Marrying A Roman Catholic

Discussion in 'Faith, Devotion & Formation' started by Jellies, Jul 23, 2021.

  1. Jellies

    Jellies Active Member

    Posts:
    236
    Likes Received:
    98
    Country:
    Usa
    Religion:
    Christian
    Im raised as a baptist. Currently living with my parents, but when I move out I will probably change. This is all because I met a man who is a Roman Catholic. At first I was really put off by all the sacramentalism, the ritualism, something I thought to be Roman alone. But I now see there is a way to be catholic without Rome. I now have a newfound appreciation for liturgical worship and the reverence it can bring. I say can because evangelical Lutherans (elca) and some episcopal churches (idk which ones) have liturgical worship, and yet bring shame to God while approving of homosexual marriage. I’ve seen a bit of a disdain for the simple traditional baptist worship, certainly among the Romans, but even here. I think where believers gather in the name of Christ in an ordered and reverent way, God is pleased. And yet the real presence of the Eucharist and the sacrifice of Christ being shown forth brings a much more solemn and reverent tone to the worship. Now, this being said, my question : how wrong is Rome? some evngelical Protestants will say the RCC is the anti christ. That it’s idolatry to worship the Eucharist as if it’s God. To be Honest im not sure. What’s the Anglican view on this? I brought this up to the man I am seeing and he was quite upset (understandably so). And yet it feels wrong to worship the Eucharist with latria as the romans call it. The Eucharist is the *communion* with the body and blood of Christ. The bread and wine are the communion of his body and blood. Whoever said the wine ceases to be wine and the bread ceases to be bread? And yet the Romans worship what Paul called “the bread we break.” To an RC, it’s basically sacrilege to call it bread after the consecration. So what is it? Are these people committing idolatry? I would think God is merciful and doesn’t count this against them. After all, Christ said this is my body and this is my blood. This is surely excessive on their part, and yet I feel God will overlook it. Idk why they are so isntent that if it’s the real presence then it must be worshipped. Is our body not the literal temple of the holy spirit? It’s not a metaphor and it’s not a symbol. Our body is very much, in a mystical way, the temple of the holy spirit. Yet I don’t go and pray or worship the presence of the holy spirit in other Christians in the Roman sense. How do I worship the holy spirit present in other Christians? Through love, charity, and compassion. The spirit is not there to sing to it or pray to it, just like the communion meal. Christ is truly present, yet it is food!
    Another thing that bothers me is the Eucharistic sacrifice. They hold that each mass is a perpetuation of the cross and that it atones for daily sins. Does this mean that yesterday’s mass cleanses yesterday’s sin and today’s mass cleanses today’s sin? It’s like a continual process of atonement, rather than what the Bible says. For ONE offering he has perfected…. He has put away sin so it no longer has any boldness… he has nailed our sins to the cross. How is this not contradictory to the Romans? another thing that bothers me is the need to hold to their 200 dogmas as defined after Trent for salvation. If an RC rejects papal infallibility or the immaculate conception or any such thing, he is in danger of eternal perdition. This seems so ridiculous to me. With all respect, it almost sounds like a cult. Also it is an insult to Christ. “Adhere to our dogmas or the sacrifice of Christ is of no avail to you.”
    But then I get to thinking. The Eastern Orthodox, while not being this terrible about dogmatizing everything, pretty much believe that if you leave their church you’re an apostate and going to hell unless you repent and come back. They also believe in the sacrifice of the mass. And yet theirs doesn’t sound like a perpetuation, more like a partaking in an event outside of time. But they still believe the priest offers Jesus to God. Idk how I should even feel about that. The EO also have an excessive icon veneration that is frankly disturbing. I cannot imagine giving veneration to an inanimate object or to see it as a window to heaven. And so I ask myself, has God damned all of these people who are Christians? I don’t think so. Of course not all of them. So please, someone tell me, is the RCC as bad as it feels to me? I feel my baptist perspective may be getting in the way. Yet I have very little issue with Anglicanism. My fear is he wants to raise his children catholic. I almost feel like I’d be handing my children over to the claws of the papacy who will brainwash them into believing their 200 dogmas or it’s hell for them. Is it really this bad? I’ve seen people on this forum be Anglican and marry an RC. He will let me tell the children my opinion. I just don’t want to confuse them. And right now I don’t even know if it’s proper for me to attend a mass. Yet I see church fathers like Cyril of Jerusalem saying the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice and that they offer Christ. Of course, there are others who don’t say this. But this was in the 5th cent. The mistake is quite early on to be something that damns a Christian to believe. So what is it? Is it possible to attend mass without blaspheming God? Will my children have a chance at salvation? Can a person even be saved if they believe they need to assent to the Roman dogmas for salvation? I truly believe this man is saved. Idk If it’s a baptist thing to say, but I see the work of the Holy Spirit in him. I see his love and zeal for God. First time I have seen this in an RC. So there must be some truth they teach through all the heresy. The truth of Christ the redeemer is very much taught in the Roman church. Please help me sort out this dilemma. And pray for me. Thank you.
     
  2. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,353
    Likes Received:
    2,586
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Im raised as a baptist. Currently living with my parents, but when I move out I will probably change.

    Welcome among us.

    This is all because I met a man who is a Roman Catholic. At first I was really put off by all the sacramentalism, the ritualism, something I thought to be Roman alone. But I now see there is a way to be catholic without Rome.

    The point in the Nicene Creed is where we declare our faith is in 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church' would seem to confirm what you are discovering here.

    I now have a newfound appreciation for liturgical worship and the reverence it can bring.

    Many of us find in formal liturgical worship the freedom for deep and life changing reverence and awe. You are not alone.

    I say can because evangelical Lutherans (elca) and some episcopal churches (idk which ones) have liturgical worship, and yet bring shame to God while approving of homosexual marriage.

    Single gender marriage is one of the great challenges facing the Church at the current moment, and we will all have to deal with it one way or another.

    I’ve seen a bit of a disdain for the simple traditional baptist worship, certainly among the Romans, but even here. I think where believers gather in the name of Christ in an ordered and reverent way, God is pleased.

    Christians are not always as good as they should or could be in talking about other Christian traditions. God is far more interested in integrity than he is concerned about how many buttons you have on your cassock.

    And yet the real presence of the Eucharist and the sacrifice of Christ being shown forth brings a much more solemn and reverent tone to the worship. Now, this being said, my question : how wrong is Rome? some evngelical Protestants will say the RCC is the anti christ.

    The Eucharist lies close to the heart of the life of sacramental churches in the catholic tradition. Jesus said to us, 'do this as my anamnesis'.

    That it’s idolatry to worship the Eucharist as if it’s God. To be Honest im not sure. What’s the Anglican view on this? I brought this up to the man I am seeing and he was quite upset (understandably so).

    We worship Christ in the sacrament, which is a little different. I have a photo of my Mother in the wall in my study. It is not my mother, but these days (apart from a few inherited quirks of personality I inherited) it is all I have. I sometimes look at it with a great deal of thankfulness.

    And yet it feels wrong to worship the Eucharist with latria as the romans call it. The Eucharist is the *communion* with the body and blood of Christ. The bread and wine are the communion of his body and blood.

    I think one the problems that people face is they keep asking what, when they should be asking who.

    Whoever said the wine ceases to be wine and the bread ceases to be bread?

    And yet the Romans worship what Paul called “the bread we break.” To an RC, it’s basically sacrilege to call it bread after the consecration. So what is it? Are these people committing idolatry? I would think God is merciful and doesn’t count this against them. After all, Christ said this is my body and this is my blood. This is surely excessive on their part, and yet I feel God will overlook it.

    The Thirty Nine Articles of the Anglican Church set out some of what we have to say on these matters.

    XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.
    The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

    Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

    The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

    The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.​

    XXIX. Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper.
    The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.​

    XXX. Of both Kinds.
    The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.​

    XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.
    The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.​

    I hope this helps

    Idk why they are so isntent that if it’s the real presence then it must be worshipped. Is our body not the literal temple of the holy spirit? It’s not a metaphor and it’s not a symbol. Our body is very much, in a mystical way, the temple of the holy spirit. Yet I don’t go and pray or worship the presence of the holy spirit in other Christians in the Roman sense.

    This is at the nub of what I was trying to say a bit earlier. It is not about what you worship, but who you worship. Keep your eyes fixed on Jesus.

    How do I worship the holy spirit present in other Christians? Through love, charity, and compassion. The spirit is not there to sing to it or pray to it, just like the communion meal. Christ is truly present, yet it is food!

    John 4 will give you some of the answers to these questions. I have to go now. I hope one of the others can answer some more of what you have asked. I hope and pray this helps you, and wish you well with the life in Christ.
     
    Tiffy likes this.
  3. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,565
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    What may help you understand all this, is to realize that there is actually not a single Roman Catholicism, but rather multiple (3-4) different Roman Catholicisms, which co-exist under the same name. This makes things really confusing, and confuses even Roman Catholics themselves when talking to each other.

    -“Latin Mass” traditionalists. There aren’t many of them anymore, but these are the ones that have the most rabid fanaticism of RC doctrines (and they probably wouldn’t date a baptist girl like you).They love Trent, Latin, baroque music. This was the Roman Catholicism before 20th century, but a few still practice it. Adoration, propitiatory sacrifice, all the things you mentioned, originally came from them.

    -“Catechism” conservatives. These and the liberals below are by far the two vast types of modern RCCs, although the conservatives are becoming increasingly rare. They take some doctrines from the traditionalists above (adoration sometimes, ceremony, no women priests, etc), and mix them with some liberal views (not using Latin; allowance for the existence of non-RCCs). If he’s dating you it is likely he’s in this camp, and holds in a high regard “The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church” (1994). The traditionalists despise this modern Catechism, as do the liberals, but the conservatives cling to it tightly as a thick tome that summarizes in great detail all (modern) RC beliefs.

    The third group are the liberals, which are becoming increasingly widespread. These are the people who have compromised their faith with the world, and do not see themselves in opposition to “the world, the flesh, and the devil” as a normal Christian should. They don’t really like ceremony or believe the Catechism. Pope Francis is a liberal, as are manyRC bishops; they have their own set of doctrines (part Christian, part pagan, part worldly), which aren’t found in the Catechism. And most of American RCs fall into this camp also; surveys repeatedly show that most RCs endorse women priests, don’t oppose abortion too much, etc. Joe Biden is a classic liberal RC, having supported large-scale enablement of abortion and pro-sodomy laws in the United States.

    So your boyfriend sounds like he’s more serious than the liberals, but not quite a Latin mass traditionalist, right?
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2021
  4. PDL

    PDL Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    846
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Religion:
    Church of England
    I am not sure you are in the right place.

    I note you live in the USA. I believe asking the opinions of Anglicans on Roman Catholicism is a little like asking Republicans to give you a fair, unbiased, objective opinion of the Democrat Party and its policies.

    I believe it would be fair, on your part, to address your concerns about the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church to Roman Catholics. I know no opinion is ever unbiased but I think it appropriate you let Roman Catholics speak for themselves.
     
    Nevis and Tiffy like this.
  5. bwallac2335

    bwallac2335 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,722
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Religion:
    ACNA
    Catholics are very much Christians. I find that they hold some wrong doctrines but they are Christians. I am no theologian but it is possible to have a marriage where the parties go to different churches.
     
    Silvan likes this.
  6. Silvan

    Silvan Active Member

    Posts:
    362
    Likes Received:
    67
    Country:
    South Germany
    Religion:
    Catholic
    They are indeed.
    Is that unknown to some in the USA?
     
  7. Silvan

    Silvan Active Member

    Posts:
    362
    Likes Received:
    67
    Country:
    South Germany
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Btw: My wife is Prostant.
    She married me, a Roman Catholic.
    And that has never been a problem between us.
     
  8. Silvan

    Silvan Active Member

    Posts:
    362
    Likes Received:
    67
    Country:
    South Germany
    Religion:
    Catholic
    I sincerely hope so.

    And as for me, I would never think that all Christian denominations outside the RCC are blaspheming God.

    Btw: The WAR OF THE THIRTY YEARS is over.
    But maybe not everybody has heard this good news yet.
     
    Nevis likes this.
  9. bwallac2335

    bwallac2335 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,722
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Religion:
    ACNA
    Yes there are some in th e US who think that
     
  10. Silvan

    Silvan Active Member

    Posts:
    362
    Likes Received:
    67
    Country:
    South Germany
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Who think what? :)

    a) who think that Catholics are NOT Christians
    b) who think that Catholics are also Christians, somehow ....
     
  11. Jellies

    Jellies Active Member

    Posts:
    236
    Likes Received:
    98
    Country:
    Usa
    Religion:
    Christian
    Are your children raised Catholic?

    I have said in this post I do believe him to be a Christian. Wether I believe the current pope or others to be one is a different matter, though that should not be contrary to RCC opinion as some popes aren’t canonized Saints. when I say can someone that believes they *must* adhere to RC dogma for salvation may or may not be Christian, I mean just that. The Gospel of Christ is one of total love submission and endurance to him as our lord and redeemer. If you start adding in, “well I must believe in RC dogma or I am going to hell” the gospel will become muddied. No, a mere assent to “I believe in the dogma of the church because the church is the church of Christ and it is infallible” doesn’t constitute as what I see as wrong in most cases. What I am trying to see is when it becomes wrong. My boyfriend, for example. He doesn’t question church authority at all. Not because he’s totally obsessed with it, as some RCs are (sorry) but because he genuinely believes it’s the church of Christ and that it’s teaching the right doctrine. Not to mention he was raised Catholic, basically his whole family is catholic. A lot of this is cultural. He doesn’t see the dogma as necessary to his salvation during his everyday life. It only becomes an issue when the dogma are challenged and the cognitive dissonance (sorry) sets in and he starts to have to defend why the dogma are necessary to be saved. Which all goes back to it’s the church Christ founded and it can’t teach wrong doctrine etc etc. it’s complicated.

    As for going to mass being a blasphemy to God, I honestly don’t know. It may violate my conscience, not yet sure. That’s why I say it would be wrong, because it may violate my conscience.
    I’d like it if you can explain please how the whole view of the catholic Eucharist sacrifice works. I have read the CCC and Trent and it seems to me to be very flawed. This doctrine of a “pepretuation” of the cross instead of participating in the eternal self giving of Christ bothers me. Also, question, is mass offered for past and present sins? The CCC says for sins daily committed if I remember correctly. Is it like yesterday’s mass atones for yesterday’s sin and today’s mass atones for today’s sin? Seems to me like our atonement is a mass by mass thing in the RC rather than an event outside of time. Is this view wrong given that the RCC believes that the Eucharist and the cross are one and the same sacrifice? To me they say it’s the same sacrifice because it’s the same victim. But scarifice is an action not a thing. So each Eucharist must be one and the same with the cross, and for that it requires us to participate in an event outside of time. So it makes no sense to say that each mass atones for sin. Is this correct? That all masses are one and the same participation of the one event of the cross? Which then makes no sense in the light of the fact that the RCC says it is proper to offer private masses without communicants because it brings salvation to the world. It shouldn’t though, because more masses doesn’t = more salvation. It’s contradictory.
    I’d appreciate if you could shed some light on this. As you see, I am confused.
     
  12. Silvan

    Silvan Active Member

    Posts:
    362
    Likes Received:
    67
    Country:
    South Germany
    Religion:
    Catholic
    I will try.
    But it is like this:
    I am not a professional theologian.
    I grew up as a simple peasant boy in a small Catholic wine-growing village or small town in Germany.
    Our village was founded around 750 AD by Iro-Scottish monks.
    Later to be elevated to be a town by some Earl Richard of Cornwall, who volunteered to be King of Germany in those days.
    Hence maybe my interest in Ireland and Scotland and England.

    My next posting will be about more religion then.
     
  13. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,565
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Basically you’ve hit the nail on the head: RCCs believe that the Eucharist is Calvary, while the church fathers and us believe that it’s the Last Supper. Another way of seeing it, theirs is the sacrifice of Jesus for sins, ours is the sacrifice of thanksgiving, like the Old Testament offering of the first-fruits at the Temple. We go to the NT temple, to lay our sacrifices on the altar, our fist fruits, the tenth of our possessions, as a thanksgiving to the Lord. And we celebrate at the Lord’s table, participating in the resurrection.

    If you go back to the ancient church, this was the universal doctrine of the Church, which is why they coined the term, “eu-charistos”, roughly translated today as “sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving”. But in the Middle Ages, the monks lost the correct understanding and came to believe that the sacrifice we make is, we sacrifice Jesus to the Father. Which is really weird, and worse than weird.
     
  14. Silvan

    Silvan Active Member

    Posts:
    362
    Likes Received:
    67
    Country:
    South Germany
    Religion:
    Catholic
    It was like this:
    We have two boys.
    In primary school they both went to the Catholic part of Religious Education.
    Our eldest son became Catholic then - but later left the RCC.
    Our second son never became a member of any religion.
    So it is.
     
  15. bwallac2335

    bwallac2335 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,722
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Religion:
    ACNA
    That catholics are not Christians
     
    Nevis likes this.
  16. Silvan

    Silvan Active Member

    Posts:
    362
    Likes Received:
    67
    Country:
    South Germany
    Religion:
    Catholic
    And you - do you agree with this verdict? :)
     
  17. bwallac2335

    bwallac2335 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,722
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Religion:
    ACNA
    no
     
    Silvan likes this.
  18. Silvan

    Silvan Active Member

    Posts:
    362
    Likes Received:
    67
    Country:
    South Germany
    Religion:
    Catholic
    That is the way I see it as well! :)
     
  19. Silvan

    Silvan Active Member

    Posts:
    362
    Likes Received:
    67
    Country:
    South Germany
    Religion:
    Catholic
  20. Jellies

    Jellies Active Member

    Posts:
    236
    Likes Received:
    98
    Country:
    Usa
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hello:cheers: