, ours was around the 40 minute mark. Cutting out the flower girl/ring bearer etc. and having short readings (and an evening mass immediately following our wedding) helped. I am a convert as well, so no one in my family is Catholic, while husband's fam is SUPER CATHOLIC. Hubs coworkers are a mish mash of Conservative Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Catholics and atheists. We definitely had little "cues" in our wedding program to help out the non-Catholics...but to be fair, I didn't expect anyone not Catholic to really follow along.

Far be it for me to criticize what someone wants for their wedding, but I don't understand the participation in a religious ceremony where you are not part of the religion. Isn't it also part of the marriage vows where you promise to raise your children in the Jewish faith, as well?

This and this. I think part of what strikes me as odd about it is that it's like wanting the nice/pretty parts of a tradition without the . . . for lack of a better word . . . obligations of the tradition.

I liked what the rabbi quoted in the story said:

Quote:

But Jonathan Stein, president of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, expressed some concerns. While the practice “speaks to the acceptances of Jews and Jewish traditions in American society,” he said, it might be offensive to Jews who believe that a wedding ceremony signifies the union of two people who intend to establish a Jewish life.”

It's like, "let's appropriate all the pretty, fun parts of being Jewish [or whatever], but we don't actually want to be part of that tradition.

And I'll admit that there's part of me that finds the whole thing very narcissistic -- the wedding being all about the bride and groom rather than being about the bride and groom and their place in the wider community. Not to mention God. In that sense, I don't get the rabbi who officiated at this thing.

Meanwhile, our Protestant, no communion wedding was 40 minutes. I rather think that if we had it to do over again, we might include communion.

I understand both sides: A canopy signifies things that could go across religious lines. Tasting the wine...sweetness of life...again can cut across all religions. Breaking the glass: may your wedding last as long as it takes to put together this glass.....again wonderful spirit.

But, as my non Jewish husband says about the Christmas Chanukah debate: A Christian family celebrating Chanukah as an excuse for presents: wrong. Jewish families having a Christmas tree for the decor.....not so much.

Just saying....But it is wonderful to understand and respect the traditions of others. And, who knows how religions evolve?

Ditto

Absolutely.

We had a full Catholic Mass as well, and I have always said it was because I wanted my wedding to take longer than my divorce proceedings.

My best friend had a 5 minute wedding. She was so nervous and never really had time to calm down. She finally calmed down about 10 minutes after it ended. So she completed zoned out for her entire ceremony. At least I had plenty of time to calm down!

A Jew or atheist having a Christmas tree is different from appropriating a religious ritual. There is no Christian tradition that mandates a Christmas tree. Heck, if there's a Christian tradition that even recommends a Christmas tree, I'd like to learn about it. Decorating one's house with fir boughs, candles, etc., as well as giving gifts and having a feast, was a pagan practice that long predates Christianity. A Christmas tree's historical, and to a large extent its modern, purpose is to be pretty and bring some light and warmth into the house during the winter solstice. It's different even from displaying a creche, with its explicit Christian meaning, and miles away from, say, holding a "mass" in your living room because you like the text and you think the wafers are cool (which would be disrespectful and offensive).

We generally don't find it weird for non-pagans to celebrate Halloween, or for non-Puritans to honor the first Thanksgiving, because those practices carry so much secular, cultural meaning. It doesn't bother me if people want to move huppas or smashing a glass into that space. I have a bigger problem with churches deciding to host "Seders" without Jewish leadership. That is appropriation, and making a parody of something others hold sacred. I'm not a fan of the trend of using Jews and their rituals as mascots to validate a false "Judeo-Christian" presentation. Christians who genuinely respect Jews and our traditions don't keep a Jewish Stepin Fetchit around to make a political point about how much they love Jews.

I don't know about this. I don't personally see an issue with Christians celebrating Passover, though I would expect some additions to the traditional sedar to reflect our beliefs.

The problem isn't celebrating it. The issue is holding their own "Seders" without Jewish leadership (or even input). Would you see an issue with a bunch of Jews holding a "Mass" without bringing in any Catholics? If you want to experience Passover, countless Jewish organizations and families would welcome you as a guest.

This. A million times this.

I would have an issue with non-Christians holding the Eucharist, because it wouldn't have meaning to them. However Christians hold the Tanakh to be scripture, so some, but not all by any stretch, might celebrate Passover because of the command in Exodus. Since they won't have Rabbinical tradition to draw on, it would probably take a different form. Especially since we associate the Last Supper with Passover.

Now Vito, you know I've got to give you a bit of a hard time about this. :D Christians do celebrate Passover in their own way -- we call it the Eucharist.

Alleluia! Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.
Therefore let us keep the feast. Alleluia!

Or we call it Easter, if you're talking about the day instead of a rite. I think that in most European languages other than English and German, the name of that day is derived from Pesakh (Passover).

What I took Low C Sharp to be talking about is the Christianized Seders I see sometimes, where everything in the meal is re-interpreted/misinterpreted/understood (depending on perspective) to give Christian meaning to all aspects of the seder. These kinds of things make me very uncomfortable. Part of the reason it makes me uncomfortable is the fear that it will offend others. Part of the reason it makes me uncomfortable is that it indicates to me that we don't understand our own tradition well enough to see that the Eucharist is our Passover meal.

On the other hand, I do think participation in a seder can be a valuable, educational and very meaningful experience for Christians; we all too often forget our Jewish roots (and forget that Jesus was Jewish) and neglect, as result, to consider the implications of that for us. Our congregation has had seders for this purpose a few times in the past, and we've asked people from a near-by synagogue to join us for it, help us plan it and lead us in it.

There are indeed some (small, non-mainstream) Christian groups that consider the command in Exodus binding on Christians.

A seder is the retelling the story of the book of Exodus. Yes, there are distinctly Jewish elements (the Four Sons). But there is a worldwide and cross cultural implications: It is the story of freedom, the yearning for freedom and historical in that it discribes the growth of a group from paganism (worshipping the golden calf) to the understanding of one God.

It is considered a mitzvah (good deed) to invite anyone of any faith and background to a seder.

We went to a Catholic/Jewish wedding recently. It was held in a church with the Archbishop and a Rabbi officiating. (Yes, this had to be a very liberal church.) There was incense which I understand is rarely done. The Archbishop invited everyone up to take communion. A bit of an awkward moment. But it was very inclusive and that was nice.

Good point. Especially true since the Great Thanksgiving among other things usually mentions the Exodus.

Actually incense is very traditional. It's why some low church Anglicans refer to both our own High Church services and Roman services disparaging as "smells and bells." The fact that the Archbishop not only celebrated with a Rabbi, but invited all to communion? It probably would have caused a few coronaries in Rome if they found out.

Regarding the inviting all to communion bit: how is the officiant to know who is allowed communion and who is not? It's not like people have big neon signs over their heads that announce their faith. When I've been at weddings where communion has been served, they invite all, but people who are another faith or nonbelievers generally abstain.

It's one thing to commune all who ask for the Sacrament, it's quite another to invite all, especially when the official position is against it.

People rock the mustaches at weddings? That is effing lame. I've seen it in engagement photos and just parties in general. Someone should tell those wannabe hipsters that isht was over in 2009.

I don't know why people are so afraid of traditional weddings. Obviously people can do whatever they want, but at that point, it seems like it's less what people really want, and it's more of what will seem "quirky" or "different.

The wedding I went to last weekend (a Jewish wedding that consisted of two Jewish people!!!) was very traditional in religious, cultural (reflecting their backgrounds) and wedding terms. It was "different" because it was traditional, LOL.

And again, I ask how is each individual's status to be known? How else do you offer communion? Generally speaking, when communion happens, it's kind of like, "we're doing this now." Then the congregants either line up and kneel, or it's passed around to them.

In Presbyterian churches, at least, there is typically an invitation before Communion to the effect that all who are baptized and who seek to follow Christ are invited to commune. ("Our Savior invites those who trust him to share the feast which he has prepared" or words that effect.) A similar announcement may be in the service bulletin. My experience in Episcopal and other churches is similar.

So, to follow on what Vito said, the officiant (or the bulletin) states the position of the church as to who can receive. That having been done, the officiant will not question someone who presents him or herself for the Sacrament (or who takes bread and cup when passed).

And this has been my experience as well; I suppose that's what I meant by "we're doing this now" (I'm Presbyterian, too.)

A Kappa and a Presbyterian. I knew I liked you (says the man married to a Kappa and a Presbyterian). :D

COMMUNION is meant to be just that - amongst other things, a sign of those who, in the case of the RC church, are in communion with the Church. If you are not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, be it because you belong to another sect or know yourself to be in a state of grave sin, don't believe in the real presence or aren't a Christian, you don't take communion. To do so would be to do what this thread started out being about - to take something which is a religious tradition (in the case of communion, a sacrament) infused with a very specific meaning and purpose and to adopt it for another reason. It's up to you to decide whether or not you fit the criteria listed in the missal. Unless you make a big show of not being in communion, no one is going to question you during it.

At the wedding that we attended where everyone was offered communion (the Archbishop specifically invited all: Christian or Jew, Catholic, Muslim or atheist) all the Jews just looked around the Church in bewilderment. None of us went up. My husband, educated as an Episcopalian, didn't go.

Incidentally if my son marries his girlfriend this will be a very new experience: She is far more religiously Jewish than my family ever has been since we immigrated 150 years ago. She said that she will walk around the chuppah seven times (a mystical number meant to establish a new home safe from outsiders....be they demons or in laws) and have the "full" service. It will be lovely.

........and yes, I'm aware that I'm an in law.

I love chuppahs (both the look and the symbolism. As a Christian, I take a bit of an interest in Judaism because they're sort of related. Kinda.)

I don't want to turn this into a "look at all the chuppahs" thread but seriously:

http://media-cdn.pinterest.com/uploa...2I7KxkYn_c.jpg

http://media-cdn.pinterest.com/uploa...gU5hjL72_c.jpg

http://media-cdn.pinterest.com/uploa...eeWWeJnf_c.jpg

Beautiful.

Sidenote: I'd be interested in your take on this, ellebud. I've seen some couples opting for suspended style chuppahs (as in no poles.) In the eyes of some more traditional Jews, no poles = not a chuppah. Some people say that as long as the covering is there, and the symbolism, it still is. What say you?

Is there a difference between a chuppah and just getting married under say a decorated four pole cloth gazebo tent type thing?

Except in the situation in which it was brought up here, it's not really the same:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ellebud (Post 2109506) At the wedding that we attended where everyone was offered communion (the Archbishop specifically invited all: Christian or Jew, Catholic, Muslim or atheist) . . . .

That's a different situation -- it's not people adopting the rites or rituals of another religion for their own purposes, it's people being invited (however incorrectly) to participate in the rite of another religion by someone in that religion. (And, of course, I'd say there's a difference in non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians when it comes to communion in the Roman Catholic Church. That notice in the missal does provide for non-Catholic Christians to take communion under specific circumstances.)

You're not my husband are you? Kidding. My husband isn't Greek. :D

KSUViolet - absolutely gorgeous chuppahs. Thanks for sharing. We should also find some photos of some other wedding traditions from other faiths. I think Hindu weddings (I've only seen photos, not been to one) are gorgeous.

I seem to recall a story in the worst wedding thread about a Jewish bridesmaid having communion forced upon her by the pastor, even after she showed him her Star of David pendant. I'll see if I can find it and link.