"I Now Pronounce You Man and Wife": Replying Reno.

Reno was right when he wrote that no pastor or priest has the power to make the above statement. He was also right to point out that the bible has no record of weddings taking place in the temple or conducted by prophets or apostles.

More importantly, Reno quipped that wedding is simple, we are the ones making it complicated and expensive today, that is incontestable.

I understand it wouldn't have been the Reno we know if he stopped at those salient points, somehow he must by default or fault court controversy by dragging both the Catholic church and biblical exegesis into his blog.

Reno said it was the Catholic church that introduced wedding in church to MAKE MONEY. I'm wondering where he got that idiotic idea from. Firstly, Reno continues to excel in "resourceful ignorance" in biblical exegesis. Saying that wedding should not be celebrated in the church because it was not done like that in the bible is like saying the dead should not be brought to church for prayers before burial, since it's not in the bible.

Same thing applies to baptism, we never read in the bible of anyone baptized in the temple or church. Jesus was baptized in a river, the Ethiopian eunuch in pool of water by the roadside, Cornelius and his household were baptized in his house. In Reno's 'omniscient' logic we should baptize anywhere except in the church.

Even the breaking of bread (the Eucharist) and Sunday worship were never done in a church during the apostolic times, believers gathered in their homes, maybe we should apply Reno's 'almighty' logic and stop meeting in churches, let's split ourselves and conduct Sunday worship at our homes.

Reno and his likes cannot distinguish between what is not IN THE BIBLE and what is NOT BIBLICAL, and that's where qualified bible experts separate from bible enthusiasts. The latter have no business teaching authoritatively about and from the bible.

The disciples didn't meet for the breaking of bread in a church because there were no church buildings yet. Celebrating marriage, doing baptism and other pious acts in the church may not be in the bible, but they are biblical.

Some things are not in the bible, but they are biblical, some things are in the bible, but they are not biblical. Divorce is in the bible, but it's not biblical and the Jews were shocked when Jesus gave that teaching.

Hating your enemy is in the bible but not biblical, slaughtering idol worshippers like Elijah did is in the bible but it's not biblical. We don't just do things simply because they are in the bible or refrain from doing things simply because they are not in the bible, we do things that are biblical.

The major reason we celebrate marriage in the church is because it is a sacrament. When Jesus gave Peter the key to the kingdom and the authority to BIND and LOSE, celebrating the sacraments in the church and other spiritual legislations are the exercise of this KEY. Binding and losing here means the authority to teach, lead and govern believers.

By the way, " I now pronounce you man and wife" is not part of catholic liturgy, if you hear any catholic priest say that during celebration of marriage, he is improvising and adding unnecessarily. In fact, marriage is the only sacrament where the man and woman are the ministers, the Catholic priest is just a witness and his presence is necessary because of the eucharist.

The Catholic church teaches that marriage is established by the consent of the man and woman. So they marry themselves, the priest does not wed or pronounce them man and wife, or better put, they don't become husband and wife by the pronouncement of the priest.

Finally dear Reno, quit making allegations you can't substantiate. Marriage is the cheapest celebration to be done in the church, if you see any priest charging people for marriage, report him to his bishop, call him out. Beyond the official fees called stole fees and maybe some tokens for documents, the Catholic church charges no one a Kobo for marriage.