Should Catholics date Protestants?

[Debi1967]

Did you read my post that you quoted? I was referring to the hypothetical non practicing Catholic parent --and you accused me of judging their entire lot in life and their salvation. My whole point was that just because someone is Catholic, it doesn't always make them the best choice for marriage.

No it does not but what if the person became non practicing after the nuptials? What if the person that married them had the attitude of some of the people in this thread that it was better to marry a Catholic then nobody at all? So they decided since this Catholic wants to marry me I will try to make a go of it with him?

I agree with you that it would better to marry a protestant that is God fearing than a Non-practicing Catholic. But I am also advocating that we marry people for the right reasons.

Jesus gave us the example of the reasons we should marry and it had nothing to do with being Catholic, it had to do with Faith, Love and Charity all in Him. I can personally tell you that their are some Protestants out there that show those things way better than a Catholic ever does. Or some of the Catholics I have encountered. IMHO.

I would rather see one of my daughters marry one of them then some of the Catholic men I have come across, that is for sure. That is not being relativist either, that is wanting the best for my children. Knowing that those Protestant men's values and Faith in God would carry them through taking care of my girls better. And that my girls would be respected for their Catholicism in thier own homes.

 

[Miss Shelby]

But I am also advocating that we marry people for the right reasons.

What are the right reasons? If the concerns expressed in this thread, according to you, are invalid and elitist, then I am curious to know what standards should be used as right reasons for getting married.

You said Jesus gave us the examples of reasons we needed for marriage. What are they? You also said that being Catholic was something that Jesus wouldn't put a lot of stock in. Where do you get that idea?

Just trying to get a handle on where you're coming from.

 

[Debi1967]

What are the right reasons? If the concerns expressed in this thread, according to you, are invalid and elitist, then I am curious to know what standards should be used as right reasons for getting married.

You said Jesus gave us the examples of reasons we needed for marriage. What are they? You also said that being Catholic was something that Jesus wouldn't put a lot of stock in. Where do you get that idea?

Just trying to get a handle on where you're coming from.

I get the idea that Jesus said come and be baptized and through that you belong to my Church. I get the idea that the Church Herself advocats this idea.

Therefore this thing of calling anyone that is not technically baptized inside the Church a Protestant of the Church, when they may not even know they are even protesting her ........ well you get the idea.

You have to first know what you are Protesting to be a Protestant.

Most Protestants do not we already know this by the volumes of misguided and misinformed people we try to teach everyday even on this site alone.

I know that God said Charity is above all things. I know he proved this through his example and it is an example that should be set in marriage as well. Love is selflessness. It is the releasing of one's self to another human being and in that being willing to let go of one's self at times if need be to accomodate the other. It is respect and it is Faith ....

God told us that the same type of Faith and Love held for him should also be held in the bonds of marriage as well.

As we Love God we should also Love one another. As we have Faith in God we should also have Faith in one another and trust.

How is love demonstrated by looking to Jesus and the Cross and for as much as he was willing to give of himself for us is as much as we should be willing to give for our husband or wife.

He gave of self even til the point of Death. He never rejected anyone, and instead waited for them to reject Him. Even then He said the only way to ultimately reject Him is through Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Of this there is no return, otherwise there is always a way to be forgiven all our trespasses.

Ask and you shall recieve Ask and you shall be forgiven.

This was the example of Love by Christ that I go by I did not know there was another.

 

[rushingwind62]

You know Paul tells us in Romans there IS niether Jew or Gentile, male or female because we are all the same in God's eye. (paraphrasing). Seems to me many in this thread have not read those words. Because if they had they would see basically what Paul was saying is there are no labels with God. But what are you doing here? Catholics, Protestants, Baptist, Penecostal, Methodist, ect.....what are these, labels. Does it matter if a Baptist marries a Pencostal> Why the big deal. WE are all human and love knows no boundaries not even the race barrier. IMHO It is immature to say two people can't marry because one is Catholic and the other is not.

I am Ragged Robins husband and though I am a catechumen and interested in learning the Catholic faith I am Charasmatic as well. Before we met I Was totally Charasmatic. Our feelings for one another didn't know religious boundaries, because we saw each others heart and fell in love. Yes we talked about our faiths but that is only a part of who we are. We cared so deeply for one another we made concessions in every part of our lives. That is what love is! Giving, ever changing, caring, forgiving, trusting, committed, honest, just to name a few things. What happened to your eqautions of what love is. It really has nothing to do with religous faiths, because in essence we are all apart of the Body of Christ regardless of label. Look a blue smiley, a green smiley, a pink, purple, and red one too....all hooked up in a group hug. Maybe we should take a lesson....lol

 

[AMDG]

You have to first know what you are Protesting to be a Protestant.

Sorry, cannot agree. Would probably be safe to bet that a person who knew that he was not a Jew, or a Moslem, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or an Eastern Orthodox, or a Catholic, or one of those psuedo-christian religions, or ... , would know that he owed his particular religious persuasion to ancesters that were protesting the only religion in town--Catholicism. IOW you don't have to be "protesting" to be Protestant.

And much as some would like to deny it, there was the tragedy of the Protestant Reformation. This was a major and tragic split and caused much sorrow. Because of that split, there are differences in viewpoints and we cannot pretend that they do not exist. The Church is working toward a greater unity but because those differences are so vast, there is no way that she can pretend that aren't of concern. We cannot share in Communion (EXTREMELY important to Catholics) and because of those differences the Sacrament of marriage is affected (and therefore extra care must be given dating so to protect the Catholic's Faith and that of his/her children of a future marriage). BTW, this is not just my opinion.

 

[Debi1967]

Sorry, cannot agree. Would probably be safe to bet that a person who knew that he was not a Jew, or a Moslem, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or an Eastern Orthodox, or a Catholic, or one of those psuedo-christian religions, or ... , would know that he owed his particular religious persuasion to ancesters that were protesting the only religion in town--Catholicism. IOW you don't have to be "protesting" to be Protestant.

Protestants derived their name from those that Protested the Churches teachings, and willfully with full knowledge did so. IOWs Like that of Martin Luther and his original followers had knowledge of what they were protesting.....

In order to be declared this today the same conditions must apply.

Otherwise, you are not charged with the crime of Protesting against the Church and therefore being in deliberate heresy of Her.

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."81 "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."82

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

 

[AMDG]

Protestants derived their name from those that Protested the Churches teachings, and willfully with full knowledge did so. IOWs Like that of Martin Luther and his original followers had knowledge of what they were protesting.....

In order to be declared this today the same conditions must apply.

Otherwise, you are not charged with the crime of Protesting against the Church and therefore being in deliberate heresy of Her.

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."81 "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."82

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

No one is charging ANYONE of a "sin of separation" should they happen to acknowledge the fact that someone is Lutheran, Espicopalian, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentacostal, or... , you know, of the Protestant persuasian. Even though those who ancesters "did the deed" and not them, the "deed" was done, and now there is a tragic separation that must be repaired first before everything will be okay.

To give you just an inkling of an idea of how great this tragedy of the Protestant Reformation is and how much hurt it can potentially cause, I'll cite my and my husband's case. We simply dated a bit, but then fell in love and so wanted to marry. We applied for a dispensation--it's necessary when there is disparity in religion and the Catholic wants to remain Catholic, and he was VERY Southern Baptist with a staunch family background of ministers, deacons and Sunday School teachers, while I was Catholic with a not-so-staunch family background. Because of the differences and the family, the Church was very cautious. At first it didn't look like we'd even get the needed dispensation, and if we married without it, our marriage would be outside the Catholic Church and I wouldn't be allowed to continue to receive my Lord. I would be turning my back on my Faith and the Sacraments. Spoke to about three priests and stormed heaven with prayers. Husband-to-be and I finally got the dispensation, but if we hadn't, we would have simply broken up--and I can thank the Protestant Reformation and its break with Christian unity if that happened (in between "crying my heart out", I'm sure.) As much as I was in love, I still wanted to be Catholic--not another "lapsed Catholic". It came so close. I don't think I'll ever forget that.

The Protestant Reformation was real. The effects of it are still with us. The pain is still there. Each Sunday in your missalette, you can even read about one of it's many fruits--the inability to share Communion.

 

[eyesofmystery]

I know a devout Catholic man who married a Protestant woman. She died from cancer several years ago and when he talks about her, it's so obvious that he loved her so much and that difference in denomination didn't have a negative effect on their marriage.

A while after his wife died, this man entered the seminary as a "late vocation". He is now a Catholic priest and one of my favorite people in the world.

 

[AMDG]

I know a devout Catholic man who married a Protestant woman. She died from cancer several years ago and when he talks about her, it's so obvious that he loved her so much and that difference in denomination didn't have a negative effect on their marriage.

OF COURSE Catholics can fall in love with Protestants. Goodness me, I know that for a fact. And OF COURSE they can get married--but to do so while the Catholic still remains a Catholic in good standing--a dispensation must be gotten. We are talking about Sacraments here, not physical feelings for each other. (Catholics believe that marriage is a Sacrament). But can you just imagine if the dispensation doesn't come through? (I'm not even going near the obvious differences of two Faiths with often radically separate beliefs dwelling "as one" even when/if a dispensation is granted! Hint: It's not easy!)

And OF COURSE, once the marriage no longer exists ("till death do us part") and his obligations are taken care of (care of children of the marriage) the person his free to pursue a religious vocation.

 

[Miss Shelby]

I get the idea that Jesus said come and be baptized and through that you belong to my Church. I get the idea that the Church Herself advocats this idea.

Therefore this thing of calling anyone that is not technically baptized inside the Church a Protestant of the Church, when they may not even know they are even protesting her ........ well you get the idea.

You have to first know what you are Protesting to be a Protestant.

Most Protestants do not we already know this by the volumes of misguided and misinformed people we try to teach everyday even on this site alone.

I know that God said Charity is above all things. I know he proved this through his example and it is an example that should be set in marriage as well. Love is selflessness. It is the releasing of one's self to another human being and in that being willing to let go of one's self at times if need be to accomodate the other. It is respect and it is Faith ....

God told us that the same type of Faith and Love held for him should also be held in the bonds of marriage as well.

As we Love God we should also Love one another. As we have Faith in God we should also have Faith in one another and trust.

How is love demonstrated by looking to Jesus and the Cross and for as much as he was willing to give of himself for us is as much as we should be willing to give for our husband or wife.

He gave of self even til the point of Death. He never rejected anyone, and instead waited for them to reject Him. Even then He said the only way to ultimately reject Him is through Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Of this there is no return, otherwise there is always a way to be forgiven all our trespasses.

Ask and you shall recieve Ask and you shall be forgiven.

This was the example of Love by Christ that I go by I did not know there was another.

So, you feel that because Jesus=Love, you can construe that to mean anything that you want by way of what you define as love?

Some people see benefit in patience and long suffering, in choosing a partner wisely and waiting for one who shares their same values in life. They know that it will be better for their children in the long run if they do. I see that as a very loving selfless thing. I don't see it as elitist at all, and think you have been out of line with your namecalling in that regard. You obviously don't understand what others are trying to say and you are representing what they HAVE said in a bogus manner.

It's one thing to not agree with it, but still acknowlede that one understands it, with you it's gone over your head.

 

[holyorders]

I don't think interfaith marriges are a good idea- division should be avoided as much as possible. But I believe it could work out under the right circumstances.


I could never marry a Protestant woman though. Catholic gals, IMO, are far too superior. They got that extra something that makes my discernment into being a priest very hard!

 

[Debi1967]

So, you feel that because Jesus=Love, you can construe that to mean anything that you want by way of what you define as love?

Some people see benefit in patience and long suffering, in choosing a partner wisely and waiting for one who shares their same values in life. They know that it will be better for their children in the long run if they do. I see that as a very loving selfless thing. I don't see it as elitist at all, and think you have been out of line with your namecalling in that regard. You obviously don't understand what others are trying to say and you are representing what they HAVE said in a bogus manner.

It's one thing to not agree with it, but still acknowlede that one understands it, with you it's gone over your head.

If God is ALL TRUTH and if Jesus was the perfect example of Love then I guess I am not the only one that misconstued it because the Apostles did as well. As when they wrote about marriage they often equated marriage to that of Christ and our relationship with Him.

And I represented them as others may see them, including that of my husband that posted in this thread and does read these threads from time to time. So what you got was another Point of View, that was not Bogus at all it was genuine. I at least said seems to be coming across as, whereas you have deliberately charged me with something. Now who is not reading who's words?

And how do you know any of this has gone over my head at all? If I acknowledge their feelings and why they may be feeling them but then disagree with them that does not mean it has gone over my head it simply means I disagree.

 

[Debi1967]

No one is charging ANYONE of a "sin of separation" should they happen to acknowledge the fact that someone is Lutheran, Espicopalian, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentacostal, or... , you know, of the Protestant persuasian. Even though those who ancesters "did the deed" and not them, the "deed" was done, and now there is a tragic separation that must be repaired first before everything will be okay.

To give you just an inkling of an idea of how great this tragedy of the Protestant Reformation is and how much hurt it can potentially cause, I'll cite my and my husband's case. We simply dated a bit, but then fell in love and so wanted to marry. We applied for a dispensation--it's necessary when there is disparity in religion and the Catholic wants to remain Catholic, and he was VERY Southern Baptist with a staunch family background of ministers, deacons and Sunday School teachers, while I was Catholic with a not-so-staunch family background. Because of the differences and the family, the Church was very cautious. At first it didn't look like we'd even get the needed dispensation, and if we married without it, our marriage would be outside the Catholic Church and I wouldn't be allowed to continue to receive my Lord. I would be turning my back on my Faith and the Sacraments. Spoke to about three priests and stormed heaven with prayers. Husband-to-be and I finally got the dispensation, but if we hadn't, we would have simply broken up--and I can thank the Protestant Reformation and its break with Christian unity if that happened (in between "crying my heart out", I'm sure.) As much as I was in love, I still wanted to be Catholic--not another "lapsed Catholic". It came so close. I don't think I'll ever forget that.

The Protestant Reformation was real. The effects of it are still with us. The pain is still there. Each Sunday in your missalette, you can even read about one of it's many fruits--the inability to share Communion.

Tell we why they would have said no to giving you the dispensation.

Three main requirements need to be met.

1) That of course you not be impeded in anyway in your Catholicism.
2) That you go to prep classes for marriage.
3) That all children resulting from the marriage be raised Catholic.

This would then mean that the Dispensation and or Blessing of the Sacrament of Marriage can be administered to the couple. (I think I finally figured this out, you call the Blessing, dispensation).

So somewhere in there if you were not going to be granted this dispensation (as you call it) then there had to be a problem with the requirements that needed to be met. Or at least the priest thought there had to be a potential problem which they had to discuss with you.

It helps to know the fulness of the situation. This way we are not looking at the situation and simply seeing that the Church was refusing for non-reasons or trying to come up with reasons of our own as to why they may have refused.

Yes the Reformation did it's damage and it will always continue to do damage and rupture if we allow it to. There I guess is the difference in thinking. Unity will never be achieved if we keep looking to the past and not to the future. I understand that we have to learn from the past so as not to make the same mistakes, however we do not have to still live there. The more people we educate to this idea even that living in the past instead of living in the present and learning from the past is a much better way to go then the more progression we shall make towards Unity, and out of Rupture.

It is hard isn't it to change our ideas and ways of thinking. It is hard even to stop placing blame on people. We can see how even now it fuels wars that have gone on for hundreds of years when the people of today really had nothing to do with what went on hundreds of years ago and yet the hatred for one another is still instilled from generation to generation. But Why? To what end? And does it serve, in anyway, God's purpose?

So yes, I can read in my missalette the Reformation and how it impacted the world, but now I get to choose how it impacts mine.

 

[AMDG]

RaggedRobin, there was REAL concern for my Faith (and that of any children of the marriage). I wrote in another thread that husband-to-be's father was a deacon, mother was a Sunday School teacher, his brother was studying to be a minister, his two cousins were ministers and I was being presented with why I should convert from the Faith almost every day.

The Catholic Faith is not the same as any Protestant (I'm using the word in the way it is supposed to be used--as an acknowledgement of the differences--and not as indicating that they were protesting the Catholic faith, even though they were). Marry without the Church's blessing means that the Catholic is outside the Church and cannot receive the Sacraments that are needed for his very life. And so setting oneself up for heartache by dating what might never be or cause one to lose his Faith ("choose me or Jesus' Church and Sacraments") is IMO just imprudent.

 

[hsilgne]

I married a Protestant(Baptist).

I was not practising at the time as she was also not practising.

We "jumped through the hoops" and got married in the Catholic church.

The Lord has since "pulled me back", my wife has converted to Catholicism and we are very active in our faith now.

Couldn't imagine being with someone other than my wife. Next to Jesus - she is the love of my life.

So, in short, YES, Catholics should date non-Catholics if they so choose. Follow your heart.

 

[Debi1967]

RaggedRobin, there was REAL concern for my Faith (and that of any children of the marriage). I wrote in another thread that husband-to-be's father was a deacon, mother was a Sunday School teacher, his brother was studying to be a minister, his two cousins were ministers and I was being presented with why I should convert from the Faith almost every day.

The Catholic Faith is not the same as any Protestant (I'm using the word in the way it is supposed to be used--as an acknowledgement of the differences--and not as indicating that they were protesting the Catholic faith, even though they were). Marry without the Church's blessing means that the Catholic is outside the Church and cannot receive the Sacraments that are needed for his very life. And so setting oneself up for heartache by dating what might never be or cause one to lose his Faith ("choose me or Jesus' Church and Sacraments") is IMO just imprudent.

AMDG,
Well now I know obviously there are certain aspects of of the Church's requirements that obviously could not be met, in order for him to meet his.

I am sorry to hear this. And sorry that you had to go through whatever pain you did.

However what I would say is every situation has to be discerned on an individual basis. Obviously as you can see mine is NOT the same as yours in anyway. So how do you account for that?

Unlike what some people in this thread would like to think of me I can understand how some may be apprehensive and why they may be.

I do however appreciate that dating and marriage especially need to be entered into with a great deal of care and with discernement being used at all times. No matter whom we choose there are certain things that must be observed that are laid out not only by the Church but by God.

Being equally yoked with someone is MORE than just being Catholic or having the same religious affliation. I say this considering even inside the Catholic Church there are differences. Like would a Roman Catholic only marry a Roman Catholic or be open to marrying and dating an Eastern Catholic as well? I can personally tell you there are many differences in the two. In how they worship and how they approach worship, ect. Both are accepted within the Church but this to can strain a marriage. So now you have just taken this out of the equation as well.

What if one is a Charismatic Catholic and the other is not? Again both are accepted in the Church. Again you have taken something out of the equation therefore further taking people out of the field of contention.

See these problems you speak of can occur even within our own Church and the very differences we have alone.

To simply pick someone solely because they are Catholic or not.......

What should matter is are you equally yoked.

Do you have the same Love of God?
Therefore understanding of one another?
Therefore respect of one another?
Therefore tolerance of one another?
Therefore forgiveness of one another?
Therefore Trust and Faith in one another?
Ect?

Because if you have those key ingredients then even a marriage such as mine, will flourish because of those things. Because you will be accepted and not expected to change for the other person when it comes to those key things.

As I have said before one of the things, although my husband did not fully understand it at the time, fell in love with me for was my Love for my Faith and my unwavering Love of God because of it. So He respected the Church and wanted to learn more because he saw in me something that he did not see in most women, and something that he was looking for.

My husband a year later, still has a hard time putting labels on things. I think you can see that in his post. However if you ask him about the Supremacy of the Pope and Peter he will tell you the all about it. If you ask him who the Mother Mary is he will answer you and be more than happy to defend our position, and tell any Protestant that how they cannot see the logic in it is illogical.

He accepts the Trinity has been baptized and has a Love of God that I have not seen in most men.

I am Eastern Catholic, but my husband prefers to go to a Roman Catholic Church and so my concession is that we attend the local RCC. He finds it easier to understand when everything is in the venacular.

So trying to consistently tell everyone, No No it cannot work, may not be the most prudent measure either.

Telling someone it is not something I would personally do and here are the reasons why I believe that way, well that may be more prudent.

I think it takes discernment and maturity before you enter into any relationship of this kind. I think that to whomever it may be even a Catholic, you will be presented with challenges because life is not perfect. Do not assume that just because you have married a Catholic that it automatically means anything.

Several challenges happen even with that because what happens even in the best of situations if one suddenly becomes inactive in their Faith? What happens if they turn completely from their Faith? What happens if they encounter problems during the marriage in which both parents cannot come to a comprimise with one another on children's issues? All these things happen even within Catholic to Catholic marriages.

What happens if abuse starts to occur God forbid? This happens even in the Church to with Catholic to Catholic marriages.

Does the Church have a way to make it all suddenly stop dead in it's tracks or does it simply have a way to advise them through it? And do you think that if only one parent is Catholic and the other is Protestant that the Church is going to turn a blind eye because one of the parents is NOT Catholic or one of the spouses is not Catholic is the marriage is truly in trouble?

For some reason I do not think so.

What we are all talking about here is that is the dispensation is not met then the Catholic involved will not be able to recieve the Sacraments, until such time as they are met.

Therefore, yes there is a potential here of a problem of becoming lax in one's Faith. But then I say that potential was there even before. I say this because our Love of God should always be before anything else in our lives and if it is, then we will not allow someone to take that away from us and will do whatever we have to, to remain Faithful unto the Lord.

So then did the harm come from the potential partner that is not Catholic or was it ever existent and something that needed to be addressed all along?

 

[Miss Shelby]

If God is ALL TRUTH and if Jesus was the perfect example of Love then I guess I am not the only one that misconstued it because the Apostles did as well. As when they wrote about marriage they often equated marriage to that of Christ and our relationship with Him.

And I represented them as others may see them, including that of my husband that posted in this thread and does read these threads from time to time. So what you got was another Point of View, that was not Bogus at all it was genuine. I at least said seems to be coming across as, whereas you have deliberately charged me with something. Now who is not reading who's words?

And how do you know any of this has gone over my head at all? If I acknowledge their feelings and why they may be feeling them but then disagree with them that does not mean it has gone over my head it simply means I disagree.

Debi, did you or did you not make a broad based accusation that people were being 'elitist' in this thread?

I have a very hard time understanding you. Since I can understand others without problem, I am going to assume that it's you that has a difficult time communicating your thoughts. They are all over the place, I have asked you pointed questions and you've replied with broad open ended replies such as 'Jesus Is Love therefore my opinion is correct'-- I think it would probably be fruitless to continue this, I am sorry I have let it go on this long.

 

[AMDG]

RaggedRobbin, such a long post. I hope I can address at least most of the points.

Yes, each situation is different, some offer no problem in the fact that for some love makes everything go smoothly while others simply don't care about their Faith enough to "stick out the rough spots" a mixed marriage will emphasize so their giving up their Faith makes things go smoothly in their eyes. (Sorry, no "judging", I just can't for the life of me understand "giving up the Real Prescence of Jesus".) Still, IMO, it is highly imprudent to "tempt faith" with the idea that "only the good can happen" or the idea of "if worse comes to worse, we can always get married outside the Church first and then force the Church to bless the union that already exists. And so while dating, Catholics and non-Catholics can date, but it doesn't seem too wise (particularly since dating is supposed to allow a person a chance to "pick his future husband/wife).

About that "equally/unequally yoked" thing to mean Catholics and non-Catholics, I've never understood it at all. (Although the way you put it has me I looking at it almost wistfully since I guess it would make things extremely easy.) But,by that my husband and I would never have been able to marry. I didn't want to change my husband-to-be. I was perfectly happy to have him a Baptist. (Afterall, that's part of him and probably what makes him what he is.) I simply wanted to remain Catholic. Anyway I always took that verse about "unequally yoked" to mean marriage of a non-believer and a Christian anyway. (Although if you go to GT or actually speak with many Protestants--as in Baptist, Episcopal, Methodist,... you'll find that they lump Catholics in the non-believer category. I don't know what they do with 1 Corinthians 7:14 which says, "For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband.")

BTW, I believe that the Church is very magnanimous. The Church allows mixed marriages (marriages of Baptized non-Christians and Catholics) AND those marriages of disparity of cult (marriages of non-Baptized non-Christians and Catholics.) Paragraph 1633 and 1634 of the Catholic Catechism address the problems quite well, and paragraph 1635 of the Catholic Catechism: "According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage needs for liceity the espress permission of ecclesiastical authority. In case of disparity of cult an express dispensation from this impediment is required for the validity of the marriage. This permission or dispensation presupposes that both parties know and do not exclude the essential ends and properties of marriage and the obligations assumed by the Catholic party concerning the Baptism and education of the children in the Catholic Church."

As far as the Eastern rite Catholic/Roman rite Catholic, you have just described my best friend's marriage--Rutherian Byzantine and.... (You do know that both rites make up the ONE Catholic Church and one Faith, unlike the different denominations.) Although she'll go to a Roman rite parish by her, she can also attend the Byzantine Church not too far from here. Although technically Baptized into the Roman rite, I too sometimes attend the Byzantine Divine Liturgy.

 

[The Princess Bride]

BTW....any Catholic who marries a protestant MUST raise their children Catholic.

My husband seems to prefer Catholicism now.

Hmmm...now I have a question to that...

If the husband is Protestant...and the wife is Catholic...and the husband decides to NOT raise their children Catholic....and wives are Biblically required to submit to their husbands...

What then?

Disobey their husbands and take the children to a Catholic Church anyways? Or find an alternative?

 

[NDIrish]

Hmmm...now I have a question to that...

If the husband is Protestant...and the wife is Catholic...and the husband decides to NOT raise their children Catholic....and wives are Biblically required to submit to their husbands...

What then?

Disobey their husbands and take the children to a Catholic Church anyways? Or find an alternative?

Is a woman obliged to obey her husband when said obedience is sinful? Serious question...

I would imagine the answer to that is "no", which means that the wife would be correct to raise her children Catholic, against her husbands wishes.