Philosophical Theology

Christians may marry only in the Lord. This means that at the very least Christians may not marry faithful Roman Catholics, Muslims or any other unbelieving idolater, all of whom maintain damnable heresies. (1 Corinthians 7:39; WCF 24.3; See also: Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:3,4; 2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

A question that in more recent times accompanies this clear teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) pertains to true believers within the Roman Catholic communion. Specifically, may Christians marry unfaithful Roman Catholics – those who profess the saving power of the gospel in their lives while remaining formally estranged to the Christian church while comfortably seated in Rome.
What is behind such a question is a misunderstanding of (a) the relevance of the visible church, (b) the impropriety of private judgments in such matters and (c) the undue partitioning of faith and practice. Accordingly, before trying to come up with a consistently Reformed view on interfaith marriage, it might be helpful to develop those three confessionally based principles by which our theology of marriage can be better informed.

Marriage and the visible church:

The WCF is clear that (1) there is no ordinary possibility of salvation outside the visible church. In other words, it is normative but not absolutely necessary that God leads believers into identification with congregations of the universal church that profess the true religion. (WCF 25:2) The Reformed church also teaches (2) that (a) the Pope of Rome is a usurper, (b) Roman Catholicism, with the pope as her head, is an apostate church and as such (c) the Roman Catholic communion, according to her theology, is a synagogue of Satan. (WCF 25:5,6) From those two governing principles we may surmise that it is at least possible that a true believer can be a member of the Roman Catholic communion even though Rome is not a true church.

Private judgment must give way to objective ecclesiastical standing:

Although some Roman Catholics profess faith in Christ in accordance with the true religion of the Protestant Reformation, by identifying with the Roman communion through membership and attendance such professing believers objectively remain outside the visible church of Christ, and no private judgment can remedy that reality. The question is how that objective reality relates to Christians marrying Roman Catholics.

Although professing Roman Catholics can live in contradiction to their communion by professing the true gospel of salvation, by the standard of the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) they are not “communicants in good standing in any evangelical church” and, therefore, are barred from the Lord’s Supper until their profession coincides with their church affiliation. Or as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) would have it, a member of the Roman communion is not a “professing communicant member in good standing in a church that professes the gospel of God’s free grace in Jesus Christ” and, therefore, is not warmly invited to partake of the body and blood of our Lord.

At the very least, from a Reformed ecclesiastical perspective, fellowship with Rome necessarily keeps one from identifying with the Christian church and receiving the nourishment of Christ with other believers at the Lord’s Supper.

It’s not enough that one merely professes faith in Christ if he also lives in the unrepentant sin of spiritual adultery, which leads us to our third and final principle pertaining to the undue dichotomization of faith and practice.

(As we read on it might be useful to consider whether ecclesiastical precepts drawn from Scripture should override private judgement on one’s salvation, or can private judgements be reconciled with the implications of sound elder-rule ecclesiology.)

Faith and practice:

It’s hardly controversial that a good and faithful Roman Catholic is one who not only trusts in the damning gospel of Rome but also considers the Protestant gospel anathema. (See: The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Sixth session, January 13, 1547: Chapters 7,8,10, and 16, Canons 12,24,30, and 32) Not surprisingly, a good Roman Catholic’s profession of faith is never credible by confessional Protestant standards. But what about the profession of a bad Roman Catholic – one who professes “Christ alone” while remaining in communion with the pope? How should Protestants regard such as these?

Here again we must respect that it is the elders of the church and not individual maverick-Christians that “bind and loose” in the name of Christ. It is the elders on behalf of Christ that open the kingdom to penitent sinners, declare absolution and admit sinners to the Lord’s Supper. (WCF 30.2) Reformed elders are to recognize that identifying with Rome not only bars one from the sacrament of the Supper but it also entails participation in the alleged sacrifice of the mass, which is a repugnant superstition and a detestable insult to Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice on behalf of his elect. (Hebrews 10:11,12; Articles of Religion 28; WCF 29:3)

We must remain ever mindful that a credible profession of faith has two components – faith and practice (or doctrine and life). Apropos, one who professes the Reformed faith while remaining a member in good standing of the Roman communion denies his profession by living in unrepentant sin for (a) aligning with a communion that has anathematized the gospel and (b) refusing to be numbered among a true church of Christ where they might enjoy table fellowship with other professing believers of like precious faith. (Hebrews 10:25)

G.I. Williamson is useful here:

It may be argued that a person could conceivably be a true believer and yet be an adherent of a false religion. We believe that this is a false abstraction. A person’s faith cannot be judged apart from his profession and walk, and in this case the profession and walk would be contrary to the judgment that he is a believer. We cannot so separate between personal and corporate responsibility.

The Westminster Confession of Faith For Study Classes, Page 183

Putting this together:

A faithful Roman Catholic’s allegiance is to the seat of the papacy and not to the throne of Christ. With allegiance to the Holy See comes implicit faith in all her doctrines of demons. Accordingly, a faithful Roman Catholic – i.e., one who rejects the gospel of grace and embraces Roman Catholicism – is not a Christian in any evangelical sense of the word. But we’ve been discussing unfaithful Roman Catholics – those who cling to Rome while professing faith alone in Christ alone. Are things really that different for them?

Although the Lord is pleased to add to the Protestant church those who are being saved, the Reformed acknowledge that there is a distinct possibility of salvation outside the visible church. (Acts 2:47) Notwithstanding, because it’s not normative that Christ’s sheep do not heed the call to come out of papal Rome, we may not presume that Roman Catholics are genuinely converted. Yet it is no less true that it is possible that some Roman Catholics we know are united to Christ, having been reborn. Again notwithstanding, although a true believer in Christ can be outside the visible church, (if not even a member of the Roman communion and partaker of the hocus pocus and idolatry of the mass), such an anomaly does not imply that we may make private non-authoritative declarations about a Roman Catholic’s salvation. In a word, individual Christians, although they may believe a Roman Catholic is a true Christian, ought not to lend approval to interfaith marriage when it involves an evangelical for the simple reason that a credible profession of faith is an ecclesiastical matter that is not open to private interpretation; (nor is divorce a private matter, per WCF 24.6.) In other words, from a Reformed perspective, whether one may be in any meaningful sense regarded as being in Christ is not a matter of idiosyncratic speculation but one of objective consideration that solely rests upon one’s ecclesiastical affiliation and the sessions of the church.

Perhaps some have met members of true churches and thought: “they could not sound spiritual even if their lives depended upon it.” As sad as that might be for some, it is not our subjective and fallible opinion that matters but one’s objective standing in the visible church that gains a professing believer the judgement of charity that they belong to Christ. Conversely, no matter how Reformed a Roman Catholic might sound in his doctrine of salvation, biblical precept disallows considering such a one “a fellow believer” when his profession of faith is accompanied by a refusal to come out of Rome and identity with the Christian church.

Closing:

No matter what a Roman Catholic’s verbal profession is, both the Roman communion and the Reformed church charge Roman Catholics not to partake of the Lord’s Supper in a Protestant church. On that, Rome and Westminster concur! (Code of Canon Law, Can. 844 §1) Accordingly, how can one be regarded as having a credible profession of faith in Christ if he is forbidden in the Lord to commune with professing believers at Christ’s Supper? The reductio ad absurdum is simply this. How can Christian marriage between a Roman Catholic and an evangelical be condoned if the two are not permitted to share together in the body and blood of their Savior? What sort of union in Christ is that?

A call to elders:

1. We must faithfully teach the sheep not just the Confession but its practical applications.

2. When it comes to interfaith marriage we need to get way out in front with preventative teaching rooted in biblically based confessional theology.

3. If we see a member becoming interested in one who is not in submission to a church that preaches the biblical gospel, we need to lovingly, patiently, yet deliberately shepherd the member and his or her parents when appropriate.

4. If one refuses to come out of Rome after being patiently shown that Rome’s doctrines violently oppose Christ and the gospel, then how can such a person’s profession of faith be deemed credible? Indeed, it might take a true believer time to depart from his tradition and align with Christ’s church but until such time that “personal and corporate responsibility” happily coincide (G.I. Williamson), refusal toward Christ obtains and the profession of faith must remain suspect, hence the church’s prohibition from the Lord’s Supper.

5. Elders, we must bring Roman Catholic loved ones to a crossroad by explaining to them that to say no to coming out of Rome and into the church is to refuse Christ himself. In a word, remaining in corporate solidarity with the pope, especially in the context of a reasoned and prolonged plea to “come out from among her and touch not the unclean thing”, demonstrates allegiance to a works-tradition more than Christ, which makes one a candidate for evangelism, not Christian discipleship and certainly not Christian marriage.

6. Problems occur when sessions do not shepherd purposely. We do Roman Catholics a disservice by not patiently explaining why coming to Christ may not be severed from coming to Christ’s church. When sessions do not act intentionally in this regard toward those who seek to marry members, true converts within Rome can end up remaining in Rome and become in practice formally indistinguishable from card-carrying papists. (An analogous point is made here in the context of not warning true believers of the perils of internet sin.)

7. We must be confident that if we labor with Roman Catholic members over the evils of their communion, God will lead his own out of Rome to green pastures as Christ’s sheep hear his voice and the Lord fulfills his promise to build his church as he adds to it daily those who are being saved. (Psalm 23:2; Matthew 16:18; John 10:27,28; Acts 2:47; Corinthians 6:17)