Marriage with a Roman Catholic

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church ^

[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

[blue-duncan]

“It was 19 degrees last Sunday AM as I drove through Pittsfield, thought of your folks and said a prayer of thanksgiving for their many years! :)”

Thank you and I will tell them this evening. They celebrated their 73rd anniversary at the nursing home where mother is on Sunday. I told them about you and your connection with Pine Point. Mother’s grandmother lived across the street from Maine Central Institute where my grandmother received her teaching certificate. The farm that we used to visit was my great uncle’s in Palmyra.

The families were Murray and Tucker and they are all buried in the Pittsfield cemetary. Both my parents and brother have plots there.

[awake-n-angry]

I will defer my commets to Mad Dawg who is far more gracious and is correct in trying to lower the temper of contentious discussion.

“Good old Pleasantburg. How could one town produce both a Bob Jones and a Jesse Jackson...especially considering how nice a town it is?”

Greenville is beautiful. And from what I understand, Bob Jones Jr. has hired a new president for the university who is not a “Bob Jones”, in fact, he is a Notre Dame grad. (If news from back home is correct).

[markomalley]

Bob Jones Jr. has hired a new president for the university who is not a “Bob Jones”, in fact, he is a Notre Dame grad.

Wow. Just wow.

[BillyBoy]

>>> 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? <<

No, I do not agree with every writing of the Catholic church. So I guess on this point we are in agreement, although we would probably disagree on the specifics of which of Luther's writings are correct and which are in error. I'm fairly certain that neither modern day Catholics nor Catholics from the reformation era rejected all of Luther's writings about Christianity. Indeed, after analyzing his work, the Vatican wanted Luther to retract 41 errors (some drawn from his 95 theses, some from other writings or sayings attributed to him), so they certainly didn't claim all 95 theses were falsehoods.

On the same note, you would probably agree with "many" (though certainly not all) papal bulls issued over the last 2000 years. For example, I doubt you would object to Pope Benedict XVI's first encyclical, titled "God is Love"

>> Besides, the Apsotles were the first hand recipients of the Gospel, no? <<

Portions of it, yes. Certainly all the apostles were not present or even had knowledge of every event recorded in the four canonical gospels.

>> Besides, the NT was floating around among the elect before the formal canon was established. <<

Portions of it, yes. One of the things you have to remember is that before 313 A.D., Christianity wasn't even legal. Getting a decent collection of new testament books that we used today was probably hard to come by, I'd guess the average Christian back then only had access to fragments of new testament writings or oral re-tellings. That's why I disagree with the doctrine of "Sola scriptura", saying the Bible itself is necessary for salvation and no one other materials teaching about Christianity will do. The doctrine of Sola scriptura is itself unbibical, as there is no bible passage where Christians are told they have to rely sole on the holy bible writings.

[lquist1]

“Before you left full communion, did y’all read any of Scott Hahn’s stuff? “

No I have to confess I’ve never read any of Scott Hahn’s books. His name vaguely rings a bell. Is he the guy who was born a Catholic, became a Protestant, then returned to Catholicism?

If that’s the same guy I’m thinking of, my mom has read some of his books and seen some of his video teachings and Bible studies, etc. She has said many good things about him.

[Mad Dawg]

I didn’t/don’t know if he was born Catholic. He was some kind of Protestant minister and professor (though I’m not sure if he had a doctorate.)

Anyway, he became Catholic. A young man who studied under him is DRE in our parish and, wow, does he have a LOT of biblical arguments!

[xone]

I will defer my commets to Mad Dawg who is far more gracious and is correct in trying to lower the temper of contentious discussion.

'no stones'; zot!

[lquist1]

“I didn’t/don’t know if he was born Catholic. He was some kind of Protestant minister and professor (though I’m not sure if he had a doctorate.)

Anyway, he became Catholic. A young man who studied under him is DRE in our parish and, wow, does he have a LOT of biblical arguments!”

Yes, that is the guy I’m thinking of. My mom tells me the same thing-he is big on Bible studies and encouraging other Catholics to truly learn scripture (which was almost unheard of a generation or two ago).

I think it’s great that Bible studies are really catching on in the Catholic Church. It can only be good for the Church as a whole for its members to be more knowledgeable about scripture.

[Mad Dawg]

The actual Vatican II (as opposed to “the spirit of Vatican II”) had a lot going for it, including restoring Bible study to its deserved eminence. In my last parish I had a “Bible class” every Sunday. In my current parish there are 3 or 4 Bible groups.