Fr. Dr. Okhueleigbe Osemhantie Ãmos.
Marriage, in Catholic understanding, is not a cultural ornament attached to religious celebration; it is a primordial divine institution, inscribed in creation itself, preserved after the flood, elevated by Christ to sacramental dignity, and finally transfigured in the eschatological vision of the wedding feast of the Lamb (cf. Gen 2:24; Matt 19:6; Rev 19:7–9). It is therefore among the most theologically charged sacraments of the Church, touching both creation and redemption.
For this reason, the Church surrounds the celebration of Matrimony with careful doctrinal and liturgical precision. The spouses themselves are the ministers of the sacrament, while the priest acts as the Church’s official witness and liturgical custodian. This unique structure already indicates that the rite is not open to arbitrary modification or emotional improvisation (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], 1992, no. 1623).
Within this theological framework, the question arises regarding the increasingly common celebratory phrase: “You may kiss your bride.” The issue at stake is not whether affection is legitimate within marriage, Catholic anthropology fully affirms conjugal love as good, holy, and sacramental. Rather, the concern is whether such a formula belongs to the public liturgical action of the Church.
The Roman Rite of Matrimony does not include this expression. It is absent from the approved liturgical books and is not prescribed as part of the ritual sequence of consent, blessing, and Eucharistic celebration. The Church’s official rite proceeds from consent to blessing without introducing any verbal authorisation of a kiss (Liturgy Office, 2016).
This absence is not accidental but theological. Catholic liturgy is not a field of pastoral creativity but a received tradition entrusted to the Church. The Second Vatican Council articulates this principle with unmistakable clarity: “No one, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” (Second Vatican Council, 1963, no. 22).
The seriousness of this norm lies in its theological implication: the liturgy is not the property of the celebrant but the action of Christ and His Church. Any addition, however harmless it may appear culturally, risks altering the integrity of the sacred sign.
In the case under discussion, three principal theological concerns emerge.
First, there is a subtle displacement of sacramental emphasis. The essence of Christian marriage is the exchange of consent, by which the spouses confer upon each other the sacrament in the presence of the Church. The Catechism affirms that this consent is the constitutive act of marriage itself (CCC, 1992, no. 1639). When attention is drawn towards a dramatised gesture, there is a risk of shifting focus from covenantal act to emotional climax.
Second, the insertion of non liturgical formulas introduces a performative logic into a sacramental action. The liturgy, by its nature, is ordered towards divine worship and participation in the mystery of Christ. The Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum cautions against any form of liturgical manipulation that treats the sacred rites as a space for personal invention or expressive enhancement (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments [CDWDS], 2004). The concern is not aesthetic but theological: when improvisation enters the sanctuary, the objective character of worship is weakened.
Third, there is the question of liturgical authority. The Church binds herself juridically to the faithful transmission of the approved rites. Canon law states that “the liturgical books approved by competent authority are to be faithfully observed” and that no one may alter them on personal initiative (Code of Canon Law, 1983, can. 846 §1). The introduction of a formula not found in these books, however well intentioned, therefore lacks ecclesial authorisation.
At the same time, the sufficiency of the Rite of Marriage must be clearly affirmed. The sacrament does not require augmentation. Its essential structure consent, reception of consent, nuptial blessing, and Eucharistic participation is theologically complete. The Catechism reiterates that matrimonial consent is what brings the sacrament into being (CCC, 1992, no. 1626). Nothing essential is missing that would require supplementation through additional ritual expression.
Beyond the strictly juridical dimension lies a deeper liturgical sensibility. Catholic worship is marked by sacred restraint, not because human emotion is denied, but because it is ordered within mystery. The sanctuary is not a social stage; it is the locus of divine encounter. When unnecessary dramatisation is introduced, the symbolic clarity of the rite becomes vulnerable to cultural distortion.
Saint Paul’s exhortation remains perennially relevant: “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor 14:40). Order here is not mere external arrangement but theological coherence, ensuring that every gesture within the liturgy corresponds to its sacramental meaning.
Finally, the issue touches broader questions of cultural influence and liturgical identity. In many contexts, secular wedding conventions and performative styles of celebration have begun to exert subtle pressure on Catholic ritual expression. Yet the Church does not derive her liturgical identity from surrounding culture; rather, she purifies and elevates culture through the integrity of her worship.
The phrase in question, therefore, must be evaluated not by its emotional appeal but by its liturgical legitimacy and theological necessity. When measured against the Church’s own norms, it becomes clear that it is neither required by the rite nor grounded in ecclesial tradition.
Fr. Dr. Okhueleigbe Osemhantie Ãmos is a priest of the Catholic Diocese of Uromi and a Lecturer at CIWA, Port Harcourt, Nigeria
Comments are closed.