Catholic interpretation of 1 Cor 7:14?

[DarkMark]

Hello,

According to my Catholic friend, 1 Cor 7:14 teaches that unbelieving spouse is made “Holy” (or sanctified) (saved) through the believing spouse. That the children is also saved through the believing spouse. That “even though they are not baptized and don’t believe in Christ, they are remitted of original sin because of the believing spouse meaning that they have the ability to receive eternal salvation (provided that they live righteous life in God’s eyes as non-believers)” (his words). What is your thought on this? He believe strongly that this is a Correct (Catholic) interpretation of the text. What do you think?

God bless!

 

[Snerticus]

Just in case, here is the New Jerusalem interpretation of the passage:

12 For other cases these instructions are my own, not the Lord’s. If one of the brothers has a wife who is not a believer, and she is willing to stay with him, he should not divorce her; 13 and if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to stay with her, she should not divorce her husband. 14 You see, the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through the brother. If this were not so, your children would be unclean, whereas in fact they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever chooses to leave, then let the separation take place: in these circumstances, the brother or sister is no longer tied. But God has called you to live in peace: 16 as a wife, how can you tell whether you are to be the salvation of your husband; as a husband, how can you tell whether you are to be the salvation of your wife?

One thing I might add, is that in vs 12 He specifically says these instructions are his, not the Lord’s. I’d be inclined to believe that he mean’s it is not set in stone.

 

[kepha1]

One spouse is saved through the perseverance of the other, because they are one flesh. The flesh is holy. Gnosticism says otherwise.

 

[DrumminFool91]

First of all, I am absolutely no theologian, but I must say I love this verse. It really points out a key aspect of family relationships and that is to be a model, righteous person, not just for your sake, but also for the sanctification of your spouse/other family members. If you truly love your spouse, you’ll want the greatest and best things for them, with the best thing being Heaven. God hears our prayers when we pray for one another, so perhaps so much more so when spouses pray for one another.

Does that mean that we should interpret this verse as meaning that just because you have a saintly wife that you as a hedonistic godless sinner husband shouldn’t be worried about your eternal salvation? I would think common sense would say no. Do we spiritually reap the benefits of the righteousness of others? Certainly! But to what extent depends I suppose on the will of God and our receptiveness to the grace that God pours out upon us. In short, the holy spouse prays for the “un-holy” spouse, God hears those prayers and pours his grace and mercy on the “un-holy” spouse according to His will - and His grace and mercy knows no limits.

This gives me great hope seeing as how my wife kicks my butt spiritually

 

[bengland]

Hello,

According to my Catholic friend, 1 Cor 7:14 teaches that unbelieving spouse is made “Holy” (or sanctified) (saved) through the believing spouse. That the children is also saved through the believing spouse. That “even though they are not baptized and don’t believe in Christ, they are remitted of original sin because of the believing spouse meaning that they have the ability to receive eternal salvation (provided that they live righteous life in God’s eyes as non-believers)” (his words). What is your thought on this? He believe strongly that this is a Correct (Catholic) interpretation of the text. What do you think?

God bless!

A Catholic interpretation of the text might also be that the believing spouse would have a duty to raise the children Catholic, including baptism, and that as it was the faith of the centurion in pleading to Jesus on behalf of his slave that was efficacious it is also the faith of the spouse in the baptism of the children that is efficacious.

I don’t know of any Catholic interpretation that suggests that children should not be baptized.

Another thing. In Judaism the Jewish descent is passed through the mother in the case of a mixed relationship.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Hello,

According to my Catholic friend, 1 Cor 7:14 teaches that unbelieving spouse is made “Holy” (or sanctified) (saved) through the believing spouse. That the children is also saved through the believing spouse. That “even though they are not baptized and don’t believe in Christ, they are remitted of original sin because of the believing spouse meaning that they have the ability to receive eternal salvation (provided that they live righteous life in God’s eyes as non-believers)” (his words). What is your thought on this? He believe strongly that this is a Correct (Catholic) interpretation of the text. What do you think?

God bless!

his interpretation is not consistent with Catholic teaching; there is no such thing as a baptism through marriage. Baptism is the first Sacrament; without baptism, one cannot validly receive any other Sacrament. The children are saved by baptism; they are not saved merely by being born to a believing spouse. These claims are contrary to the basic teachings of the Catholic Faith on the Sacraments.

 

[Chesster]

It seems to be the opinion of the great theologians of the Church that this passage from Corinthians refers to the “possible” conversion of the unbelieving spouse by the faith and prayers of the believing spouse.

Cornelius A Lapide writes:

Ver. 14.—For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife. Such union by marriage is holy. The believer, therefore, is not, as you so scrupulously fear, defiled by contact with an unbeliever, but rather the unbeliever, as Anselm says, is sanctified by a kind of moral naming and sprinkling of holiness, both because he is the husband of a holy, that is a believing, wife, and also because by not hindering his wife in her faith, and by living happily with her, he as it were paves the way for himself to be converted by the prayers, merits, words, and example of his believing wife, and so to become holy. So did S. Cecilia convert her husband Valerian; Theodora, Sisinnius; Clotilda, Clodævus. So say Anselm, Theophylact, Chrysostom.

As for the children Aquinas says this:

if you [the spouses] separate, your children already born would be unclean, i.e., would remain in unbelief, following the majority, which would be unbelievers; but now, if you remain together, they are holy, i.e., become Christians.

And Lapide this:

If you were to put away a wife that believed not, your children would be looked upon as having been born in unlawful wedlock, and as therefore illegitimate. But, as it is, they are holy, i.e., clean—conceived and born in honourable and lawful wedlock. So Ambrose, Anselm, Augustine (*de Peccat. Meritis. *lib.ii. c. 26). In the second place they would be strictly unclean, because they would be enticed into infidelity, and educated in it by the unbelieving parent, who had sought for the divorce through hatred of his partner; and especially if it is the father that is the unbeliever, for in such cases the children for the most part follow the father. But if the believer remain in wedlock with the unbeliever, the children are holy, because, with the tacit permission of the unbeliever, they can easily be sanctified, baptized, and Christianly educated through the faith, the diligence, and care of the believer. So S. Augustine (*de Peccat. Meritis. *lib. iii. c. 12), and after Tertullian, S. Jerome (*ad Paulin. Ep. *153).

 

[Athanasiy]

I think that there is one more moment here , I do not think that the text justifies or promotes the marriage with un believer .
At those times there were no many options .
Now , nowadays , there are many Christians and , what is important to notice that it would be ignorant to use the text in justification of the marriage with unbeliever.

 

[Ron_Conte]

the text refers to the situation where two unbelievers are married, and subsequently one spouse converts and the other does not. This situation is still possible today and is mentioned in Canon Law on marriage.

The believing spouse can and should remain married to the unbelieving spouse, but if there is grave reason, the marriage (which is not the Sacrament of marriage, but only a natural marriage) may be dissolved, and the believing spouse may marry another believer. This is called the Pauline privilege.