Answers to one of my other questions led me to wonder this: Ceremony Versus Reception?

Question

A lot of people were commenting that it would be rude to have a ceremony without a reception or something along those lines. But isn't the important part the ceremony? Isn't that the part we are supposed to celebrate with the couple? I thought the reception was more like a thank you to the guests for coming but not really necessary.

Thoughts and comments?

I personally am having a reception, but I don't know, I wouldn't want people at my reception or my ceremony if they didn't feel the ceremony was important enough to come to if I didn't give them food afterwards.

I grew up in a very etiquette conscious household smarty... etiquette wise one is allowed to have a ceremony open to their churches congregation and children while still excluding them from the reception. That isn't why I was asking the question... I know the etiquette of it, I was more wondering peoples thoughts and opinions. Thank you for your input though,

Answer 1

If I was invited to the ceremony, and there was not a reception, I would have no problem with this-yes, it´s the ceremony that is the most important thing.

I´ve just always been invited to a ceremony and reception and have gone to both.

Answer 2

The reception IS the celebration of the Ceremony. For lack of a better analogy, it would be like going to work all week without the paycheck. The reception is like the pay off, for the couple and the guests. It's where you get to have your first dance and any of the other goofy traditions you want to have. It's also where the guests will bring their gifts.

I suspect that without a Reception, many will decline (especially if they travel) and those that do come would not bring a gift to a ceremony (but may have if there was a Reception.

And I don't mean that in a greedy way, and I don't mean to imply that you need a reception to get gifts. Just that it's the norm.

If the ceremony was close by, I might attend as a guest, but if I had to do any significant travel, I would skip it.

So I'd say if you don't want a reception, have a small private ceremony and don't send out invites to your larger circle of friends and family.

Answer 3

The ceremony is the most important part, the people that think it's rude not to have a reception are the ones that feel the should be getting something out of this too (example: food)

It also saves you money if you only have a reception lol

if i were just having a ceremony i'd only be paying 500 dollars maybe a little more. I am having a reception only cause I choose too :)

No offense to any of the other posters here, it's just how i feel, i've heard some people whine and complain to the high heavens that a couples not having a reception


I also want to add that if you do have alot of guests coming from far away, and your not having a reception or cannot have reception due to monetary reasons, don't invite them. Send them a wedding announcement instead! :)

This is your day , you do whatever you want, make it however you want!

Answer 4

The ceremony is the vow taking that transforms two individuals into a married couple; the reception is a party to celebrate fact that someone got married. If the reception is immediately after the ceremoney, then think of more like a bonus than a thank you.

This is especially true if it's a church; only God can thank people for coming, because it's God's house, not yours. That is why invitations to church weddings say "honor of your presence" while those to beach weddings read "pleasure of your company."

This is nothing incorrect having a huge crowd at the ceremony and a very small, private celebration afterwards. There is nothing incorrect about having a very small, private ceremony and a huge celebration afterwards.

Answer 5

My husband and I didn't have a reception. I didn't want the expense. We both have big families, so we knew we would have to invite at least a couple hundred people. I didn't want to worry about all that. We had a small ceremony with just immediate family and some close friends. I know there were some hurt feelings over it (friends making comments like, "I wasn't invited to that" and stuff) but it's worth it not to have the headache. I don't think it's rude not to have a reception. I think it's rude to EXPECT one.

We just had a small get together with the guests from the ceremony where we cut the cake and opened the gifts. It worked out well and it saved SO much stress.

Answer 6

It's rude to have a ceremony where your guests may be traveling from a far to witness your nuptials and give gifts then for everything to be over within 15 minutes. It's not likely that you'll be able to spend time with everyone. If you're dead set on not having a reception, why not have just punch and cake after the ceremony? This way you can spend a little more time with everyone who comes.

Also... another scenario was to have an open ceremony but private reception. Please do not go with that idea as it is incredibly rude and tacky. If you want to take it that far -- only invite those guests to the ceremony that are also invited to the reception.

Answer 7

You are correct. The ceremony is the important part. Without the wedding, there is no need for a reception anyway. And no, it's not rude for people to only have a ceremony and not a reception. It is rude, however, for invited guests to skip the ceremony and only attend the reception (unless there is a really good reason).

Answer 8

The ceremony is definitely the most important part. It's the whole reason guests are coming together. I have done a wedding with out a reception. It took place on a Monday (so guests had to take off of work to attend). It was a simple ceremony with less than 50 people. I felt it odd that there was nothing provided for the guests. Yes they are coming to your wedding but think of it like this. If you invited them to your home would you at least offer them something to drink? Receptions don't have to be elaborate they can be simple cake and punch receptions, cocktail receptions or hors'douvres. It gives you a chance to thank the people that attended your wedding. Although you don't have to have one it's hospitalble to offer your guests something for there travels and time involved with spending time with you on your special day.

Answer 9

I wouldn't say it is absolutely necessary to have a reception, but let me make a few points.
1. The reception allows time for the guests to actually greet the couple & congratulate them.
2. The reception offers a venue for the couple to thank the guests for joining them.
3. If you are having a fairly large wedding that some people are driving or flying in for, it would seem a little silly to have them go to all that trouble for a 20 min. ceremony right?
4. Of course the ceremony is the most important part, but it is a whole celebration,and unless you are thinking of having something very small with only close friends & relatives, you should really consider having some kind of reception.

Answer 10

They are equally important! Interestingly, when we were having our premarital counselling, the priest told us that the reception was just as important as the ceremony - because it's the way people celebrate with joy the vows they witnessed the couple making at the church.
But the same people should be invited to both the ceremony and reception.
The couple should want to host their family and friends to a wonderful day of celebration - to have them witness the sacred vows as they are married, then to celebrate with them at a reception - typically to host guests to a great meal and often a dance.