tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post3554256139761108297..comments2024-03-19T05:32:07.475+01:00Comments on The Ugley Vicar: Revelation and TempleAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-9699694724413718422008-10-09T10:11:00.000+02:002008-10-09T10:11:00.000+02:00Steve,Why not just say no? If there is no residenc...Steve,<BR/><BR/>Why not just say no? If there is no residency <I>qualification</I> (which means we cannot normally say no), I can't see why there should be a non-residency qualification ("If I ask, the vicar has to do it.")Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-78818172203735011732008-10-09T10:09:00.000+02:002008-10-09T10:09:00.000+02:00I accidentally deleted a comment from Steve Walton...I accidentally deleted a comment from Steve Walton posted here which read,<BR/><BR/>"Argh! John- no, no, no, don't get rid of the rules on residency. I have one of the most beautifully situated churches in the country- apparently we're on some list of the "ten most desirable churches to get married at". If you get rid of the residency rules, I'll spend all my Saturdays doing weddings.<BR/><BR/>There is something the Bishop and all the church spin doctors aren't telling you- it was only revealed to us at chapter yesterday. All couples getting married due to a "qualifying connection" will have to fill out a vast (I think the rural dean said 14 pages) form. If their parents went to the church, they will have to give details of exactly when, how often, what sort of services...<BR/><BR/>Steve Walton"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-12511623916294061382008-10-01T23:50:00.000+02:002008-10-01T23:50:00.000+02:00Yes. Thank you. I must look into it more thoroughl...Yes. Thank you. I must look into it more thoroughly, but I think I broadly agree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-49355878039142253302008-10-01T13:45:00.000+02:002008-10-01T13:45:00.000+02:00Hi lexiaSpecial dispensation is granted herewith!M...Hi lexia<BR/><BR/>Special dispensation is granted herewith!<BR/><BR/>My understanding is that much of the present canon and civil law about the location of a marriage derives from the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1753" REL="nofollow">Marriage Act of 1753</A>. It is this, I believe, which made things like parish residence a requirement. However, the act was brought in to prevent <I>clandestine</I> (ie, not properly witnessed and recorded) marriages.<BR/><BR/>It seems odd to me that in this cay and age the Church cannot simply accept that we have enough safeguards to ensure the legitimacy and public record of any and every marriage, and just get rid of the rules about residency.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-78455167812744900312008-10-01T11:12:00.000+02:002008-10-01T11:12:00.000+02:00Not specific to this post (again!)but have to leav...Not specific to this post (again!)but have to leave this comment on today's news, and will comment on this post properly shortly...if that's ok !<BR/><BR/> As from today anyone wishing to be married has a greater choice of the venue following new rules from the Anglican Church<BR/>Where previously couples could get married in a church only if they attended regularly or lived in the parish, it will now be easier to have their wedding service in a church where they have a family or special connection – anywhere they have lived for six months or where their parents or grandparents were married.<BR/>The Bishop of Reading says “ People who are serious about getting married naturally want a marriage ceremony and a setting which is equally serious - only the Church provides this”.<BR/>Perhaps, but if you are that serious about getting married, does it really matter where this happens, or rather in which church it happens?<BR/><BR/>A church is a church. Granted, many are more beautifully situated, historically connected or architecturally significant. But isn’t the idea that the marriage is taking place in the presence of God ? And surely, God is all around and everywhere (if you believe in a god, that is) The Bishop again, believes people want something only the Church can offer: God's blessing on their marriage and that now it will be easier to provide it. I can’t get my head around why the actual church building makes it easier to provide this service.<BR/><BR/>The Church of England also says that the changes are in response to the increasing mobility of society - many people move away from where they grew up – and there was a need for change from the restrictions stopping some people from marrying in a church.<BR/>Why? <BR/>Are some who are intent on marrying in church, for whatever reason, so averse to the church in their own parish ? If so, is this because the surroundings are not pretty enough for the photographs and dvd ?<BR/>Cynicism setting in? Maybe.<BR/>In the town where I live we are “lucky” for want of a better word. An ancient parish church in a beautiful, peaceful setting. St Bartholomew’s just happens to be the Anglican Church here. But if I truly believed in God and wanted my marriage blessed in this way in a church, I wouldn’t care if the building was a concrete box.Lexia257https://www.blogger.com/profile/12656262901790598651noreply@blogger.com