Marrying A Roman Catholic

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

  1. Silvan

    Silvan Active Member

    Posts:
    362
    Likes Received:
    67
    Country:
    South Germany
    Religion:
    Catholic
    And now? - What do you think and say? :)
     
  2. Jellies

    Jellies Active Member

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

    Can you explain this more and how it differs with the RCC? Would you say they worship the actual sacrament while you worship Christ through it?
    What does it mean to worship Christ “in” it? Also, I see this can be tied to other things like the burning bush and Moses. Did Moses worship the bush? No. Did he worship the presence of God in it? I would say so. So it’s not exactly wrong for a catholic to worship the sacrament, right? Just very misguided.
     
  3. Jellies

    Jellies Active Member

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


    I think this is an interesting take, that we are to celebrate the last supper. That’s certainly how the early Christians did it. However, I think we can’t divorce the sacrificial undertones of the last supper. No, it wasn’t a sacrifice like Catholics teach. But it was looking forward to one. And then when the sacrifice finally happened, it was revealed to the disciples exactly what the last supper was commemorating. I think that in some way I could accept that the sacrifice of Christ is outside of time. I saw it posted on this forum on another thread. Sacrifice has 3 parts: immolation, oblation, and communion. Immolation is NOT outside of time and is never to be repeated. Which Rome apparently disagrees with since they say “Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner.” That is so contradictory to me. How can an immolation be “unbloody”? It’s literally a slaying. And how can the Eucharist be “unbloody” if it’s the blood of Christ? I guess it’s their attempt at getting around “re sacrificing” Christ and saying he doesn’t suffer (unbloody blood lol).
    I would also say we are not to offer Christ for propitiation, we are to offer the sacrifice shown forth in communion in thanksgiving and praise. Also you could say since the oblation or holy offering is outside of time, we are entreating upon the one continuous oblation for the remission of sins. To go from that to saying every mass is propitiatory and the Eucharist cleanses only your venial sins is a far cry.
    I’m also not so convinced this erroneous view came about as late as you think. Already in mid 500 ad (I think) Cyril of Jerusalem is saying they “offer Christ” for the living and dead and that it’s a propitiatory sacrifice. But then on the other hand there’s John chrysostom. I think he also offered it for the living and dead, but this is honestly no different than praying for the dead (which was a relatively new practice). Chrysostom says that just as in the cross Christ carried our sins, in the oblation we carry our own and ask for remission. That’s not so unpalatable tbh, kind of falls in line with what I was saying. And also, I believe, it disagrees with Cyril in that “we offer Christ” as a propitiatory sacrifice. We offer him not for atonement, but for 1) memorial unto God (it is a memorial, anamnesis, sacrifice after all
    2) thanksgiving and praise for the COMPLETED atonement
    3) entreating on the holy offering for the remission of sins (which is basically what you do every time you pray for forgiveness of sins. Except here it’s special.)

    so yes, Rome errs saying it’s a perpetuation of Calvary. It’s not because that would require Jesus to be in a continual state of crucifixion and death….
    It’s the participation ( I don’t like the word perpetuation) in the continued oblation in the heavens of Christ, where he presents himself as a living sacrifice for God daily, as our mediator. Everyone he mediates, he must also sort of “entreat” or” recall “ to God the sacrifice of himself, so that our prayers may be heard.
    Does this sound too bad ? Lol. I’m only starting to be able to better explain it. Idk why it’s something so complicated. In the Bible it seems just like a memorial meal in thanksgiving. And yet I think it is fair to say that the doctrine became “clearer” over time in one sense, yet obfuscated in the other. Meaning people realized it’s a way for us to join ourselves in the oblation. Because Christ didn’t take our place, he is our representative. Like Paul said, I have been crucified with Christ. But of course this is a hard concept to understand. So heresies came about. Not to mention I doubt the apostles expounded much on the Eucharist, as much of this comes from the apocalypse of John and that was written after Paul died. The book of revelation shows people in heaven celebrating and worshipping a slain lamb (Christ).
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2021
  4. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,353
    Likes Received:
    2,586
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    No, simply because I don't want to speak as a RCC. Most RCC people I personally know would agree with my proposition, and the point is that the emphasis is to be be Christ, which is who the sacrament (sign) points to.
     
  5. Silvan

    Silvan Active Member

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

    Do you love this man or not?
    Is this man important to you or not?
    Are you really interested in this man?

    To me it seems you are more interested in theological niceties.
    To me it seems, you may have even invented this man in order to discuss far-fetched theological niceties.

    And my answers to your questions seem like nothing to you, as I did not engage in all your detailed niceties.

    Such details cannot be really important if you love the man you were speaking of.
     
  6. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,565
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Can you show me the actual quote? I’m not saying it’s impossible, since the later errors had to begin sometime, but 80-90% of all Roman prooftexts that I’ve ever encountered later emerged to have been purposefully distorted, after I looked into it.
     
  7. Jellies

    Jellies Active Member

    Posts:
    236
    Likes Received:
    98
    Country:
    Usa
    Religion:
    Christian
    n, after the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless service, is completed, over that sacrifice of propitiation we entreat God for the common peace of the Churches, for the welfare of the world ; for kings; for soldiers and allies; for the sick; for the afflicted; and, in a word, for all who stand in need of succour we all pray and offer this sacrifice.

    9. Then we commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive our petition. Then on behalf also of the Holy Fathers and Bishops who have fallen asleep before us, and in a word of all who in past years have fallen asleep among us, believing that it will be a very great benefit to the souls , for whom the supplication is put up, while that holy and most awful sacrifice is set forth.

    10. And I wish to persuade you by an illustration. For I know that many say, what is a soul profited, which departs from this world either with sins, or without sins, if it be commemorated in the prayer? For if a king were to banish certain who had given him offense, and then those who belong to them should weave a crown and offer it to him on behalf of those under punishment, would he not grant a remission of their penalties? In the same way we, when we offer to Him our supplications for those who have fallen asleep, though they be sinners, weave no crown, but offer up Christ sacrificed for our sins , propitiating our merciful God for them as well as for ourselves.
    Catechetical lecture 23

    seems pretty clear to me he believes the Eucharist actually propitiates God when it is offered by humans, and not as a participation of the eternal oblation in heaven. Idk.
     
  8. Jellies

    Jellies Active Member

    Posts:
    236
    Likes Received:
    98
    Country:
    Usa
    Religion:
    Christian
    I guess. I’m just a bit uncomfortable saying we should give “latria” to it since I don’t believe the actual bread and wine are annihilated.
     
  9. Silvan

    Silvan Active Member

    Posts:
    362
    Likes Received:
    67
    Country:
    South Germany
    Religion:
    Catholic

    Do you mean Roman Catholic doctrine?

    When I read "Roman" then I think of the Roman religion..

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_ancient_Rome
     
  10. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,565
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Its complicated. Elsewhere he denies that the bread and wine are the physical body and blood:

    “Moreover, the things which are hung up at idol festivals , either meat or bread, or other such things polluted by the invocation of the unclean spirits, are reckoned in the pomp of the devil. For as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the invocation of the Holy and Adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, while after the invocation the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ, so in like manner such meats belonging to the pomp of Satan, though in their own nature simple, become profane by the invocation of the evil spirit.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 19, chapter 7)

    “His body according to the Gospel bore the figure of bread” (Lecture 13:19).

    “Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that you by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be made of the same body and the same blood with Him.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 22, paragraph 3)

    “Christ on a certain occasion discoursing with the Jews said, Except you eat My flesh and drink My blood, you have no life in you. They not having heard His saying in a spiritual sense were offended, and went back, supposing that He was inviting them to eat flesh.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 22, paragraph 4)

    What then, in lecture 23 are the figures of Body and Blood, indeed continuing as bread and wine, offered as propitiation? That makes no sense. At best I can say that the language is complicated and confusing, and I could see how it could lead to corruptions in succeeding centuries. But taken in full context St Cyril is clear of the charge.
     
  11. Jellies

    Jellies Active Member

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

    Sorry it offends you. I will refrain then from using the word Roman.
    He is well aware of my various disagreements, nothing new to him. I am trying to be open minded but there is only so much I can compromise. Also, this is an anonymous website. I would obviously never call him a Roman to his face lol. Although I’ve said various times I disagree with the Roman church or the Church of Rome to him. The reason why I say that is because I don’t like how it has taken over the word catholic. The anglicans claim to be catholic and so do the orthodox, yet only the Roman church gets to call itself the label of “Catholic”? I think that’s quite unfair.
    Again, sorry if I offended you in anything. It’s not my intention. To be honest I’m very surprised your wife did not have an issue with the fact that your a catholic, even at first. I don’t know a well catechized Protestant who wouldn’t at least look twice before marrying a Roman Catholic. After all, we are “protesting” a lot of the beliefs of the Church of Rome. Not in spite, however. I have never said I don’t believe Catholics can’t be Christian. I would not be making this post about him if I didn’t believe he wasn’t Christian, nor bothering myself with him.
     
  12. Jellies

    Jellies Active Member

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


    yes Cyril is obviously not a believer in the medieval notion of transubstantiation. Yet I still believe him to have some error…
    I mean this is a catechetical lecture and he says “we offer Christ sacrificed” for propitiation. Do you believe this is an accurate description of what is happening? While Cyril may not have believed it at the level the RCC currently does, this is very confusing if he is trying to say he is offering the wine and bread symbolically for propitiation. I think you can believe that the wine and bread keep their substance while still being the body and blood. So the bread is the body and the wine the blood. What you offer to God propitiates him why? I guess because it’s a memorial offering? A reminder of the new covenant???
    So then it’s not the RCC view I guess…
    But still the language is dangerously close, it’s not hard to see frankly how it evolved into what it is today.

    can I ask you also, what do you feel about giving “latria” to the Eucharist ?
     
  13. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,565
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican

    Yeah but the same man also said,
    “Moreover, the things which are hung up at idol festivals , either meat or bread, or other such things polluted by the invocation of the unclean spirits, are reckoned in the pomp of the devil. For as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the invocation of the Holy and Adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, while after the invocation the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ, so in like manner such meats belonging to the pomp of Satan, though in their own nature simple, become profane by the invocation of the evil spirit.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 19, chapter 7)


    For St Cyril, the bread and wine are no more the physical Body and Blood than the pagan meats are the physical body of Satan. He’s using poetic language, but I agree it was dangerous and imprudent for him to wax a little too poetic. In the later centuries the wider context was missed. The sophisticated mental imagery of a highly cultured classical ancient Roman thinker, was lost in the later ages when people no longer knew how to even read and write.


    Extremely dangerous. I’m sorry to get in the way of something tender and precious between you guys. I honestly think it is very dangerous.
     
  14. Jellies

    Jellies Active Member

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


    You may be right. I am just used to going on RCC apologist websites and seeing them say that “figure” doesn’t mean that they don’t believe in transubstantiation.
    it’s just Cyrils statement sounds soo so much like the RCC. If you think about it, transubstantiation has two sort of aspects emphasized. One is where they almost make it seem like the bread and wine are some sort of optical illusion, and that what is truly there is Christ. But when you start asking them, well how can the blood of Christ get you drunk? How does the bread decay? They will tell you that what changes is the “true” substance or essence in a “metaphysical sense.” That’s literally like saying the Eucharist is the locus and of the flesh and blood and communicates it in a mysterious way, which I totally can get behind. When you really press an RC they will have to admit it’s not literally Jesus under the optical illusion of bread and wine, or else things don’t start adding up.
    Honestly is it just me or does the RC teach one two things that are seemingly contradictory at the same time? They do it with a lot of things I feel. I think it’s that they over analyze things, and given that they think the magisterium can’t err, might as well get as detailed as possible (which obviously leads into more error because they are human and all humans err).
    so I wouldn’t even begin to say that you necessarily need to believe in transubstantiation to believe you are offering Jesus to God in some way
    since Essentially that’s what the RCC actually believes when pressed despite their claims. I honestly believe that Cyril could have been just as mistaken or maybe a little less than the RCC. It is not proper to wax on about a propitiatory atonement through the Eucharist to people that are just getting into the faith, who know nothing about it. No matter how “learned” those people may be. I truly think he erred here in some way.




    Also, I think the whole Eucharistic adoration thing is definitely really weird and almost insulting. Because Christ gave consent to eat the flesh and blood not to carry it about and sing songs to it and worship it. Do you think it’s really that bad? I don’t think he goes to Eucharistic adoration at all, but he gives the Eucharist due respect. Nothing wrong with that. I’m really torn because after all Christ did say this is my body and this is my blood. Also I think about Moses and the burning bush. Did Moses worship the presence of God in the Bush? I think so…
    So what I’m trying to say is maybe it is a bit iffy, but Christ truly is present as he tells us. It’s kind of like worshipping the Holy Spirit in a fellow Christian. Very weird to do and can lead to something very wrong, yet the Holy Spirit is actually there…
    I think in the context of communion worshipping properly isn’t an issue. I saw an orthodox say that the highest form of worship is to eat and drink as Christ commanded.
    It’s just weird the RCC commands latria to it though, idk how to feel lol. As you can tell I’m very torn.
     
  15. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,565
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    You know how Americans like to justify some things about the US, even when it's objectively wrong, like the Iraq war or whatever? When someone is part of a mega empire, it is so intoxicating to be a part of something big, that they will do whatever it takes to continue and perpetuate the image, even if it's just a mirage. I haven't seen any Christian church be as intense in presenting an immaculate image of themselves, as the adherents of Rome have. Even when Pope Francis tells them stop it, the imperial dream is over, they will curse him and continue with the imperial dream, find the little fragments to support them, if nothing exists then at least make things up. "Saying whatever it takes to build up Roman Catholicism" has been in their culture since the string of Papal forgeries in the 6-8th centuries, where they literally made up ancient Roman Imperial documents that seemed to say that the Pope was intended to be a ruler of the whole world.

    That's not bad then, actually. Every Anglican kneels at the reception of the blessed Sacrament (whereas the Roman Catholics stopped kneeling long ago!). We don't kneel as a latria to the Eucharist, but to assume the posture of subjection and submission, but perhaps he could see that as something he'd connect to. I think he'd be impressed by Anglicans all over the world uniformly kneeling at Holy Communion. Here is a scene from someone I know who went on an African mission trip:

    14595628_10153964678454033_401599099653901175_n.jpg
     
  16. Jellies

    Jellies Active Member

    Posts:
    236
    Likes Received:
    98
    Country:
    Usa
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yes I think that’s just fine. It’s just that the RCC says latria is due to it so idk what is going on in his mind. He told me he genuflects before the body of Christ. Doesn’t sound bad, except again the RCC says to give latria to it. I am unaware if he even knows this. I was going to bring up Eucharistic adoration but maybe I shouldn’t? I don’t want to encourage him to go lol. I mean obviously he knows it’s a thing. Can I just ask what you think the difference is between adoration outside of communion (obviously the fact that it’s food) versus doing it during communion? How that may lead the mind down a weird path?
    Also thank you so much for all your answers! They are helpful :)
     
  17. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,565
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    On a psychological level, adoration during communion is done in the context of worship, our highest emotions called up from within us. So how we manifest that can sometimes be confusing, and mean a number of things. But adoration outside of communion isn't in the context of confusingly getting carried away by something. There is no confusion about what you're doing or why you're doing it.
     
  18. Jellies

    Jellies Active Member

    Posts:
    236
    Likes Received:
    98
    Country:
    Usa
    Religion:
    Christian
    Can you explain this more? So you don’t think it’s proper to adore during communion? Or you do?
    Sorry for asking so many questions. It’s just my background is not very extensive on this. I’ve never experienced it. We baptists take a memorialist view, so it’s hard for me to see where to draw the line, I guess. If it’s ok to worship it during communion, why not outside of it? That’s the RC defense and Idk what to say to it to be honest.
     
  19. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,565
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Here’s an example: have you ever said to yourself: “You know, there’s a neat way of understanding the Trinity: the three persons are facets of the one Godhead.” That’s a nice and clean way of explaining it, isn’t it? Except oops, you just committed the heresy of modalism. Have you ever said in a conversation to a friend, “Ok in the Old Testament God was angry, but in the New Testament Jesus is kind.” Oops, you just committed the marcionist heresy.

    What I’m getting at is that most people don’t think about these things to that level. And even those that do, can slip up if they aren’t focused.

    In the context of the divine service, you may think or so things unintentionally. Not many people truly know or investigate why something is done, or what it means. So in the context of a divine service, you’re there, the situation is transcendent, the air hangs thick; you kneel for the Sacrament. It won’t be easy to keep all the categories straight and know exactly what everything is and what it isn’t. You may think X; wait not-X; wait I’m confused; wait… Something complicated is hard keep in focus. Do you think I could carry this nuanced conversation in such a moment when I’m having the heart surgery of my soul?

    But outside of a divine service, you’re not under the heavy and thick emotions. Things are clear, the air is crisp. You know what’s X, what’s Y. And then when you do something, there’s a sense of clarity and finality about it. You’re not swayed or confused; things clear, and you’re doing precisely what you intended. You’re not doing anything you didn’t intend.

    So if you’re there, literally talking to the Host, having conversations with it, there’s no exculpatory evidence that could be brought to plead confusion or a lack of deeper consideration.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2021
  20. Jellies

    Jellies Active Member

    Posts:
    236
    Likes Received:
    98
    Country:
    Usa
    Religion:
    Christian
    yes I see. Honestly I think the RCs that talk, sing, and pray to the host are a bit more…out there. Certainly not the norm. I know for certain he doesn’t do that. I’ve seen videos of the whole singing to the host etc. and it’s like catholic charismatics. I really think this is a big part of it.

    anyways, thank you a lot. I’m still a bit confused if it’s ok to attend a church that endorses such things. I think if i got married to him and had kids Eucharistic adoration would certainly be off the table. It’s just so confusing at times. Some extreme Protestant website tells me the Roman church is the anti christ, but he’s clearly not. Then there’s anglicans saying they believe in praying to Saints, there’s Lutherans that treat the Eucharist almost like Catholics (except for adoration) there’s the orthodox that are very similar to Catholics in several respects. It seems much more subtle than “this church is wrong and teaches a false gospel.” I ask myself how can it be it’s a false church, and yet he is so devoted to God. Sure he has his RC party lines about Mary and sinlesness, but his life is pretty much devoted to God. His Catholic Church taught him that. I truly believe at least in America, the Catholic Church has all its dogmas but in practicality he pretty much lives like your everyday average evangelical. He may ask St Michael the archangel to keep him from temptation, and pray the rosary when his priest assigns him penance, but aside from his very imperfect doctrines is a genuine and full love of God. No RC superstition, no kissing statues or pictures or anything of the sort. The church that taught him all this can’t be so bad. It’s pretty much a washed down evangelical version of Roman Catholicism. It’s really easy for us to see the million issues within their catechism, but aside from intellectual assent, pretty much every catholic that’s not an Uber traditional will believe certain things and yet live their lives differently. An example is mortal sin. People in the medieval ages were tortured by the prospect of hell for committing one sin, and yet he doesn’t really act like he’s in eternal damnation (which is odd because if you actually believe you’re damned to hell you’re supposed to be terrified). I’ve told him that when we sin we ask for forgiveness from within the family of God, not outside it ( someone damned isn’t in the family) and he agrees with me, all while simultaneously holding to the doctrine of mortal sin because the church tells him so. He even says he believes God is graceful and merciful when I ask him if he genuinely believes that he is damned for one mortal sin! Can you honestly believe any medieval catholic saying that? I think it’s much more complicated than every single RC is either a raging liberal or follows the catechism word by word in actual practical life. The RCC has not changed it’s doctrine on the books but pretty much what they’re teaching nowadays (at least in America) is pretty evangelical. He even assents to faith alone by grace alone (unaware Trent anathematized this, and he will remain so bc I’m not telling him LOL).
    Basically, I am hoping to take him to an Anglican Church and slowly talk him into it. He’s very into “feeling it” and told me I need to experience mass and I will understand it ( I won’t lol). Maybe once he sees how similar Anglican worship is (yet doctrinally different!) he will soften his heart.

    sorry for my rant lol. And thank you for your answers, you’ve been a great help :)