Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Marriage with a Roman Catholic
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church ^

Posted on 12/16/2009 11:13:37 PM PST by Gamecock

Question:

I am a teenager, and thinking of going into church ministry when I'm older. I am attracted to the OPC, based on its faithfulness to Scripture. I noticed that the OPC holds to a "strict-subscriptionist" interpretation of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. I agree with them on every point, except perhaps one which I would like clarified.

The WCF, Chapter XXIV (Of Marriage and Divorce) reads as follows:

It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.

Now I fully agree that Christians may not, without sinning gravely, marry others who are not Christians. This is clearly Biblical teaching. However, would I be wrong in saying that Roman Catholics can be saved in spite of their Church?

So, my first question is whether you can please provide any Biblical evidence that a marrage between a Protestant and a saved Catholic is inherently and absolutely wrong (aside from the difficult circumstances it entails). My second question is, if I interpreted this article of the Westminster Confession of Faith in the sense that marriage with papists is bad but not absolutely forbidden by Scripture and thus not worthy of formal church discipline, would I be automatically barred from being an OPC minister?

Thanks so much for taking the time to read this!

Answer:

Thanks for writing a letter that's quite sophisticated for a teenager. I hope the Lord will lead you into the ministry if that is his calling for you.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church can fairly be called a strict-subscriptionist church. But that statement doesn't end the matter. Men who are ordained in our church vow to receive the Westminster Standards "as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures." Some men take that virtually verbatim, while others disagree with a word or phrase in the confessional standards. Still others may, before a presbytery, take exception to something, and their views still be deemed within the "system of doctrine." But that's somewhat rarified theology which doesn't directly address your concerns.

Of course a Roman Catholic can be saved in spite of his church. That's a safe position to hold. A separate issue is marrying a Roman Catholic. And imbedded in this is the criteria for judging who is saved. We all agree that only God knows the heart. With that agreement certain necessary matters have to be observed. That's why, in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church tradition, it is the church session—not an individual like you or me—that makes the judgment that a person makes a credible profession of faith: not an infallible judgment and certainly not a subjective, theoretical opinion of the kind your remarks seem to suggest.

So let's say an Orthodox Presbyterian Church member wants to marry a "saved Roman Catholic." My counsel would be that he/she come before a church session as a candidate for communicant church membership, and be received into the church. That's the best we can do, humanly speaking, to determine whether one is saved, a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.

That's the concern of the Westminster Confession of Faith: that we have a believer on our hands, whom a believer may marry with God's approval. The Westminster Confession of Faith's "necessary" qualification for a Christian marriage is to marry "only in the Lord" and not be "unequally yoked" with an unbeliever.

Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church does hold "damnable heresies": the mass, confession and absolution by a priest, purgatory, Mary as "mother of God," "the queen of heaven," and "co-redemptrix," to say nothing of a pope speaking "ex cathedra" on doctrinal matters which members are bound by.

To repeat somewhat, it's not enough for any individual to judge whether a person is "saved." Leave it to the church to determine that question, and also the question of marrying a "saved" Roman Catholic. At the least, such a Roman Catholic should be interviewed by a church session. For such a marriage to take place, approval by a session is a must.

I hope my reply answers at least some of your concerns.

About Q&A



TOPICS: Apologetics; General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: romancatholic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last
To: Gamecock

It’s been a few years since the council of Trent, if you haven’t noticed. I believe this was officially changed during Vatican II, but it could have been sooner. I am not a religious scholar, but I know my Catholic faith.


21 posted on 12/17/2009 1:51:53 AM PST by malkee (Actually I'm an ex-smoker--more than three years now -- But I think about it every day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
GC: >> I believe in Sola Scripturum. I believe that the Bible is the only key to salvation. << BB: I disagree. The present "canon" of the bible was first compiled around 395 A.D. at the earliest. Are we to believe that for the first 400 years of Christianity, those Christians had no chance at salvation because they only followed certain portions of scripture and not the entire holy bible? Did the apostles have no chance at salvation because the new testament didn't exist yet when they followed Jesus?

It is the key as it point to Christ. It is not required reading if not available. Besides, the Apsotles were the first hand recipients of the Gospel, no?

Besides, the NT was floating around among the elect bfore the formal canon was established.

22 posted on 12/17/2009 1:54:32 AM PST by Gamecock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
GC: >> I agree with many of the writings of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. (The dead guys up above) <<

BB: Haven't read much of Augustine or Calvin, I'm familiar with some of Luther's writings. I agree with many of the problems he had with the Catholic church at that time (such as the church selling indulgences), I also have problems with many of writings, like his bitter anti-Jewish pamphlet "On the Jews and their lies" he published in his later years.

Again, I said "many." Do you agree with everything your church has written? Do you approve of the inquistion?

23 posted on 12/17/2009 1:59:05 AM PST by Gamecock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MarMema
Mary as "mother of God," She is not the mother of God????

Catholics believe that there are three and only three divine persons. God the father, God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Spirit. Catholics also believe that these divine persons are Co-eternal, meaning that they all three exixted from the beginning of time and they are co-equal in stature to each other and only each other. We also believe that Jesus from the moment of his "Conception" came to posses a second human nature. This nature is Co-Equal to his Divine nature. By that I mean that He is Fully God and fully man/ human at the same time.

Mary gave birth to this one person with two natures.He fed at her breasts and she even changed his little diapers. So yes we believe that she is the "Mother of God."

I hope this clarifies our belief

24 posted on 12/17/2009 2:26:02 AM PST by verga (I am not an apologist, I just play one on Television)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
I suspect the Roman Catholic crowd will be along and howl that this is bashing Roman Catholics.

That wasn't my first thought. I was more interested in the ecclesiology, the sorrowful ecclesiology of some Protestants who say, "We may be wrong, but you still have to abide by our judgment, even with respect to whom you marry."

And as for the "we may be wrong," once again an otherwise reasonable answer (within the system) is tainted by falsehood NOT about the truth of what we hold, but about what it is that we actually hold.

When will somebody notice that the urge to condemn us feelthy papists is so strong that many of those who yield to it promptly give up their regard and care for easily ascertainable truths? Anyone who sets himself up as a kind of OPC "Dear Abby" ought at least to spend the five minutes it would take to find out if "co-redemptrix" is indeed what we teach.

So it's not bashing in the first degree, but it is bashing, or it bears to bashing the same relation that manslaughter bears to murder. It's not intentional because it's ignorant, but some harm is done nonetheless.

But for them to be honest they would have to admit their position, as incorrect as it is, that we Proddies hold to damnable heresies.

AS long as it's clear that its the heresy which is damnable, that what is objectively a heresy can be held to in error rather than stubbornness, and so the holding, while a heck of an impediment, is not necessarily "mortal", then, yeah.

I don't get the outrage that disputants have because the other party is a disputant. Some people think I'm wrong; I think some people are wrong. Duh.

But when the people who think I'm wrong keep on saying I'm wrong because I think something I do not think or insist on something on which I do not insist, then I get at least perplexed and sometimes downright ornery.

This morning's verbosity brought to you by Boca Java ....

25 posted on 12/17/2009 3:30:55 AM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
But that doesn’t come with the baggage Rome puts on that status.

Then why not say that, instead of attacking "mother of God?"

26 posted on 12/17/2009 3:33:24 AM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

This thread is a devicive tool and should not warrent any response.

But you were kind in your post.

: )

Did not Jim Robinson speak up the other day about such foolishness of these type of threads?


27 posted on 12/17/2009 3:35:49 AM PST by Global2010 (Strange We Can Believe In)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
Explain Trent.

Seriously? After we've done this so many times?

As I said earlier, the false doctrine, the heresy, can be held in error or in ignorance. It can be held for seemingly or partially good reason. In such a case, the holder is not necessarily choosing to reject the truth, and the Truth is generous, patient, and forgiving. (Thank Goodness!)

28 posted on 12/17/2009 3:36:37 AM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

And please give us the amount of both who become Atheist or agnostic.

Promote division among Christians.

What good are you doing?

God forgive you.


29 posted on 12/17/2009 3:39:16 AM PST by Global2010 (Strange We Can Believe In)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock; Salvation; verga; narses; Mad Dawg; MarMema
I suspect the Roman Catholic crowd will be along and howl that this is bashing Roman Catholics. But for them to be honest they would have to admit their position, as incorrect as it is, that we Proddies hold to damnable heresies.

Actually, I agree that mixed marriages are generally a terrible idea. In fact Canon 1124 prohibits it without a dispensation (after an interview process).

You OPC types aren't ever going to agree with actual Orthodox Christianity, but that's not the point of this piece you wrote, I don't think.

If I was her fiance's pastor, I would counsel him to look elsewhere. He doesn't need to be mixed up with a heretic, particularly a Calvinist one.

30 posted on 12/17/2009 3:54:07 AM PST by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

You wrote:

“Explain Trent.”

Trent was written when Catholics were leaving historic, orthodox Christianity and joining Protestant sects which taught and held to erroneous doctrines. Trent’s canons apply to Catholics who adopted heretical ideas. The canons are really not about those born into and raised as Protestants 400 years after the beginning of the Protestant Revolution.

This has been explained COUNTLESS times here at FR.


31 posted on 12/17/2009 3:57:13 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Satan has had a hold on PCUSA for a long time.


32 posted on 12/17/2009 4:05:05 AM PST by jacknhoo (Luke 12:51. Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: verga; MarMema
I hope this clarifies our belief

Ummm, v, MarMema is an Orthodox Christian. From your seminary days you may remember a little get together called the Council of Ephesus where we Eastern Greek speaking Christians, lead by +Cyril of Alexandria in opposition to Nestorius of Constantinople and John of Antioch, taught a bunch of heretics, including an emperor, how to pronounce "Theotokos". Marmema knows quite well that Panagia is the Most Holy Theotokos.

33 posted on 12/17/2009 4:21:35 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

This is a very interesting situation. My wife and I were lifelong Catholics and just recently converted to Baptist.

Fortunately, in our 13 years of marriage, we have always attended the same church. I think there are many “saved” Catholics and Catholicism has a lot of merit, but it also has some clearly flawed doctrines that are not scriptural-chief among them are purgatory and praying to Mary and other saints.

These were the main reasons why we finally left the Catholic Church.

In your situation though, I don’t think it’d be advisable for a future OPC minister to be married to a Catholic that was attending a different church every Sunday-not to mention that yes, the Catholic Church would insist that the kids are raised Catholic as well.

This situation is bound to cause many conflicts. As you can see just by this thread, there is quite a bit of difference of opinion between Catholics and Protestants and many on both sides believe that you MUST be in their church to be in the “true” church.

If you are serious about your faith, which it seems you are, I think it is best to marry someone who you can worship together with every Sunday.


34 posted on 12/17/2009 4:22:02 AM PST by lquist1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; Gamecock

Exactly, Vlad. Membership in the Church can get hazy for people born in heresy.

The OPC baptizes validly. So its members are, at that moment, in the Church and “saved”. That salvation would be retained as long as the person in question does not commit any mortal sin or at least has perfect contrition for all mortal sins committed.

Heresy would certainly be a mortal sin. But to what extent is it done obstinately and with full consent of the will, in the case of someone born into it? Difficult to say.

The dogma Outside the Church there is No Salvation remains perfectly intact. The only question is who is inside and who is outside.


35 posted on 12/17/2009 4:27:49 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Catholics are good and decent people. I have never known one who was not willing to marry beneath themselves by marrying outside of the church and taking a spouse from one of the gutter religions.

The children do have to be raised in the Catholic Church (You know the one. The Chruch founded by Peter as directed by the Lord Jesus Christ). We have enough snake handlers and televangelists in the world.


36 posted on 12/17/2009 4:32:52 AM PST by awake-n-angry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: awake-n-angry
one of the gutter religions

What? This thread wasn't funky enough?

37 posted on 12/17/2009 4:44:17 AM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

Our faith teaches that we turn the other cheek and forgive. The anti-Catholic hatred on this forum often makes this is a difficult task. I live in the southeast where anti-Catholic hatred is openly taught in public schools and churches (I went to Catholic School about two miles from Bob Jones University). I have had my fill and do not suffer fools gracefully.


38 posted on 12/17/2009 4:51:17 AM PST by awake-n-angry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

“What? This thread wasn’t funky enough?”

Which shall it be? RightGuard or Raid?

I was thinking Sr. Mary Margaret’s Patented Holy Rosary Spray and Eau du Cologne, but that might not be enough to reduce the funky atmosphere.


39 posted on 12/17/2009 5:12:10 AM PST by OpusatFR (Tagline not State Approved. Thoughts not State Approved. Actions not State Approved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

In my own immediate family we have married and converted FOUR RC’s. Actually....converted and married in that order!


40 posted on 12/17/2009 5:21:03 AM PST by bonfire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson