What does “for better or for worse” mean?

It is a merism — a pair of opposites standing in for everything between them. Naming the two extremes is a way of promising the whole range without listing it, the same device as “searched high and low.” It does not mean the marriage will be half good and half bad; it means all of it, whatever it turns out to be.

Is it “for better or worse” or “for better for worse”?

The prayer books say “for better for worse,” with no “or” — 1662, Common Worship and the 1979 American book all print it that way. The “or” is a later spoken habit, near-universal in the United States. Neither is wrong; only one is what the book says.

Do Catholic vows say “for better or for worse”?

Form A does not. It says “in good times and in bad” instead. The alternative form permitted in United States dioceses keeps the older sequence, including “for better, for worse” — so within the same rite you can have it either way, depending on which authorised form your parish uses.

“For better or for worse”

A pair of opposites standing in for everything between them — and, in the books it comes from, a phrase with no “or” in it at all.

Where it comes from

Like the rest of the traditional vow, it descends from the medieval Sarum rite by way of Cranmer’s prayer book of 1549. The device is a merism: two extremes named so that the whole range between them is included without being listed. The same construction gives us “high and low” and “far and wide.”

The vow uses three of them in a row — better and worse, richer and poorer, sickness and health. That accumulation is doing deliberate work: it is a formula designed to sound exhaustive in front of witnesses, and to leave no obvious gap to argue your way into later.

The exact wording, rite by rite

“for better for worse, for richer for poorer”

1662 prayer book · 1979 Episcopal

… to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health …

No “or,” and no comma between the pairs. Most couples who say they want the traditional words are surprised by this; almost every printed modern order of service has quietly added the “or.”

“for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer”

Common Worship, 2000 · United Methodist

… for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish …

Commas but still no “or.” The Church of England text is legally binding and cannot be reworded, so if you are marrying in an English parish church, this is what you will say.

“in good times and in bad”

Roman Catholic · Order of Celebrating Matrimony, Form A

I promise to be faithful to you, in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health …

The pair is replaced rather than kept. The alternative form permitted in United States dioceses restores the old sequence, so a Catholic couple can have either — ask which form your parish uses.

“in plenty and in want; in joy and in sorrow”

Presbyterian · Book of Common Worship

… to be loving and faithful to you in plenty and in want; in joy and in sorrow; in sickness and in health …

Substitutes two different pairs for the two prayer-book ones, and is the only mainline text that names sorrow. “In plenty and in want” is a plainer rendering of richer and poorer.

“through the best and the worst of what is to come”

Lutheran Book of Worship, 1978 · the longer alternative

… and I will try with you better to understand ourselves, the world and God; through the best and the worst of what is to come until death parts us.

The whole idea compressed into one clause at the end of the vow rather than a list in the middle. Useful if you want the sense without the recitation.

Modern rewrites that keep its weight

The clause works by naming the bad outcome out loud. A rewrite that only names the good one has thrown away the whole point.

Three that hold

Secular · usable as written

I am not promising you the good years. Anybody can promise those. I am promising you the other kind as well.

When it is easy, and when it is dull, and when it is frightening — all three, and I know there will be all three.

In the best of what comes and the worst of it, and without renegotiating when I find out which is which.

Can you drop it?

In a civil or non-liturgical ceremony, yes, and it is the second most commonly cut clause after “for richer or for poorer.” Nothing legally requires it anywhere.

In a liturgical service you cannot remove it, but you may be able to choose a form that does not contain it — the Catholic Form A and the Presbyterian vow both replace the pair with something else, and both are authorised. That is the useful move: not editing the text, but choosing a different authorised one. Which vows each tradition allows you to change is set out at Christian wedding vows.

The other clauses: in sickness and in health · to have and to hold · till death do us part

Common questions

What does “for better or for worse” mean?: It is a merism — a pair of opposites standing in for everything between them. Naming the two extremes is a way of promising the whole range without listing it, the same device as “searched high and low.” It does not mean the marriage will be half good and half bad; it means all of it, whatever it turns out to be.
Is it “for better or worse” or “for better for worse”?: The prayer books say “for better for worse,” with no “or” — 1662, Common Worship and the 1979 American book all print it that way. The “or” is a later spoken habit, near-universal in the United States. Neither is wrong; only one is what the book says.
Do Catholic vows say “for better or for worse”?: Form A does not. It says “in good times and in bad” instead. The alternative form permitted in United States dioceses keeps the older sequence, including “for better, for worse” — so within the same rite you can have it either way, depending on which authorised form your parish uses.