Baptism/Confirmation before marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter QuasiCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
QuasiCatholic said:
Anyway – flash forward 30 years and I’m dating a devout Catholic who has convinced me to become a regular attendee at his church. I’ve decided I would like to be baptized, and since I’m attending a Catholic church, it seems like that would be the place to do it. I DO NOT, however, intend to fully convert to Catholicism as I have several philosophical differences with the Church.

Here’s my question: I’ve read that if you are a baptized Catholic, you are required to finish confirmation before you can be married. Is this true even if the other party is a full Catholic? I don’t understand why it would make a difference since he could get a dispensation to marry me even if I weren’t baptized at all. If it is true, it seems like I’d be better off getting baptized as a Methodist…

Anyone know what the real rules here are? Thanks!
Click to expand...
I’ve read this post, as well as the others, and the answer to your questions are easy. You will not be permitted to become a Catholic or be Baptized in a Catholic Church unless you believe what the Catholic Church teaches.

If you get married to a Catholic, you will need a dispensation for disparity of cult from the bishop since you are not Baptized. If you are validly Baptized before marriage, you will need permission from the pastor. While it is usually granted, the pastor may have reservations if you a hostile to Catholicism. Furthermore, if you are hostile to Catholicism, you should not marry a Catholic in the first place.
 
QuasiCatholic said:
There are several, but the big ones all sort of fall under the heading of “I don’t like middlemen.”

To wit:
  • I don’t believe in the need to confess to a priest when I can confess directly to God
  • I don’t understand the whole idea of saints or Mary interceding on someone’s behalf. If God is all knowing, all powerful and beneficent, he should know what is best for us and want to do it anyway, especially if we are already asking for it ourselves. My personal relationship with God is just that, personal. It isn’t a popularity contest; we should not need to ask a saint to ask him for help on our behalf, just as I wouldn’t ask my uncle to ask my father for something for me.
  • No amount of reading the accounts of the Last Supper will ever convince me that “this is my body” is meant as a literal statement. And I secretly suspect that the idea that it is a literal statement was created as a way of creating additional dependence on the Church, as it gave the Church a) a good reason to require church attendance (how else could you get communion?) and b) a convenient way of keeping people in line (you’d better behave, or we won’t let you take communion even if you show up)
Click to expand...
Some of these are serious differences. With such differences, you aren’t ready to be Baptized into the Church. BUT (and it’s a big “but”) you are asking good questions. If you were to even consider Baptism as a Catholic, you would start out with RCIA and an inquirers program One of the main purposes of RCIA is to explain Church teaching and to answer questions like yours. It’s possible that during the RCIA process (which is usually between 8 and 18 months) you will find that your disagreements are closer to misunderstandings.
 
catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist

Maybe this will help you understand more on the Eucharist. This writing called “Christ in the Eucharist” goes beyond explaining the events of Jesus’ Last Supper.

Peace.

(Repeating this post in hopes that the link appears as a “link.” Pray for wisdom and understanding when reading this link and any works or scripture in your faith journey.)
 
Maybe this tract from Catholic Answers entitled “The Intercession of the Saints” will be helpful to you in knowing why we ask the Saints to pray to God for us.

catholic.com/tracts/the-intercession-of-the-saints

“The Forgiveness of Sins” is also from Catholic Answers and might answer your questions on the Sacrament of Confession.

catholic.com/tracts/the-forgiveness-of-sins

As always with Scripture or other forms to study Christ and His Church, do so with prayer.

Your dear boyfriend may find these links refreshing. Understanding your boyfriend’s faith can be helpful in the future in raising your children together, even if you are not Catholic.

Peace to both of you.
 
RoseMary131 said:
catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist

Maybe this will help you understand more on the Eucharist. This writing called “Christ in the Eucharist” goes beyond explaining the events of Jesus’ Last Supper.
Click to expand...
The scripture is interesting but I still do not see how it could possibly be literal. Jesus had a 100 percent human body. So eating his literal flesh would A) violate deeply held cultural mores against cannibalism and B) would have resulted in serious physical injury to him during the last supper. If eating the bread somehow translated into actually physically eating Jesus he would have been bleeding out at the dinner table. Not to mention the problem of how he could possibly have enough flesh to feed millions of people on a weekly basis for 2,000 years. I could see an argument that you are eating the part of him that’s divine instead of the part that’s human. But then that’s not literally flesh, now is it?
 
QuasiCatholic said:
The scripture is interesting but I still do not see how it could possibly be literal. Jesus had a 100 percent human body. So eating his literal flesh would A) violate deeply held cultural mores against cannibalism and B) would have resulted in serious physical injury to him during the last supper. If eating the bread somehow translated into actually physically eating Jesus he would have been bleeding out at the dinner table. Not to mention the problem of how he could possibly have enough flesh to feed millions of people on a weekly basis for 2,000 years. I could see an argument that you are eating the part of him that’s divine instead of the part that’s human. But then that’s not literally flesh, now is it?
Click to expand...
On a side note which does not address your points - realize the followers of Jesus in John 6 left him because of what He said. These are people who were right there with Him. They left, so if they left because it was too hard to hear Him say something so outrageous, it could really be hard for someone to hear today.

Second - realize that this is the teaching of the Church since the beginning - and its been a reason for people to not be part of the Church - the Protestant members protest this important teaching.

Faith - Faith is a very big part of knowing such an idea is True. Grace - Grace is another big part of knowing this is True. The Sacraments - the Graces of the Sacrament - bring in another link to know this is True.

Some of us were blessed to have been given the gifts of faith, grace, Baptism, and the Holy Spirit since shortly after our birth - as Cradle Catholics - whose parents’ faith and grandparents’ faith were passed to us since before our birth.

Others have a bit of a longer road to walk - with different amounts of stumbling blocks hindering and different amounts of grace helping the journey to Truth.

I understand that you and I come to different ideas on this topic because we have different journeys.

Do you have a desire to further walk this journey to examine it in different ways to see if maybe you will notice a different set of thoughts on Jesus in the Eucharist?

I invite you to keep walking this journey - maybe with your boyfriend and other Catholic friend at your side.

Peace.
 
QuasiCatholic, I want to offer you this prayer as you ponder, study, attend Mass, long for Baptism…

If you have a St. Joseph Edition of The New American Bible, you may see it in the front of the Bible to be used along with spiritual reading and Sacred Scripture for spiritual reading.

Prayer to the Holy Spirit

COME, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and enkindle in them the fire of your love.
 
QuasiCatholic said:
The scripture is interesting but I still do not see how it could possibly be literal. … Not to mention the problem of how he could possibly have enough flesh to feed millions of people on a weekly basis for 2,000 years. …But then that’s not literally flesh, now is it?
Click to expand...
On another side note:

Do you believe in the Holy Trinity? - One God - Father, Son, Holy Spirit. - The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. Yet, there is One God. Can you take that literally?

Do you believe in the Virgin Birth? A Virgin who carried God the Son in her womb. A child who was conceived without a human father providing the sperm that would fertilize an egg. Can you accept that without being troubled that its not possible for a baby to be conceived without a physical sperm from a human father?

Do you believe Jesus preformed His first public miracle at the Wedding Feast at Cana when his mother approached him about the wedding host running out of wine? Do you believe Jesus turned the water in the jugs to the finest wine? Actually, literally took ordinary water and turned it into wine - a product of grapes? Are you troubled how water became wine?

Do you believe Jesus brought his dead friend Lazarus back to life. Jesus said to Lazarus who was dead and in the tomb for four days to “Come out,” and the dead man came out. Can you accept that as literal - that a dead man came back to life?

Do you believe Jesus Himself died the death of crucifixion and rose from the dead? Do you believe He spent time with His disciples after rising from the dead? Do you believe He then ascended to His Father in Heaven?

If you believe all these things - how do you have the ability to believe what appears impossible?

Peace.
 
Just a few thoughts on foreshadowing the Last Supper when Jesus gave all of us His Body and Blood for us to eat and drink…

I find this foreshadowing as absolutely beautiful!

Jesus was born in Bethlehem and was placed in a manger.

Bethlehem means the House of Bread. A manger is a food trough, a place to lay food.

Jesus is the Bread of Life. He is actual Food to be Eaten by us.
 
QuasiCatholic said:
There are several, but the big ones all sort of fall under the heading of “I don’t like middlemen.”

To wit:
  • I don’t believe in the need to confess to a priest when I can confess directly to God
Click to expand...
You can certainly confess directly to God, and He can certainly hear you - the problem is, our ears don’t work like they should, and we can’t hear His response through the noise of our own opinions. For example, if God says, “I can’t forgive that sin yet, until you do this or that,” how would you know?

That’s why we need the priest - not because God can’t hear us, but because we can’t hear God.
 
QuasiCatholic said:
The scripture is interesting but I still do not see how it could possibly be literal. Jesus had a 100 percent human body. So eating his literal flesh would A) violate deeply held cultural mores against cannibalism
Click to expand...
We consume His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, alive. It is not like cannibalism at all; more like a very deep kiss.
and B) would have resulted in serious physical injury to him during the last supper. If eating the bread somehow translated into actually physically eating Jesus he would have been bleeding out at the dinner table. Not to mention the problem of how he could possibly have enough flesh to feed millions of people on a weekly basis for 2,000 years.
Click to expand...
Have you read the entire chapter? Notice that it begins by answering this question - Jesus feeds a multitude of 5,000 men and their wives and children (at least 15,000 people) with a little boy’s lunch. “How can Jesus be multiplied over the whole earth?” Same way a few pieces of fish and bread could be multiplied to feed 5,000 men and their families.
I could see an argument that you are eating the part of him that’s divine instead of the part that’s human. But then that’s not literally flesh, now is it?
Click to expand...
Body, and Blood; Soul, and Divinity. 🙂

The reason is that in order for the Sacrifice to take effect in a person’s life, he or she must eat a portion of the Sacrifice. For example, when the Lamb of Passover was sacrificed, every Jew had to eat at least one bite of the Lamb, or else they could not be set free from Egypt. This is the same for every Sacrifice - all Jewish sacrifices and all pagan sacrifices - the sacrifice could not take effect in the worshipper’s life until the worshipper ate of the sacrifice (or did it never strike you as so strange, that every sacrifice ever made was always something good to eat?) - so why would this universal rule suddenly be changed when it came to Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross - with no one remarking on so sudden a reversal of policy on God’s part? 🤷
 
QuasiCatholic said:
The scripture is interesting but I still do not see how it could possibly be literal.
Click to expand...
Yes, we fully believe Holy Communion is Literally the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus.

Re-read the article below on John 6 and what the Early Church Fathers said about the Eucharist truly being the Body and Blood of Jesus. Maybe re-read it with your boyfriend. He may be greatly interested in the writing.

catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist

You can take any this literally when you use faith and not trying to apply a human-mind understanding/ proof. Nothing is impossible with God.
Jesus had a 100 percent human body
Click to expand...
Jesus does have a 100% Human Body. He is also 100% Divine. Totally Human. Totally Divine.
So eating his literal flesh would A) violate deeply held cultural mores against cannibalism and
Click to expand...
Yes, and in John 6 you see His disciples leaving Him.

from the link above:
In John 6:60 we read: “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’” These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. …“After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66).
B) would have resulted in serious physical injury to him during the last supper. If eating the bread somehow translated into actually physically eating Jesus he would have been bleeding out at the dinner table.
Click to expand...
Why must it have resulted in serious physical injury to him? They were eating the bread and drinking the wine which He handed to them, which had BECOME His Body and Blood. He told them “This is my Body…This is my Blood.” They ate the bread and drank the wine - However - the bread and wine had ceased to be bread and wine… The bread and wine was now actually HIS Body and Blood. So, it does not cause Him physical injury and He is not bleeding out at the table.

The Bloody Sacrifice would take place the next day. He would offer Himself to the Father on the Cross - Blood pouring from His wounds. Water and Blood pouring forth from His side when lanced by the soldier.

That exact same Sacrifice happens at the altar every day, all around the world at Holy Mass - an unbloody Sacrifice - an offering by the priest (in the Person of Christ) to God. The offering is the Bread and Wine, which through the Power of the Holy Spirit and the Words of Consecration by the priest becomes the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Dear Lord and is offered to God.
Not to mention the problem of how he could possibly have enough flesh to feed millions of people on a weekly basis for 2,000 years.
Click to expand...
Well, actually its a daily basis… Mass is offered daily around the whole world… Remember you are talking about a miracle… a miracle of Jesus - God the Son - Fully Human - Fully Divine. Can God’s love have a limit? Can God’s miracles have a limit?
I could see an argument that you are eating the part of him that’s divine instead of the part that’s human. But then that’s not literally flesh, now is it?
Click to expand...
Jesus is Fully Human and Fully God… He can not be split into one or the other.

We use the phrase that the Eucharist is Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity for a reason. It means that when we eat the Consecrated Host - it is the Body and Blood of Jesus and it is the Soul of Jesus Who is Fully Human and it is the Divinity of Jesus who is Fully God. When we drink the Consecrated Wine - we again are drinking the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Dear Lord and Savior. We can not take Jesus apart like a crème filled cookie.

This Lord and Savior took on Human Form. He became one of us. He gave us a physical way for Him to be physically with us every day. He asked us to Eat His Body and Drink His Blood. He has no Limits. He is God. God with literal Flesh and Soul. God Divine. He Shares Himself with us in Holy Communion.

Ponder in prayer. Peace to you.
 
jmcrae said:
The reason is that in order for the Sacrifice to take effect in a person’s life, he or she must eat a portion of the Sacrifice. For example, when the Lamb of Passover was sacrificed, every Jew had to eat at least one bite of the Lamb, or else they could not be set free from Egypt.
Click to expand...
jmcrae has another good point. At the Last Supper, Jesus was celebrating the Passover - a Meal - a shared meal with very specific food and words. The Jewish people had to eat the Lamb. The could not have “lamb shaped sugar cookies” to symbolize the Lamb. It had to be the real body of the lamb.

Jesus became the Sacrificial Lamb when He died on the cross. At the Last Supper, he changes the Passover - now the Common Shared Meal becomes eating His Body. He gave us His Body in this new unbloody Sacrificial Meal.

This is our Mass. The bread and wine become His Body and Blood. We don’t just eat a symbol of His Body and Blood. We actually eat the True Body and Blood of Christ. Just like the Jews didn’t eat a symbol of the lamb. They actually ate the Lamb.

You and your dear boyfriend may want to read The Lamb’s Supper, Mass as Heaven on Earth by Dr. Scott Hahn. Your parish may have it in their library.
scotthahn.com/
 
quiet52 said:
The Real History of the Crusades | Crisis Magazine
crisismagazine.com/2011/the-real-history-of-the-crusades

In case you’d like to delve into a bit of history …
Click to expand...
You do know that Pope John Paul II apologized to both Orthodox Christians and Muslims for the Crusades and said that the actions of the Crusaders in Constantinople specifically caused him both “pain and disgust,” right?

Pious men on a mission “to rescue the Christians of the East,” as your source says, don’t lay siege to and then raze a city full of those same Christians – destroying churches and religious artifacts, killing women and children, and raping nuns – just because they ran into a little financial difficulty.

fordham.edu/halsall/source/choniates1.asp
 
While the thread has devolved into what is wrong with Catholicism, why do you want to marry a devout Catholic, and why does she want to marry you? Marriages that start with fundamental irreconcilable differences often end in failure.
 
Because neither of us is so close-minded and sheltered as to consider a denominational difference a “fundamental, irreconcilable difference.”

One of us also happens to be a conservative and the other is a liberal. But again, that’s a minor point in the grand scheme of shared human experience.

(And PS > I’m the girl)
 
QuasiCatholic said:
Because neither of us is so close-minded and sheltered as to consider a denominational difference a “fundamental, irreconcilable difference.”

One of us also happens to be a conservative and the other is a liberal. But again, that’s a minor point in the grand scheme of shared human experience.

(And PS > I’m the girl)
Click to expand...
It’s not simply a denominational difference. Rejecting that which a devout Catholic spouse holds dear true isn’t just something that can be poo pooed away.

I had married a non-Catholic Christian in my first marriage, and I was a non-practicing Catholic at the time. The non-differences have a way of manifesting themselves over time. Differences get ignored when discerning marriage under the guise of love, but they don’t get ignored after marriage.

So will you be raising your children Catholic, as your devout Catholic spouse-to-be is required to do?
 
I’m sorry your first marriage failed, but I don’t think you can blame it on denominational differences, especially if you weren’t even practicing at the time.

True love conquers all; but true love also has to love the differences that make us individuals as much as it loves the similarities that make us a couple. And it has to love the aspects of someone that go deeper than religious affiliation, which can very often change with time, as your own example shows. Your first wife didn’t marry a practicing Catholic, but she ended up with one. Who knows, maybe I’ll convert someday. Or maybe he will. It’s a weird world.

Also, last I checked the Catholic Church was fine w/ cross-denominational marriages, and that alone is not reason for annulment, so there must have been some other flaw there as well for her to be your “first” wife.

And finally, our kids will be baptized and they’ll go to church. But you can’t MAKE anyone have faith in anything or agree with any particular doctrines if it doesn’t ring true to them. That part will be up to them to decide.
 
P.s - my sister is a practicing Christian who married a non-observant Jewish man. My brother married a Catholic and they both chose to join the Episcopalian church instead as sort of a middle ground. Both have been married for more than a decade and are very happy. Religious differences are only a problem if you let them be – true on both a global and personal level.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top