I have done a search on the site and have not found a topic on this one... ... and I need an answer. I have gotten pretty serious with my significant other, but the discussions on marriage have been marred by the issue of religion. She was raised Catholic, I was raised Methodist. Her parents would never see any of their children married in any church other than the Catholic. Because neither of us is willing to break with our beliefs and traditon, we can't agree on a church to get married in.

I can concede that the location is not an issue. We could get married at the JP and it not be any different of a union. There is also no problem with a protestant and a Catholic being married in the Catholic church, as long as there is no Mass at the ceremony. Having the ceremony in a Catholic church is no biggie for me, but the vows that one must take by getting married in the church are striking a chord with me.

In a wedding in a Catholic church, the couple must agree to raise their children Catholic. I don't want to raise my children Catholic (I have issues with praying to Mary, the Pope being infalible, Jesus still hanging on the cross in the Church, etc.) and, as strong as my feelings are for her, I won't give this issue up. I will not agree to something in the eyes of the Lord, in his own House that I do not truely intend to do.

Her beliefs are based on pure faith, little study, and tradition. Mine are based on years of asking questions of my pastors, deep study of the Bible, and coming to my own Holy Spirit inspired interpretations of the Bible (and it's various ambiguities).

I'd like some help with this issue without delving into the particular objections to the Catholic Church or the dualities in the Bible. I just would like some simple advice on how to proceed and come to a good solution in the matter.

[This message has been edited by opie03 (edited 1/13/2005 4:05p).]

Compromise. Meet in the middle. My wife was raised Catholic, I was raised Baptist. When we got married we mixed in Catholic traditions into the ceremony. You might want to deal with Children issue with your wife before getting married. I wouldn't go into it knowing you guys don't have a solution to the problem.

The way you have presented your case seems to show that it really doesn't look like your going to budge on the subject. Furthermore, it seems you are taking very little consideration into the stregnth of her faith. You made it seem that how she based her faith carried little or no weight. Regardless of what you beleive the stregnth of her faith is, you need to understand, that it is her faith, regardless. It's what a person believes full-heatedly(at least it should be)
Now, if you're trying to get someone to argue the case that I think you want to hear, which is "how can I change her to MY religion to make this work", you're not going to get any help from me. The only advice I'll give you is this: to really get to know each other spiritually, you need to share some and compromise. Both of you should try to gain some sort of grasp of eachother's religon by maybe talking to deacons or pastors of each church, or take one of their introduction classes. This will help answer any of the questions both of you have, and then, I think you will be more prepared to discuss how the relationship is going to function spiritually, and ultimately how this relationship will end.

You both have great points of advice. Thank your for your honest replies.

12Gauge: You caught my tone in the message correctly. I don't mind attending Catholic services, but I do have problems with the nuances of the denomination. I have asked her questions about Catholicism (sp), but she couldn't explain why she believes and participates in the hows and whys of the Catholic church (why do you need to pray to Mary, is she between you and God?, can you really talk to dead people?, Why has the service been in part Latin?, Why can't I have Communion at your church?, Am I being denied a seat at God's Table? Do you really believe that the bread turns into flesh and skin?). I don't, however believe that this dissagreement will lead to an "end of our relationship."

(start rant)
A logical and semi-learned individual can take the concepts of a Protestant belief structure, read the Bible, interpret the fuzzy parts through constant prayer, asking questions to lerned individuals for clairification (aka Church), ask for forgiveness and go to Heaven. It's not that hard.

I don't believe that you need all the rites and motions the Catholic Church puts between the people and God. I am a smart person and, with a little help from the Man upstairs, I can do without a priest interpreting the Bible for me. It's as simple as John 3:16.
(end rant)

[This message has been edited by opie03 (edited 1/13/2005 4:47p).]

[This message has been edited by opie03 (edited 1/13/2005 4:48p).]

Opie03,

Having said all that, you might also consider that participating in the ritualistic aspects of the Catholic faith does nothing to harm/impede your own religious pursuits as a protestant. Moreover, it would go along way in allowing your wife to have the peace and peace of mind that she needs as a practicing catholic. Plus you score major points you can cash in on other matters in the future



[This message has been edited by jdbar (edited 1/13/2005 4:55p).]

I didn't mean that your relationship would end, dont take me as pessimist, or anything. It just seemed to me that your faith meant that much to you, and if neither of you could compromise it could end up that way. On the flipside of that coin, if you both learned about each others religion and compromise, all should be fine.

jdbar:
The main topics I would like to address are: 1. attending the same church on Sunday and
2. allowing my children to have the freedom to believe how they chose, not how the Catholic church dictates to them.

On a side note that you have brought up, participating in the rites of the Catholic church does harm my own persuits as a protestant. I don't feel right about doing one thing in the house of the Lord and believing another. I just feel like a hypocrite (sp).

12gauge: Sorry to portray you that way. It just struck me as a do-or-die kind of statement. I agree that education will help both of us, but a belief is something that you hold on to pretty tightly, especially if it is based on faith.

I guess I am searching to find out if there is a middle ground, or if the two denominations are too polarized.

Opie,

So when you attend the protestant services, do you agree with everything said? Just because you attend a Catholic Church doesn't mean you have to agree with everything. There's plenty in common with protestants and catholics. There is no perfect denomination, and none of them are infallible. Just focus on what's in common, and learn how to compromise. Your kids salvation is more in your hands and your families, than the particular Church you attend. They spend alot more time with you than at Church, unless you want the Church to be their only source for beliefs.

[This message has been edited by jdbar (edited 1/13/2005 5:17p).]

jdbar, You are the reason I post stuff like this on these boards. Thank you.

This "look for the good in the service" ranks up there with "stop trying to prove God exists. Try to prove that he DOESN'T exist."

Thank you for your fresh and optimistic view on this topic. I owe you a coke and an invite to the wedding.

Haven't seen any replies yet for the more-well-known Catholic posters on this board (where oh where is tu ag when you need him ... I sure miss Marcel!), but your statement

quote:

---

the couple must agree to raise their children Catholic

---

apparently doesn't always hold true.

SWOSU-jr was raised Protestant and his wife was raised Roman Catholic. They were married in a Roman Catholic church (actually, St Mary's Cathedral in Austin) with both a Catholic priest (very long time friend of bride's family) and SWOSU-jr's grandfather (retired Protestant minister) officiating. They were required by the priest AND pastor to go through a lengthy pre-marital counseling process. The priest didn't say anything about requiring children to be raised in the Catholic traditions ... just asked whether they intended to raise their children as Christian, which both were more than happy to agree to, since they'd decided early in their relationship that would happen.

[This message has been edited by SWOSU (edited 1/13/2005 7:26p).]

My Father-in-law and Mother-in-law had a mixed marriage and every other week each would take the children to their respective church, thus meeting the letter of "raise them in the Catholic Faith" while also exposing them to Protestantism. All their children are spiritual people and very tolerant of the beliefs of others. Think of it more as a positive than a negative because your children will have more to base their own choices on when they are adults.

PS-and you may find some things you like about Catholicism too.

You do not have to agree to raise your children in the Catholic faith.

Catholics do not pray to The Virgin Mary, but rather through her. What person has more influence on a man than his mother. We firmly believe that the host and wine are changed into the body & blood of Jesus Christ during the Eucharistic Rites of mass. This belief comes from the example Jesus set at the Last Supper. Communion is closed because of our belief that we are the one true Church of God. Closed Communion seems sort of outdated to me, as we are now taught that all people who believe in God can go to heaven, not just Catholics. Masses are no longer said in Latin. Ater Vatican II, Catholic reformation, in the early 60's, Mass was no longer in Latin. Masses were conducted in Latin because Latin was a "dead" language. Meaning that it was not being used and therefore was not changing. Thus a lesser chance of being misinterpreted.

I would ask that you not judge Catholics or Catholicism without first garnering an understanding of the faith and practices.

[This message has been edited by joe koch (edited 1/13/2005 9:28p).]

Hi Opie! I used to have that nickname in high school.

I thought I'd post a few answers to the issues you said that you had brought up with your g/f and hadn't had answered. Unfortunately, poor catechism is a plauge that haunts many belief systems.

quote:

---

I have issues with praying to Mary

---

Here is an explanation about asking for the prayers of Mary and the other Saints:

quote:

---

Fundamentalists often challenge the Catholic practice of asking saints and angels to pray on our behalf. But the Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us.

Thus, in Psalm 103 we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20–21). And in the opening verses of Psalms 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!"

Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). Thus the saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.

Angels do the same thing: "[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3–4).

Jesus himself warned us not to offend small children, because their guardian angels have guaranteed intercessory access to the Father: "See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 18:10).

Because he is the only God-man and the Mediator of the New Covenant, Jesus is the only mediator between man and God (1 Tim. 2:5), but this in no way means we cannot or should not ask our fellow Christians to pray with us and for us (1 Tim. 2:1–4). In particular, we should ask the intercession of those Christians in heaven, who have already had their sanctification completed, for "[t]he prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (Jas. 5:16).

As the following passages show, the early Church Fathers not only clearly recognized the biblical teaching that those in heaven can and do intercede for us, but they also applied this teaching in their own daily prayer life.

---

http://www.catholic.com/library/Intercession_of_the_Saints.asp
I decided not to post the quotes from the Fathers, but you can check them out on the link. In addition to the Scriptural evidence given above, remember that at the Transfiguration Christ was greeted by Moses and Elijah; The Church Triumphant (the dead in Christ) are sensible and communicant with the Church Militant.

quote:

---

the Pope being infalible

---

quote:

---

The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

---

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

quote:

---

Jesus still hanging on the cross in the Church

---

The following is an excerpt from an article written as an explanation of the meaning of the Crucifix for Catholics...I didn't include the rebuttal of the charge about "worshipping a dead Christ" by coomparing Easter celebrations, but you can read it in the link:

quote:

---

It’s not surprising the crucifix offends many Protestants if they see it as an attempt to keep Jesus on the cross and to keep from Christians the benefits of the resurrection. But what they see when they look at a crucifix is not what I see, nor what Catholics through the centuries have seen.

What I see is not a dead Jesus who offends me but a vivid reminder of the very essence of salvation—my own sinfulness that made such an extreme sacrifice necessary and the incomprehensible love of God incarnate laying down his life for me. In the crucifix, I see the hope of the human race, victory over Satan, the cleansing of sin, and the open door to heaven. I see a school of love, humility, forgiveness of our enemies, and all the other virtues. "Consider Jesus on the cross as you would a devout book worthy of your unceasing study and by which you may learn the practice of the most heroic virtues" (Dom Lorenzo Scupoli, The Spiritual Combat, 155–156).

When I look at Christ crucified, I don’t see weakness and defeat but "the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 1: 23–24)—the holy wisdom of divine love. And I hear "Love one another as I have loved you" (John 15:12).

---

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010fea4.asp

quote:

---

Why can't I have Communion at your church?

---

quote:

---

Scripture is clear that partaking of the Eucharist is among the highest signs of Christian unity: "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17). For this reason, it is normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion, for to do so would be to proclaim a unity to exist that, regrettably, does not.

Another reason that many non-Catholics may not ordinarily receive Communion is for their own protection, since many reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Scripture warns that it is very dangerous for one not believing in the Real Presence to receive Communion: "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died" (1 Cor. 11:29–30).

---

It's not just non-Catholics that can't receive communion, but also Catholics who haven't prepared themselves for this encounter with God. We don't practice open communion because the Eucharist is our most guarded treasure, Christ's gift of himself that He gave to the Church. Read more:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp

quote:

---

Do you really believe that the bread turns into flesh and skin
?

---

quote:

---

The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists frequently attack this doctrine as "unbiblical," but the Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71).

The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: "Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity" (ibid., 197–98).

"Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally" (ibid., 211–12).

---

Peace!

[This message has been edited by Lex Orandi l Lex Credendi (edited 1/13/2005 9:29p).]

opie03- It seems that most of your questions have been answered, my only advice is not to minimize your religious differences. I believe it is very important that both of you understand each others' Christian tradition and why it is important to you. I think knowing this will reduce friction within the marriage, especially when the kids arrive. Good luck in your life together and congrats!

The following article my help you understand a little better about how Catholics perceive Crucifixes- Why Do Catholics Have Crucifixes? by by Patrick Madrid
http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=91&art_id=24990

Also Hail, Holy Queen, the Mother of God in the Word of God by Scott Hahn is a excellent book if you want to understand Marian theology and doctrine and why it is important to Catholics and how we believe it does not divert our attention away from Christ but towards him.

[This message has been edited by jkag89 (edited 1/14/2005 12:36a).]

quote:

---

In a wedding in a Catholic church, the couple must agree to raise their children Catholic. I don't want to raise my children Catholic (I have issues with praying to Mary, the Pope being infalible, Jesus still hanging on the cross in the Church, etc.) and, as strong as my feelings are for her, I won't give this issue up. I will not agree to something in the eyes of the Lord, in his own House that I do not truely intend to do.

---

In the past, as I understand it pre Vatican II, Catholics were forbade to marry outside the Church and were also required to rear Catholic Children until their Confirmation when they should at that point be taking care of their own spiritual development. At my own wedding, prior to it my wife was only required to promise she would not hinder my rearing the Children Catholic, and that she herself was Christian (had to supply documentation of her Baptism). Opie, if you were truly told this by the priest who will preside over the wedding, I would be surprised. I can understand if her parents may think this requirement is still the case, but they are wrong. The best advice I can give is talk to the Priest, they know this stuff. And if the option of having both Priest and Preacher participate is available, that sounds to me like a good compromise.

For all the bad “PR” the Catholic Church gets over marriage, I would like to echo SWOSU’s experience. Typically, Catholic Communities are willing to participate in ecumenical type services with two officiators (the priest and the pastor or whomever from the other denomination). I know Fr. Mike was for my wedding. Unfortunately, the preacher for the other church was not so open to the idea of a Catholic Priest at his church. He told us that Fr. Mike could attend, but could in no way participate or say a blessing or anything in his capacity. Real bad experience.

SWOSU -

quote:

---

SWOSU-jr was raised Protestant and his wife was raised Roman Catholic. They were married in a Roman Catholic church (actually, St Mary's Cathedral in Austin) with both a Catholic priest (very long time friend of bride's family) and SWOSU-jr's grandfather (retired Protestant minister) officiating. They were required by the priest AND pastor to go through a lengthy pre-marital counseling process. The priest didn't say anything about requiring children to be raised in the Catholic traditions ... just asked whether they intended to raise their children as Christian, which both were more than happy to agree to, since they'd decided early in their relationship that would happen.

---

That is almost spot on to the way my wife and I handled our mixed denominational marriage. I was raised in the CoC and she was raised Catholic. Her parents, while I'm sure they would have preferred we remain in the Catholic church, only asked that we have the ceremony at their home church, not for religious reasons, but b/c that is where they had raised their daughter. We had one of the church Deacons and the pastor from my home church dual officiate the ceremondy. Went through two sets of premarital counseling. We just had to keep the ceremony within the basic framework of a Catholic wedding ceremony, but there were not 'rituals' that were performed that you would see at a normal Catholic wedding.

It worked out great for us and now we are both Baptists. Even then, we don't agree with all of the Baptist doctrine (I still hold onto a select few of my old CoC beliefs). Go figure.

The Pope is only considered infallible in matters regarding the church.

quote:

---

So when you attend the protestant services, do you agree with everything said? Just because you attend a Catholic Church doesn't mean you have to agree with everything. There's plenty in common with protestants and catholics. There is no perfect denomination, and none of them are infallible. Just focus on what's in common, and learn how to compromise. Your kids salvation is more in your hands and your families, than the particular Church you attend. They spend alot more time with you than at Church, unless you want the Church to be their only source for beliefs.

---

thanks jbar

SWOSU has it right. I am RC and my wife was raised Methodist. We were married at Annunciation Cathedral in Houston by a RC priest. The only requirement during the actual ceremony was that we be willing to receive children into our marriage and raise them as Christians.

The issue of what specific faith to rear a child in comes up after the child is born and is presented for baptism. At that time, the priest, if you choose to baptise him in the RCC, will ask you and the godparents to agree to raise him/her in the faith. It is arguable if that means "the RC faith" or the Christian faith. My priest told my wife and I that we were agreeing to raise our child as a Christian and not necessarily as a RC.

I suggest you talk to the priest or deacon who would be marrying you and ask these questions point blank.

Just a few more things that should be considered in your decision making process:

RCs honor Mary. Other than Christ, we consider her to be the best example of what we should strive to be as Christians. We ask her to pray for us. We don't worship her. She was human just like us. She was not a deity. I think the problem you really have with Mary is the RC and EOC idea of the communion of the saints. We believe in the ability of the saints, of which Mary was one, to petition for us after they die. We believe our prayers are heard not only by God, but also by those who are with God. In that sense, we beseech the help of those who are with God. This does not mean that we MUST pray to saints in order for God to hear our prayers. Christ is the way, the truth and the life. He is our mediator with the Father. The saints are like a supporting cast that is there to help us. They are not necessary for our salvation, but they don't hurt and can help.

Papal infallibiity is a very, very complex theological matter. There have been very few actual infallible pronouncements by a pope. Not every word a pope utters is considered infallible. In fact, I think it is safe to say that 99.9% of the words uttered by popes, even when they are speaking about issues of faith and morals, do not meet the criteria to be infallible. Canon lawyers of the RCC are better able to say what is and isn't an infallible pronouncement by a pope, but I think you can be certain in this: the pope is a man. He is a special man, but he is no more worthy in God's eyes than you or me. What RCs believe is that he has a special office: the office granted to Peter by Christ himself. It is when he is acting in that very unique capacity, i.e. ex cathedra, that he MIGHT be making an infalible pronouncement. Very generally speaking, what we believe is that when a pope speaks ex cathedra, on an issue of faith and morals, he is guided by the Holy Spirit and will be protected from error.

Normally, papal encyclicals and bulls are not infallible. They are statements of the pope's opinion on something and his ideas are to be given great respect, but they are not binding on the conscience of RCs. They don't become dogma unless they are pronounced infallibly. Again, in the 2,000 year history of the RCC, I am fairly certain that you can count on one hand the number of infallible pronouncements made by a pope.

There are other infallible and therefore dogmatic concepts that come from not only the pope, but from the conference of bishops who are in communion with the RCC. The best examples of these are the statements from ecumenical councils. Things like the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, and certain heresies were all pronounced infallibly by the ecumenical councils of the early church. They were not pronounced ex cathedra by a pope. However, a pope was presiding over those councils and in conjunction with the bishops who attended those councils, various dogmatic matters were declared. By the way, I don't know if you realize it, but many of the fundamentals you believe as a Methodist were first defined at ecumenical councils presided over by a pope. Think about it.

As for the figure of Christ hanging from the cross, I have to say that I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. It really comes down to artistic perspective. Many RC churches have crosses without the figure of Christ hanging on them. Some have a very graphic figure of Christ hanging on them. I have seen figures of Christ hanging on crosses that appear to have his eyes open. Others seem to have the dead Christ hanging on them. The bottom line is that each interpretation of the last moments of the Passion of the Christ are meant to remind us of some aspect of that Passion. The figure of Christ's body on the cross is there to remind us how greatly he suffered for our sins. A cross without Christ hanging from it is a reminder that he conquered death and rose from the dead. Either way, it is all good. To be blunt, I think Protestants and Evangelicals need to find something a little more serious to be critical about. Lord knows the RCC gives them plenty of fodder.

Hope this helps.



[This message has been edited by XUSCR (edited 1/17/2005 10:23p).]

That is strange. My wife was Methodist and I Catholic when we went thru Pre Cana classes before our wedding. We signed papers that included many stipulations; one being that we would raise our children in the Catholic Church. No big deal because she converted to Catholicism shortly after our marriage. This was in 2001.

XUSCR,

Good post! Thanks for that, it was quite informative and presented in such a gracious way.

ATiL: perhaps the RC church isn't as monolithic as it seems to us "outsiders" (protestants). Perhaps Monsignor Matocha @ St Mary's in Austin at age 85+ is a bit more liberal than the priest who conducted YOUR wedding?

SWOSU, you are right again. It is not as monolothic as some, including Rome, would have you believe. That is not to say that RCs don't share a common faith. However, to pretend that we are monolothic is as much marketing as reality. The truth is the RCC has evolved since the beginning. It has done an amazing job of hanging on to the things that are foundational, but it is not the same church today that it was even 50 years ago, much less 1500 years ago. On the other hand, the apostolic nature of the RCC has allowed it to stay in touch with the roots of Christ's early church while growing to become his current church. And, I can walk into a RCC anywhere in the world, and save for the language barrier that might be present, I can follow the Mass and participate in the Eucharist. There may be variations on a theme, but in the main, the Mass will be the same wherever I go.

There have been and will continue to be many struggles along the way, but in the end, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Mrs. Lovelight, thanks for the kind comment.

XUSCR,Good answers!
I think the issue of requiring the children to be raised as RCs or just as Christians depends on the Bishop of the diocese in which the marriage occurs, since post Vatican II. But, it is absolutely essential that both parties agree to be open to procreation (having children). Otherwise the marriage is considered invalid and can be annulled.

opie03, if you are really serious about marrying her and you consider your faith to be so important, then it is imperative for you to understand her faith, otherwise your marriage is in for a lot of heartache and possibly failure. I have been on Marriage Preparation Ministry teams for a number of years, in more than 1 parish, in Texas and California, and the main issue that couples have to deal with is different core values of their upbringing – their family and their faith. Now that’s not just among different denominations, but even when they’re both RCs.

As far as understanding the RCC, you might consider going to what’s called RCIA – Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults, which is open to non-Catholic fiancés of RCs, as-well-as those learning to become a RC. It’s the best place to get an organized, accurate presentation of what the RCC really teaches, instead of all the misconceptions under which many RCs flounder and falsely inform others.

As for the saints in heaven, they are still part of the one Body of Christ. They are the dedicated “Prayer Committee”. They are the “Clouds of Witnesses”.

Also if your relationship progresses into Marriage, then I urge you to take an active part with your wife. The RCC parish life desperately needs active Bible study like you portray. I suggest that you both attend both yours and hers services. And don’t be concerned about feeling disingenuous when attending Mass – many RCs attending will actually be more disingenuous than you feel (regretfully, since they come to Mass out of habit instead of to gather into the presence of Jesus).

Remember that Jesus calls us to unity:

quote:

---

“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. (John 17:20-21 NIV)

---

As Christians, when we are challenged by a situation or conflict, it’s not enough for us to just “express our Christian witness” (which we should do), but we should also ask ourselves, “What is God trying to say to me through this”?

quote:

---

And, I can walk into a RCC anywhere in the world, and save for the language barrier that might be present, I can follow the Mass and participate in the Eucharist

---

Not to hijack this very good thread, but if you substitute Disciples of Christ, Methodist, Episcopalian, and many other protestant names, you may also do the same. However, thanks to the attitude promoted and encouraged by the RCC and some protestant denominations ... we are NOT all the same body of Christ. The RCC doesn't allow you to "officially" participate in the eucharist in other denominations, nor does the RCC allow non-Roman Catholics to participate in theirs.

Really sad.

SWOSU, it is sad, but I would simply say that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is open to any person who wants to accept the precepts that go with being able to properly receive it. The RCC says RCs shouldn't receive the Sacrament if they are in a state of serious sin.

I readily admit that I have participated in Methodist communion and once when I was in Singapore, I participated in Holy Communion at the Anglican cathedral. Neither time did I feel as though I was committing a sin. I didn't believe in either case that I was receiving the true body and blood of Christ. It is my belief that only apostolically ordained priests can consecrate bread and wine and transform them into the real presence. Rather, I considered it a joining with my Christian brothers and sisters in a symbolic recreation of the Last Supper. I didn't consider it sacramental. But I did feel like it brought me closer to other non RC christians.

Side story, as we were waiting to go into the service at the cathedral in Singapore just outside the main doors of the building, the prior service was concluding and the choir was exiting in two lines out the main doors. They were singing a Christian hymn in Chinese and it was AMAZING. It brought tears to my eyes because if showed me the results of the amazing work Christian missionaries have done. It was very moving.

I am sure some of my RC brothers and sisters would disagree with me about participating in other church's communion, but I am comfortable in my conscience about it.

Opie,

Since your GF can't seem to explain this to you, let me: The RC Church is infallible, meaning that it does not commit errors in its interpretation of scripture, nor is it even subject to the POSSIBILITY of error in its interpretation of scripture. This is because the RC church sees the church and its leader (the Pope) as the direct successor to the apostolic authority; thus, the Church itself pre-dates the Bible. At the Council of Trent, the RC church reaffirmed this doctrine, and it also affirmed that the RC Church is solely responsible for the interpretation of scripture. This was in direct response to the Protestant Reformation, and is commonly referred to as the Counter-Reformation. The RC Church affirmed that the Bible is equal to church tradition, but that it can be interpreted only by and through church tradition and church leaders.

What all of this means to you is that if your wife is committed to remain a RC, she has no alternative except to abide by the doctrinal interpretations of the church. Infallibility means what it says. (However, as an earlier poster pointed out, infallibility does not mean that the men involved in these interpretations are sinless).

Furthermore, I should point out to you that I am a Protestant, and that I have explained this to you far more clearly than your GF apparently has done. This leads to the main point of my post, which I don't believe anyone has brought up. My concern for you is primarily that you are being unequally yoked; you seem to have a grasp on Reformation and Evangelical Protestant doctrine, such that it appears that you have a personal relationship with Christ. Your girlfriend, on the other hand, appears to be lost according to what you have told us about her. Before you address this "mixed marriage" issue, you should first determine if your GF is a Believer. Remember, although RC's define justification differently than Protestants, they still believe that it occurs through faith in Christ. If her faith is completely based on tradition and not on her personal faith and understanding of what Christ did for her, she is not fit to be your bride, and you will bring a great amount of pain into your life. Salvation is not inherited from our parents or from our church. Those sacraments only have meaning if they are accompanied by faith that is founded in fact.

94chem,

quote:

---

Furthermore, I should point out to you that I am a Protestant, and that I have explained this to you far more clearly than your GF apparently has done.

---

You have explained it in an adversarial summary, like a strawman – setup and ready to be attacked. The reformation came about because of hostile dialog and ulterior motives. The Body of Christ was wounded, and the wound will continue to fester until members of the Body decide to quit pouring salt into the wound.

Theologically, the Body of Christ is infallible, for the same reasons as the RCC states its infallibility – that is, that Christ is the Head of the Body and He promised to always be with us. Those who harbor disunity sin against the Body. As far as I have been able to study Church history, most leaders involved in the Reformation (on both sides) committed sin against the Body. I say that, not just as my own opinion, but it was also stated that bluntly by a RC priest who was teaching Church history in the Houston-Galveston Diocese.

Be that as it may, the RCC leaders have no recourse to any theological variations into which Protestant leaders may espouse (correctly or incorrectly), since those Protestant leaders no longer exercise accountability to the Body.

And those Protestant leaders, who hold their theological variations to be critically correct and in opposition to the RCC, effectively exacerbate the disunity (not by holding them but by not putting themselves in position to sharing them).

And if they are accurately correct, as they suppose, then they are technically in sin of omission for not giving the whole Body the critically correct theology. There are too many on both sides that are spending too much effort in getting theological points as though it was some high school debate. Meanwhile, the wound festers.

I am tired of hearing Protestant Preachers giving excellent exegesis of the Scriptures to only their denomination while the whole Body needs to hear it. But the whole Body will never hear it because of the continual barbs – i.e. adversarial points added to distinguish their superiority over other (usually RCC) alleged points (usually incorrectly posed). This causes those other denominational leaders (especially RC) to recommend to their congregation avoiding those Preachers, or counter argue.

quote:

---

My concern for you is primarily that you are being unequally yoked; you seem to have a grasp on Reformation and Evangelical Protestant doctrine, such that it appears that you have a personal relationship with Christ. Your girlfriend, on the other hand, appears to be lost according to what you have told us about her.

---

If Opie3’s girl friend has been faithfully participating in the Mass, then she most certainly has a personal relationship with Christ, as well as a communal relationship with Christ. Jesus said “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." (Matthew 18:20 NASB). So at Mass she is in the presence of the Risen Christ – certainly a personal relationship.

In the Mass, there is always the proclamation of the Word, OT & NT, and Jesus is the Living Word of God. So again, at Mass in the proclamation of the Word she is in the presence of the Risen Christ – a commendable relationship.

Also, for the most personal relationship at Mass she would most likely partake of the Eucharist, i.e. Communion, which is the Real Presence of the Risen Christ, in the form of bread and wine, just as Jesus commanded.

quote:

---

And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." (Luke 22:19 NASB)

---

St. Paul points out:

quote:

---

Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? (1 Corinthians 10 :16 NASB)

---

and again Paul iterates:

quote:

---

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

---

Then Paul expounds on the essence of “remembrance”:

quote:

---

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. (1 Corinthians 10:23-26 NASB)

---

And you have the audacity to say:

quote:

---

Before you address this "mixed marriage" issue, you should first determine if your GF is a Believer.
If her faith is completely based on tradition and not on her personal faith and understanding of what Christ did for her, she is not fit to be your bride, and you will bring a great amount of pain into your life.

---

And then you pour the salt in the wound:

quote:

---

Salvation is not inherited from our parents or from our church. Those sacraments only have meaning if they are accompanied by faith that is founded in fact.

---

Perhaps you did not mean to make such caustic implications? Perhaps it was a view of a Salvation inherited from your parents or from your church?

[This message has been edited by SiValleyAg68 (edited 1/18/2005 7:14p).]

XUSCR,

quote:

---

I am sure some of my RC brothers and sisters would disagree with me about participating in other church's communion, but I am comfortable in my conscience about it.

---

I don’t disagree at all. I think it is commendable.

There have been a number of RC “reflection events” (for want of another description) that were facilitated by someone other than an ordained priest, in which the Lord’s Supper was reenacted with bread and wine, and we all understood the difference in that and the Eucharist. Although Christ was present in the gathering (“For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." ), His presence was less “Emanant” than in the Eucharist. So I don’t see any difference in that type of remembrance and sharing the same with our Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ.

Regrettably, some RCs don’t fully experience the Real Presence of the Risen Christ in the Eucharist, because of lack of attention. My prayer before Mass is that the Holy Spirit will open everyone’s heart and mind to experience the more Emanant Presence of the Risen Christ in the Gathering, Proclamation of The Word, and then in the Eucharist.

I also pray that everyone who gathers together in the Name of Christ, anywhere, will open their hearts and minds to experience the more Emanant Presence of the Risen Christ in their Gathering.

[This message has been edited by SiValleyAg68 (edited 1/18/2005 8:02p).]

quote:

---

Your girlfriend, on the other hand, appears to be lost according to what you have told us about her. Before you address this "mixed marriage" issue, you should first determine if your GF is a Believer. Remember, although RC's define justification differently than Protestants, they still believe that it occurs through faith in Christ. If her faith is completely based on tradition and not on her personal faith and understanding of what Christ did for her, she is not fit to be your bride, and you will bring a great amount of pain into your life. Salvation is not inherited from our parents or from our church. Those sacraments only have meaning if they are accompanied by faith that is founded in fact.

---

I think this is a fundemental problem in the church. It almost is to be catholic is not to know the bible. (with the exception of those on this board)

I did not come here to either extoll or chastise the Catholic Church. I merely came here as one protestant brother to another, in order to explain how RC doctine may affect a Catholic-Protestant marriage. I believe the charges of setting up a straw man are inaccurate, since I at no point knocked one over. If the point of my post had been to debate Catholic doctrine, I would have done so. I believe I merely explained it to the best of my ability, so that our dear brother can address these issues before, rather than after, marriage.

I do not wish to turn this into a Catholic-Protestant debate. History has had enough of those. However, it is certainly news to me that the Eucharist is salvific in and of itself. I did not know that keeping the sacraments was all one needed to do to go to heaven. I thought faith was also required.

I am not pouring salt in a wound. I am strongly telling this brother who asked a question that he MUST sort these issues out with his GF before he enters the irrevocable covenant of marriage.

Finally, let me say (in case you couldn't tell) that I have the highest regard for the RC view of marriage. Therefore, I am sure that the RC's here will agree with me on the importance of being equally yoked. In no case should either partner consent to entering a union if either partner or each partner believes - according to church teaching, scripture, or conscience - that his/her mate is bound for hell. If Opie does not participate in RC sacraments, will his wife still accept him as a brother in Christ, and will doing so go against the teaching of her church? If Opie's wife believes that justification depends on faith plus works, will he be able to nonetheless accept her faith as being real, and thus accept her as a sister in Christ?

If I HAVE poured salt into a wound, at least I have not sent two people on their way, only to have their one flesh painfully separated at some point down the line. Now is the time for asking these questions, and not after God has joined them together.

Opie I hope that you find that your GF is a believer, and that this helps you be able to communicate with her lovingly on these matters. Go In His Grace.

SiValley, thanks for the reply. I like your view on the subject of communion with our non-RC Christian bros and sisters.

Opie, if you want to pose any questions are concerns you have about the RCC, I would be happy to help to the extent of my knowledge. Let me know here and I will send you my email address.

94Chem, some of what you say is accurate, but it is stated so bombastically that it belies the reality. Please keep in mind that the Canon of Scriptures you read were infallibly determined by a council of the unbroken body of Christ, presided over by a pope.

[This message has been edited by XUSCR (edited 1/19/2005 9:50a).]

7% of communication is verbal. 81% is body language. 12% is tone. This makes message boards a difficult medium of communication.

[This message has been edited by 94chem (edited 1/19/2005 9:26a).]

Thanks to everyone who has posted, stayed on topic, and helped me to understand this portion of Gods family.

Update: I went to the Catholic church last Sunday at 9am with the GF. I walked in hoping I would gain some sort of message, lesson, or moral to take with me for the rest of my week, journey with Christ, and life. I got none. Two passages from the Bible were read and then it was on to the traditions. I left the church exactly the same spiritually as I entered.

I went in with an open mind. 12gauge really put a different spin on things and I went looking for things that I had in common with this church and our similarities (instead of the differences). I got none. I couldn't touch the bread, recite the right words, know when a prayer was coming up, or what was coming up next. I lost sight of Jesus amidst all the traditions. Luckily, He was there hanging on the Cross in front of me and helped me understand where the focal point of all the pomp and circumstance was.

I went looking for a happy family of God, joined to rejoice in the name of the Lord and lift eachother's spirits. Again, I got none. I know I am going to get a lot of flack for this, but to me, it felt like a funeral service honoring Christ and His mother. No one smiled. Not even during the "God be with you" time. I left a little depressed.

Maybe it was because I had not been raised up Catholic and couldn't participate in everything that went on. Maybe it was because I didn't understand all the small nuances; when to bow to the altar when the key word "Mary" was uttered, when to stop during the Lord's prayer, etc. or maybe it was the inability to do as everyone else was doing, but I felt like I didn't belong. This was magnified ten fold when it came time to get in line and participate in the Eucharist.

I just sat in my pew. I really felt like an orphan amidst the family of God.

94chem, thank you for your comments on being equally yoked. It put to words what I have been trying to explain to myself and my GF. I understand why I do things in and with Christ. She does them mostly out of tradition, for all I have seen. I know she believes and has a strong foundation in Christ, but the services I attended mirror very little of that.

She told me that Mass is a time to get together and honor that which is your faith, while participating in Communion and showing your face in God's house. I understand that Church shouldn't have to be a weekly dose of Christ to carry you through the rest of the week, but there should be something there to further your walk with God. I want to talk about the topic raised in Church over lunch. I want to do research on the verses and learn more about what surrounds them and why. I want to pray for understanding and what was truely meant. I want to grow and my visit to the Catholic church only stagnated that growth.

To say the least, we will be attending the Methodist services next week.

P.S. I can't post the e-mail that I check for various reasons. You can send stuff to opie34705 at yahoo.com, but I won't get to it for another week.

(Edited to capitalize the "H" in "Him" )

[This message has been edited by opie03 (edited 1/19/2005 5:07p).]

[This message has been edited by opie03 (edited 1/19/2005 5:09p).]