A non-catholic marrying a catholic.

[PatriceA]

The bottom line is that a Catholic has an obligation to raise his children as Catholics. The Church teaches that it is the pillar and ground of truth; that it is the Church that Christ founded and imbued with the authority to teach in His name. How can a faithful Catholic teach his children that his Church contains the fullest truth while also allowing them to practice another faith? This does a disservice to both faiths, and since the Catholic is the one with a moral obligation to raise his children in his own church, he is betraying his own faith on top of misguiding his children.

“Give and take” is, indeed, vital for a marriage – but not when it comes to the truth. We cannot compromise on that which is true; it either is or it isn’t. This is why the Church strongly recommends that Catholics marry other Catholics – in fact, it takes special permission for exceptions to that rule. With respect, a Catholic who would have to dilute his/her faith because of his/her spouse should honestly consider whether that person is an appropriate choice for marriage.

Peace,
Dante

 

[kylemccloughan]

Religous segregation is very Biblical.

??? And Jesus prayed that we would all be one as he and the father are one…

 

[DanteAlighieri]

??? And Jesus prayed that we would all be one as he and the father are one…

And He founded a Church to facilitate that oneness by serving as an earthly vessel of His authority.

Peace,
Dante

 

[schaick]

Hello everyone.
So, basically, I’m a non-Catholic, but I was baptized as a Lutheran Protestant. So my father withdraw my religion at the age of 11, reason for that is he wanted me to choose my own religion. At present, I don’t have any religion, but I see myself as an Agnostic person.
So my question is, is it OK to marry a Catholic?
Thank you for taking your time in answering my question

There are a few ex-catholics that married into my Lutheran family. It is far easier for a Catholic to become Lutheran- many believe more as a Lutheran then a Catholic.

 

[LDNCatholic]

Thanks, mate. I’ve certainly come across RCs who are triumphant about the Ordinariate. I’m not saying you are.

Good.

The Conduct Rules section of House Rules state than non-Catholics must be respectful of the faith of the Catholic participants. I am, mate.

Never said you weren’t, merely that you seemed very happy with stories of Catholics committing mortal sins.

They also state that Catholics must be charitable in their discussions about non-Catholic belief or practice. Are you, mate? “Stereotypical Anglican fuzzy wuzzy Ecumenism”. Hardly a charitable phrase, is it, mate?

The stereotype of Anglicanism is that it is very fuzzy and ecumenically minded. Hence me sticking that funny word ‘stereotypical’’ there.

You seem offended by my use of the word mate.

 

[Cheshangle]

Good.

Never said you weren’t, merely that you seemed very happy with stories of Catholics committing mortal sins.

The stereotype of Anglicanism is that it is very fuzzy and ecumenically minded. Hence me sticking that funny word ‘stereotypical’’ there.

You seem offended by my use of the word mate.

I’m very happy with RCs taking communion in our church, mate. I’d take it in yours if I was allowed to.

 

[LDNCatholic]

I’m very happy with RCs taking communion in our church, mate.

I know you’re happy…triumphalist even.

I’d take it in yours if I was allowed to.

Glad to know you show that much respect.

 

[Cheshangle]

I know you’re happy…triumphalist even.

Glad to know you show that much respect.

I’m not sure how much respect you show.

i) I’m off to communion in half an hour: CofE eucharist. I’ll be partaking of the body and blood of Christ. Is that “a mortal sin”?

ii) On three occasions RC priests, including a Monsignor at Westminster Cathedral, have offered me communion. Had I accepted would I (or they) have committed a “mortal sin”?

 

[Cheshangle]

The bottom line is that a Catholic has an obligation to raise his children as Catholics. The Church teaches that it is the pillar and ground of truth; that it is the Church that Christ founded and imbued with the authority to teach in His name. How can a faithful Catholic teach his children that his Church contains the fullest truth while also allowing them to practice another faith? This does a disservice to both faiths, and since the Catholic is the one with a moral obligation to raise his children in his own church, he is betraying his own faith on top of misguiding his children.

“Give and take” is, indeed, vital for a marriage – but not when it comes to the truth. We cannot compromise on that which is true; it either is or it isn’t. This is why the Church strongly recommends that Catholics marry other Catholics – in fact, it takes special permission for exceptions to that rule. With respect, a Catholic who would have to dilute his/her faith because of his/her spouse should honestly consider whether that person is an appropriate choice for marriage.

Peace,
Dante

Well, we obviously have different interpretations of “The Truth”, which is why I could not have married a RC woman with your mindset.

Presumably and similarly, I imagine that you, and the people who gave you the thumbs up signs, would have found it impossible to marry a devout Anglican.

With respect, an Anglican who would have to dilute his/her faith because of his/her spouse should honestly consider whether that person is an appropriate choice for marriage.

 

[christosdavid]

To the OP, theres no need to necessarily be catholic to be married by the Catholic church. My mother is Roman Catholic, married my father who is nonConformist (mthodist/Prebyterian).

Perhaps unusual but in the RC.

As a child I was required to be raised Catholic, so I was.

 

[formerlysure]

You are able to marry a Catholic as a non-Catholic but please think beyond the wedding day.

I learned the hard way by marrying a non-practicing Lutheran who then reduced his faith further to agnosticism and ultimately identified as atheist. While he claimed to have religious tolerance, he believed my faith was foolish and wrong - the whole “opiate of the masses” argument. I grew further and further from the Church and it weakened me as a person considerably.

For me, marrying outside my faith was a grave error in judgement and caused a world of hurt for my, my husband and our son when we ultimately divorced. I would not again marry outside of my faith - should I remarry, the man must be Catholic, and if he was married before, he will have to have an annulment so we can marry in the church. I want it to be right for me next time.

 

[LDNCatholic]

i) I’m off to communion in half an hour: CofE eucharist. I’ll be partaking of the body and blood of Christ. Is that “a mortal sin”?

You’re of a Protestant community and not bound by the rules of the Catholic Church, I’m no theologian but I think the restriction is on our side, rather than yours. There is that whole ‘‘eating and drinking judgement upon yourself’’ thing but I’m not sure it applies in this case.

EDIT: had to re read that. Of course it’s not a mortal sin. Then again in the eyes of the Catholic Church it’s not the Body and Blood either.

ii) On three occasions RC priests, including a Monsignor at Westminster Cathedral, have offered me communion. Had I accepted would I (or they) have committed a “mortal sin”?

See above for the question on yourself, but yes, if anybody knowingly offers an Anglican or other non Catholic (with the exception of those from the Apostolic Orthodox Churches) the Eucharist they are in a state of mortal sin.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Well, we obviously have different interpretations of “The Truth”, which is why I could not have married a RC woman with your mindset.

If we had the same interpretation of the truth, we’d be in the same Church. A faithful Catholic (please remember that some Catholics feel that “RC” is a bit of a pejorative) would be one who is obedient to the Church’s teachings. Such a Catholic would naturally find it difficult to marry a devout Anglican (or Baptist, or Jew, or etc.) for the very reason that the Catholic would a) need to stay faithful to his/her Church, and b) would not want to force the non-Catholic to betray his/her conscience.

Presumably and similarly, I imagine that you, and the people who gave you the thumbs up signs, would have found it impossible to marry a devout Anglican.

Absolutely! As I just said, though, it’s not only because of our duty to raise our children as Catholics. It is an act of charity to free said Anglican to live according to her faith.

In my case, my wife of her own volition agreed to support my obligations – and, in fact, began exploring Catholicism for her own edification.

With respect, an Anglican who would have to dilute his/her faith because of his/her spouse should honestly consider whether that person is an appropriate choice for marriage.

I agree wholeheartedly! I am not suggesting that a non-Catholic must dilute or contradict his/her religious faith; I am saying that a non-Catholic and a Catholic are probably not a good match if neither is willing to do so. One thing required of a Catholic who wishes to remain faithful to the Church is to raise his children in the Church, so this must be considered if starting a relationship with a devout non-Catholic.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Cheshangle]

If we had the same interpretation of the truth, we’d be in the same Church. A faithful Catholic (please remember that some Catholics feel that “RC” is a bit of a pejorative) would be one who is obedient to the Church’s teachings. Such a Catholic would naturally find it difficult to marry a devout Anglican (or Baptist, or Jew, or etc.) for the very reason that the Catholic would a) need to stay faithful to his/her Church, and b) would not want to force the non-Catholic to betray his/her conscience.

Absolutely! As I just said, though, it’s not only because of our duty to raise our children as Catholics. It is an act of charity to free said Anglican to live according to her faith.

In my case, my wife of her own volition agreed to support my obligations – and, in fact, began exploring Catholicism for her own edification.

I agree wholeheartedly! I am not suggesting that a non-Catholic must dilute or contradict his/her religious faith; I am saying that a non-Catholic and a Catholic are probably not a good match if neither is willing to do so. One thing required of a Catholic who wishes to remain faithful to the Church is to raise his children in the Church, so this must be considered if starting a relationship with a devout non-Catholic.

Peace,
Dante

LDN and Dante

Ah well, quite a harmonious note! And I’m off to choral evensong (BCP) at a church in a neighbouring town now, so the harmony should continue. Evensong was one of the joys of Anglicanism, but it’s rare now, and Sunday Matins has been almost entirely phased out as a service and replaced by the Eucharist.

 

[Cheshangle]

You’re of a Protestant community and not bound by the rules of the Catholic Church, I’m no theologian but I think the restriction is on our side, rather than yours. There is that whole ‘‘eating and drinking judgement upon yourself’’ thing but I’m not sure it applies in this case.

EDIT: had to re read that. Of course it’s not a mortal sin. Then again in the eyes of the Catholic Church it’s not the Body and Blood either.

See above for the question on yourself, but yes, if anybody knowingly offers an Anglican or other non Catholic (with the exception of those from the Apostolic Orthodox Churches) the Eucharist they are in a state of mortal sin.

A few more points and an addition:

i) My (ex-RC) nephew, now an agnostic, married a Japanese woman in a Shinto service in Tokyo. During the service, rice cakes and sake were passed round, and we partook. I’m not sure what the significance of these was, but I noticed that my RC sister-in-law partook of them without hesitation. Would you?

ii) Listening to various radio programmes before I left England for eight years of freedom in 2001, I got the impression that at that time Anglicans were allowed to receive RC communion a) on special occasions, like weddings; and b) if there was no Anglican church within travelling distance. It seems that the rules have now been tightened up (along with deletion of references to “beloved sister church”, etc).

iii) In a prison camp in Japanese occupied Singapore during the War, an Anglican clergyman, later a bishop, “celebrated” with a grain of rice and some water, since neither bread nor wine were available. He did not claim that this was the sacrament, or that there was a living presnce. But it was important symbolism.

 

[LDNCatholic]

A few more points and an addition:

i) My (ex-RC) nephew, now an agnostic, married a Japanese woman in a Shinto service in Tokyo. During the service, rice cakes and sake were passed round, and we partook. I’m not sure what the significance of these was, but I noticed that my RC sister-in-law partook of them without hesitation. Would you?

Not if they were for the Kami. Same as with Hindu Prashad. If I am given a Catholic source that says it’s OK (and has proof) then why not.

If they are not offered to the Kami, and are merely a communal sharing of sake then sure. I like sake.

ii) Listening to various radio programmes before I left England for eight years of freedom in 2001, I got the impression that at that time Anglicans were allowed to receive RC communion a) on special occasions, like weddings; and b) if there was no Anglican church within travelling distance. It seems that the rules have now been tightened up (along with deletion of references to “beloved sister church”, etc).

As far as I know there are very limited circumstances in which a Protestant may receive the Eucharist. Weddings are not one of them.

iii) In a prison camp in Japanese occupied Singapore during the War, an Anglican clergyman, later a bishop, “celebrated” with a grain of rice and some water, since neither bread nor wine were available. He did not claim that this was the sacrament, or that there was a living presnce. But it was important symbolism.

I don’t see the significance of this anecdote. Could you explain how it relates?

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Not if they were for the Kami. Same as with Hindu Prashad. If I am given a Catholic source that says it’s OK (and has proof) then why not.

If they are not offered to the Kami, and are merely a communal sharing of sake then sure. I like sake.

As far as I know there are very limited circumstances in which a Protestant may receive the Eucharist. Weddings are not one of them.

I don’t see the significance of this anecdote. Could you explain how it relates?

Catholics are not allowed to partake of communion in non-Catholic Christian churches; why would we be allowed to participate in non-Christian religions? It creates the impression that we recognize that religion as equally valid – which we don’t – and thus causes scandal.

I’d be interested to see your “Catholic source” that says it would be ok to do so.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Cheshangle]

Not if they were for the Kami. Same as with Hindu Prashad. If I am given a Catholic source that says it’s OK (and has proof) then why not.

If they are not offered to the Kami, and are merely a communal sharing of sake then sure. I like sake.

As far as I know there are very limited circumstances in which a Protestant may receive the Eucharist. Weddings are not one of them.

I don’t see the significance of this anecdote. Could you explain how it relates?

Thanks

i) I’ll leave you to sort that out with Dante.

ii) Well, obviously the Westmionster Cathedral Monsignor was wrong. Unless the rules were more flexible at the time (2005). What are the “very limited circumstances” by the way?

iii) No great significance. But I understand that your clergy are obliged to celebrate mass every day, and I wondered what they would do if no bread or wine was available.

 

[LDNCatholic]

Thanks

i) I’ll leave you to sort that out with Dante.

Okie dokie

ii) Well, obviously the Westmionster Cathedral Monsignor was wrong.

Yep

Unless the rules were more flexible at the time (2005).

Nope

What are the “very limited circumstances” by the way?

Best bet for that answer is Ask an Apologist.

iii) No great significance. But I understand that your clergy are obliged to celebrate mass every day, and I wondered what they would do if no bread or wine was available.

Interesting question. I would presume they would be unable to celebrate the Mass in that case. As I’m sure you’re aware, symbolism does not make a Mass.

 

[LDNCatholic]

Catholics are not allowed to partake of communion in non-Catholic Christian churches; why would we be allowed to participate in non-Christian religions? It creates the impression that we recognize that religion as equally valid – which we don’t – and thus causes scandal.

I’d be interested to see your “Catholic source” that says it would be ok to do so.

Peace,
Dante

Never said I had a Catholic source, merely that if provided with evidence I would consider it.

If the sharing of sake was more along the lines of a toast, then why not. If that sake was blessed in the shinto temple and offered up to their kami, then of course I wouldn’t drink it, and I believe I said as much.