Catholic royals won't have to raise kids Catholic [CNAU]

[Rence]

You are wrong. It may be possible to get to Heaven some other way due to ignorance (what we just talked about). The only sure way of getting to Heaven is by being Catholic (of course a Catholic in a state of grace at time of death).

Yes, it’s a tough dogma to accept but it is the teaching of the RCC.

Trust me, I have family members who are Jewish. They don’t have a such a great shot at heaven. I don’t like that fact, but it is a fact.

Actually, I’m right. Just keep on rolling along in life thinking the way you do. No skin off my nose. Just don’t get too cocky. Being Catholic isn’t a free ticket to Paradise. You gotta work at it too

 

[Rich_C]

There is no burden on my to have to prove anything. Do your own research.

Here are all the relevent citations on the Church’s teaching.

If anyone here wants to claim there are exceptions to this requirement of Catholic marriage for anyone, please bring your own citations.

1983 Code of Canon Law:

MIXED MARRIAGES

Can. 1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Can. 1125 The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled:

1/ the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;

2/ the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time about the promises which the Catholic party is to make, in such a way that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party;

3/ both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to exclude.

Can. 1126 It is for the conference of bishops to establish the method in which these declarations and promises, which are always required, must be made and to define the manner in which they are to be established in the external forum and the non-Catholic party informed about them.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1635 According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage needs for liceity the express permission of ecclesiastical authority.137 In case of disparity of cult an express dispensation from this impediment is required for the validity of the marriage.138 This permission or dispensation presupposes that both parties know and do not exclude the essential ends and properties of marriage; and furthermore that the Catholic party confirms the obligations, which have been made known to the non-Catholic party, of preserving his or her own faith **and ensuring the baptism and education of the children in the Catholic Church.**139

From the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 1039. What are the conditions upon which the Church will permit a Catholic to marry one who is not a Catholic?

A. The conditions upon which the Church will permit a Catholic to marry one who is not a Catholic are:

1. That the Catholic be allowed the free exercise of his or her religion;
2. That the Catholic shall try by teaching and good example to lead the one who is not a Catholic to embrace the true faith;
3. **That all the children born of the marriage shall be brought up in the Catholic religion. **

Without these promises, the Church will not consent to a mixed marriage, and if the Church does not consent the marriage is unlawful.

 

[Rence]

1983 Code of Canon Law:
Quote:
MIXED MARRIAGES

Can. 1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Can. 1125 The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled:

1/ the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith **and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power **so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;

2/ the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time about the promises which the Catholic party is to make, in such a way that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party;

3/ both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to exclude.

Can. 1126 It is for the conference of bishops to establish the method in which these declarations and promises, which are always required, must be made and to define the manner in which they are to be established in the external forum and the non-Catholic party informed about them.
:

exactly: **and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power **

They don’t have much in their power when they’re married to a monarch who is Anglican and who has to have Anglican heirs.

 

[Lucky7]

Actually, I’m right. Just keep on rolling along in life thinking the way you do. No skin off my nose. Just don’t get too cocky. Being Catholic isn’t a free ticket to Paradise. You gotta work at it too

You seem to miss the part where I said the Catholic must be in a state of grace at the time of death. So we agree there.

Where we disagree is that it doesn’t matter what religion you are to get to Heaven. The latter is NOT church teaching and never has been.

Too many Catholics think the same way and it is not the truth.

 

[Lucky7]

Actually, I’m right. Just keep on rolling along in life thinking the way you do. No skin off my nose. Just don’t get too cocky. Being Catholic isn’t a free ticket to Paradise. You gotta work at it too

And I gotta say I think I’ve been pretty respectful of you throughout this exchange, so you’re admonition to not get too cocky was truly uncalled for.

 

[Rence]

You seem to miss the part where I said the Catholic must be in a state of grace at the time of death. So we agree there.

Where we disagree is that it doesn’t matter what religion you are to get to Heaven. The latter is NOT church teaching and never has been.

Too many Catholics think the same way and it is not the truth.

We’re not going around in circles here too much are we? You can cling to your quotes written during a time when there were no Christian denominations, and I’ll go ahead and stick with the Catechism, because it’s a sure norm for Catholic teaching and designed to give us a better understanding of the Faith. I’m sure if we do our best, we’ll get where we need to be in the end

 

[Rich_C]

Yes research it. Yes, Catholics are disbarred from the monarchy. But it doesn’t end there. Think about it for a minute or two: If the Anglican parent insists that the child be raised Anglican (and given that the child is in line for the throne) and makes it clear that the child and his/her guardians will raise the child Anglican (becuase the purpose of the monarchy getting married is to have heirs), the Catholic parent has no recourse, and remember, the law will side with the Anglican/Monarch parent. The marriage is in the court of the monarch, who is Anglican.

I concede this point. I remember when the British government began allowing royals to marry Catholics again. It was a year or two ago, right? It’s a really new situation and I should have given you the benefit of the doubt here since you’re British. I’m sorry.

That’s not a logical conclusion to my arguement because we’re not talking about making Catholicism illegal in any way, shape or form. We’re talking about the law that states that the monarch of the British throne (and Head of the Church of England) must be Anglican.

Well, actually we are. Catholicism is apparently illegal for you if you’re a minor and one of your parents is in line for the English throne. But that’s not the crux of the matter.

What we’re really debating is how the Church teaches us to respond to this. You’re saying the Church says to go along with it. I think I have definitely shown that she says the opposite.

 

[Rence]

And I gotta say I think I’ve been pretty respectful of you throughout this exchange, so you’re admonition to not get too cocky was truly uncalled for.

Sorry if you perceived me to be admonishing you, I thought we were both being respectful

 

[Rich_C]

exactly: **and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power **

They don’t have much in their power when they’re married to a monarch who is Anglican and who has to have Anglican heirs.

Thank you for point out one last point I should have made earlier.

Can. 1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Can. 1125 The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled:

It says the local bishop should not allow the marriage unless both parties agree to raise the children Catholic.

So in this case the local bishop should not allow a Catholic to marry the English monarch if that monarch is adamant about raising the children Anglican.

There it is. That’s the Church’s teaching.

 

[Rence]

I concede this point. I remember when the British government began allowing royals to marry Catholics again. It was a year or two ago, right? It’s a really new situation and I should have given you the benefit of the doubt here since you’re British. I’m sorry.

I’m not British.

Well, actually we are. Catholicism is apparently illegal for you if you’re a minor and one of your parents is in line for the English throne. But that’s not the crux of the matter.

Actually it is the crux of the matter. And we’re still not talking about making Catholicism illegal. A priest wouldn’t Baptise someone coming to him with a child, if he knew the person’s spouse was Muslim, Baptist, Church of Christ, JW, and intended to raise that child in that other religion either.

What we’re really debating is how the Church teaches us to respond to this. You’re saying the Church says to go along with it. I think I have definitely shown that she says the opposite.

The Church understands when a person can’t take matters in their own hands in a situation in which their hands are tied. “Do all in their power” doesn’t extend to, for example, breaking a law, kidnapping, etc.

 

[Rence]

It says the local bishop should not allow the marriage unless both parties agree to raise the children Catholic.

So in this case the local bishop should not allow a Catholic to marry the English monarch if that monarch is adamant about raising the children Anglican.

There it is. That’s the Church’s teaching.

Hold up…that’s not for either you or I to debate, and a totally different story. That’s up to the Bishop. All marriages are considered vailid unless proven otherwise. You and I, and everyone here, is not privy to the conversations between the candidates and their priest or bishop. What we do know is this: If the two are married, they’re married and the marriage is considered valid unless proven otherwise. No one’s talking about the validity of the marriage. Remember that Henry VIII was excommunicated for being in an invalid marriage. So if the person is in communion with the Church, which we can only assume they are, unless proven otherwise, they’re in a valid marriage.

 

[Basilios]

We’re not going around in circles here too much are we? You can cling to your quotes written during a time when there were no Christian denominations, and I’ll go ahead and stick with the Catechism, because it’s a sure norm for Catholic teaching and designed to give us a better understanding of the Faith. I’m sure if we do our best, we’ll get where we need to be in the end

It’s a condemned heresy to believe that Church teachings that are formulated in a certain way must be understood differently in a different era. Give me a second to find the relevant citation.

Your posts have the potential to mislead others. I won’t change your mind on it - your funeral, but I cannot let people read this thread and think either that Church teaching has changed (heresy) or that there is salvation outside the Church (heresy). You are misquoting the Catechism much to your own peril. You told me to consult a priest, so I suggest you do the same. I have consulted many priests, and seminarians.

Outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Period.

 

[Rence]

It’s a condemned heresy to believe that Church teachings that are formulated in a certain way must be understood differently in a different era. Give me a second to find the relevant citation.

You are putting words in my mouth. This is what I mean about your lack of understanding. The Catechism didn’t change any teaching. It explained it so we could better understand it. If you accuse me of saying the Church changed it’s teachings then you accuse the Catechism of changing Church teaching. Neither is correct.

Your posts have the potential to mislead others. I won’t change your mind on it - your funeral, but I cannot let people read this thread and think either that Church teaching has changed (heresy) or that there is salvation outside the Church (heresy). You are misquoting the Catechism much to your own peril. You told me to consult a priest, so I suggest you do the same. I have consulted many priests, and seminarians.

Outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Period.

I have already spoken to a priest about this. And this topic was covered in theology class in Catholic University. I’m quite confident in what I’m saying and I have aleady quoted it straight out of the catechism. You really should talk to someone about it. Brother JR is quite good at explaining these things too.

Remember that non-Catholic Christians have truth through the Church, just not the fullness/all of it. You’re forgetting that part too. Jews and Muslims also love and serve God and are our brothers and sisters through their love for God. It’s ludicrious to think that they won’t be saved simply because they’re not Catholic. According to Church teaching it’s harder, but it’s still possible. If they’re devout and loyal to the teachings of their religion, they can be saved. When people are born into these religions and devout, through no fault of their own…they can be saved. There is nothing misleading or false about it.

 

[Rence]

Hey, did ya’ll notice that this topic (Salvation outside the Church) was being covered above in the Ask the Apolist section? Surely if you don’t believe little old me, you can trust them

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=143

And here too:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=79829

 

[Rich_C]

Hold up…that’s not for either you or I to debate, and a totally different story. That’s up to the Bishop. All marriages are considered vailid unless proven otherwise. You and I, and everyone here, is not privy to the conversations between the candidates and their priest or bishop. What we do know is this: If the two are married, they’re married and the marriage is considered valid unless proven otherwise. No one’s talking about the validity of the marriage. Remember that Henry VIII was excommunicated for being in an invalid marriage. So if the person is in communion with the Church, which we can only assume they are, unless proven otherwise, they’re in a valid marriage.

I don’t know why you brought up the validity of marriage. I didn’t.

I quoted the passed about needing to promise to raise the children Catholic in order to get permission to marry a non-Catholic in the first place.

I suggest re-reading those quotes.

According to the Church’s discipline, a Catholic cannot marry the English monarch if the monarch would have the children raised Anglican.

 

[Esrb99]

Hey, did ya’ll notice that this topic (Salvation outside the Church) was being covered above in the Ask the Apolist section? Surely if you don’t believe little old me, you can trust them

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=143

And here too:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=79829

From the first page you mentioned:

“Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men” (CCC 847-848).

It is difficult to say that any child in this family will be ‘invisibly ignorant’. Furthermore as they were married in the Anglican church, I assume Kate had a dispensation from her bishop? Part of getting taht dispensation involves a stipulation that one will raise the children in the faith-at least that’s my understanding. If she said (at the time) that she obviously would not due to the expectations placed upon her and possible offspring by the Royal family and English custom, did she still get a dispensation? If so, how come?

 

[Basilios]

You are putting words in my mouth. This is what I mean about your lack of understanding. The Catechism didn’t change any teaching. It explained it so we could better understand it. If you accuse me of saying the Church changed it’s teachings then you accuse the Catechism of changing Church teaching. Neither is correct.

I’m sorry, but you’re the one who lacks understanding. You’re unintentionally giving off heresies left right and center. Re-read my posts and yours - I am only taking your arguments to their logical conclusion: either the Church has changed it’s teaching, or there is salvation outside the Church. This is the logical outcome of your position, because you are the one who misunderstands the Catechism and interprets it in a liberal fashion - that is to say, without the all important hermeneutic of continuity.

I have already spoken to a priest about this. And this topic was covered in theology class in Catholic University. I’m quite confident in what I’m saying and I have aleady quoted it straight out of the catechism. You really should talk to someone about it. Brother JR is quite good at explaining these things too.

Please don’t talk down to me - you have no idea what formation I have had and I would rather not mention it because I prefer to stay anonymous. I am not quite confident; I am 100% confident in what I am saying. I stand behind councils, popes and Church Fathers, and in fact Vatican II and even the Catechism.

There is nothing misleading or false about it.

Yes there is. It is an insult to Jesus Christ to say that a devout Muslim or Hindu can be saved. Those false, demonic religions cannot offer salvation. To say otherwise is offensive.

 

[Rence]

I don’t know why you brought up the validity of marriage. I didn’t.

I quoted the passed about needing to promise to raise the children Catholic in order to get permission to marry a non-Catholic in the first place.

I suggest re-reading those quotes.

According to the Church’s discipline, a Catholic cannot marry the English monarch if the monarch would have the children raised Anglican.

And yet Catholics married to those in line to the British throne have kids that are raised Anglican…

 

[Rence]

From the first page you mentioned:

“Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men” (CCC 847-848).

It is difficult to say that any child in this family will be ‘invisibly ignorant’. Furthermore as they were married in the Anglican church, I assume Kate had a dispensation from her bishop? Part of getting taht dispensation involves a stipulation that one will raise the children in the faith-at least that’s my understanding. If she said (at the time) that she obviously would not due to the expectations placed upon her and possible offspring by the Royal family and English custom, did she still get a dispensation? If so, how come?

I was not privy to whatever converstations Kate had with her Bishop. Only time will tell what religion her child will be brought up though it’s not hard to figure out. This child is heir to the throne. I highly doubt he will be raised anything other than Anglican. Kate was married to produce an heir to the British throne, so you see where this is going.

 

[Esrb99]

And yet Catholics married to those in line to the British throne have kids that are raised Anglican…

and many ‘catholics’ who married in the church raise their kids without a whit of faith at all… that doesn’t mean the church teaching never applied to them.