Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 March 16

= March 16 =

Presbyterian wedding
I attended a wedding this weekend. I've been to my share of weddings, most with some overarching religious backing, but I had never heard anything like what went on at this one. For background, it took place in a Presbyterian church in Toronto, Canada; the groom's family is also originally from Scotland, so I assume it was at least nominally a Presbyterian style ceremony. Anyway, the part that got me curious was a recurring theme that the pastors reiterated several times: that the groom was symbolically Christ and that the bride was symbolically the church. From this, it followed that she should "submit" to her husband in the same manner that the church must submit to Christ. Is this standard doctrine? To my old atheist ears, the allegory seemed bizarre and strained and the notion of female submission, especially uttered so matter-of-factly, struck me as anachronistic. That feeling was heightened by the way the pastors were both joking with the crows and acting quite familiar with the groom, even gently poking fun of his obvious nervousness and so on (i.e. these were not some old fossils who consider pants-wearing females to be ungodly). Matt Deres (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3, specifically, Ephesians 5:22-33 and Colossians 3:18-25, famous passages about marriage. It is common in Christian weddings to have a wedding sermon based on a particular passage from the Bible dealing with weddings.  Why one of these particular passagse was chosen for highlighting in this particular wedding is probably something negotiated between the minister and the bride and the groom.  At my wedding (in a Southern Baptist church), we settled on 1 Corinthians 13:4-7.  I'm not aware that the Presbyterian denomination requires the reading of the Ephesians or Colossians passage, though it may have been the desire of either the couple and/or the minister to read it.  -- Jayron 32 05:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The allegory is straight from the Bible, as Jayron said. Besides the Ephesians and Colossians passages, there's also 1 Corinthians 11, where 11:3 reads "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife."  On the matter of wives submitting to their husbands, see also 1 Timothy 2:11 ("Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man") and Titus 2:4-5 ("so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands [...] being submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited").  My Bible translation notes that in 1 Timothy 2:11, "woman" could also be translated as "wife" and "man" as "husband".
 * (edit) I should add that 1 Corinthians 11 is not about marriage, but about proper behavior within the church. Paul's view of marriage is somewhat negative--he thinks the unmarried should not marry unless they can't control their sexual passions, in which case it's better to marry (1 Cor 7:8-9).  --Bowlhover (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I was vaguely aware that such passages were in the Bible (I sure couldn't have cited them was done above, though), so I guess the thing that was surprising to me was their use rather than simply their existence. For example, my wife comes from a Catholic family and I've therefore been to more than a few Catholic-style wedding ceremonies and I've never heard those passages used. A handful of Anglican weddings and a few other Christian weddings of various denominations as well and there was nothing similar. When we discussed it afterwards, the Catholic relations in particular were amused/shocked by the choice of passages. As an outsider, my impression (albeit based on a single instance) was that one denomination stressed the submission of women more than another (or others) and I'm curious if that impression is more generally true or just idiosyncratic. If I were to attend a series of Presbyterian ceremonies, would I be likely to hear similar stuff again? Matt Deres (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have attended numerous presbyterian services. Note that in a general way presbyterianism is simply one of the three historically important ways of organising churches. Accordingly, there are many different denominations that use (or in the past used) the word "presbyterian" in their names. These vary from the relatively liberal Presbyterian Church of England (now merged into the United Reformed Church) to the grotesquely illiberal Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster and Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Depending on which denomination you attend you are less or more likely to hear such sentiments. Culturally, the various presbyterian denominations of Scotland have tended towards the "traditionalist" view of marriage. RomanSpa (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe this will help a bit: Presbyterian polity notes "Until the 20th century, only men had been eligible for ordination as elders or ministers of the word and sacrament. This is widely not the case any longer; although it is usually considered a demarcation issue, distinguishing "liberal" from "conservative" Presbyterian denominations. In North America, the Reformed Church in America, Christian Reformed Church in North America, (both of Dutch Reformed heritage), Presbyterian Church in Canada, Evangelical Presbyterian Church, ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians, Cumberland Presbyterian Church and Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are denominations with presbyterian polity which allow for the ordination of women." That is, the specific strain of Presbyterianism may vary based on its feelings towards the role of women.  Not directly related to marriage, exactly, but there does appear to be a wide dysparity among various Presbyterian denominations regarding their attitudes towards women, and there is no general "All of Presbyterianism" doctrine on these things (it should be noted that this is quite true of almost any strain of Christianity, from Baptists to Methodists to Anglicans...) -- Jayron 32 02:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses, guys; you've provided me with a bit of context. Matt Deres (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

What is when a bishop is "received" at a church?
Looking for the definition here for "received" at a church. This would be an example. --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a fancy way of saying that's when he first appeared in person in his new diocese. It could take awhile for someone to get where they needed to go (I can think of one example where someone was appointed, but did not arrive in person for almost 4 years). I'm not sure about Walter of Coutances specifically, but often a new bishop would go on a tour of his diocese, making sure all the clergy knew he was there, ensuring their loyalty (which could be a problem, if they had wanted a different candidate), probably collecting a bit of money from them. In this case, since Walter was an archbishop, he would probably also want to meet the six other bishops in Normandy who were now under his responsibility. So in a sense, "received" means that the other bishops and clergy in Normandy would "receive" him, as in accept him as their new boss. I wonder if it's an English usage of a technical/legal Latin term, since "recipere" in Latin can mean "accept". Adam Bishop (talk) 10:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So it would be when he was officially accepted or the officially entry? In some references for Walter of Coutances he is "received" on "24 Feb 1185". As in the French article on him. There seems to be a week difference (some say March 3) and perhaps this of the duties of 'a tour of his diocese' would account for this difference?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that is strange...I have no idea actually but I suppose it probably has something to do with the the original, contemporary sources, and the ways that they might be interpreted differently by modern historians. It's possible that the original sources don't give a specific date at all, and the date has to be inferred from other evidence, or they might describe the date in medieval terms (using the ancient Roman calendar, or referring to regnal dates of the king or the pope), or maybe different sources give different dates. I don't have have access to the sources in our Walter of Coutances article at the moment, but you could ask, Wikipedia's expert on medieval English bishops. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answers on the bishops, Adam Bishop.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Neologism alert - some people call that kind of thing "eponysterical" :) SemanticMantis (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This might help to indicate that the reception seems to more or less indicate the formal ceremony of his entry to his diocese. It certainly can be the case that a new bishop appears in his diocese before a formal reception, particularly if there are issues in the part he first appears in or if, for instance, he says a mass in his new diocese at an outlying parish on his way into the cathedral, and only later actually arrives at the cathedral for formal reception. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

French magazines automobiles
Are there magazines dealing with automobiles in French? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.120 (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Does fr:Catégorie:Média du sport automobile help? --ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Go to Journaux.fr. In the blue sidebar, under "Familles de revues", open the section named "Auto / Moto & Transport". The first 4 items are specifically for car magazines. (the site isn't working for me right now). Cfmarenostrum (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And now that the site works, I see it also sells some foreign (eg german and british) magazines. 92.154.7.156 (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)