Church policies about Sacramental Marriage require members to get on the same page as the other congregants (and presumably the Bible).

Readership: Christians
Theme: A Mini-Series on Church Policy and Sacramental Marriage
Length: 1,100 words
Reading Time: 5.5 minutes

Foreword

This Mini-Series on Church Policy and Sacramental Marriage is turning out to be a complex topic, at least, more than I had expected going into it. When I started pulling together some ideas for this mini-series, two of the questions I used to generate ideas for the writing process were,

  1. How do the Catholic Church’s Teachings on Sacramental Marriage Play out in the Church and Society?
  2. How are the Catholic Church’s Teachings on Sacramental Marriage viewed by unbelievers and/or believers who are outside Cathodoxy? 

I haven’t yet arrived at a definitive answer to these questions, but nevertheless, a lot of insightful tangents are spilling out. This post conveys some further musings.

Concerning the first question above, I’m sure some readers would take great delight in jumping at the chance to go off about the various ways the Catholic church has been converged and/or corrupted.  So to focus this discussion and avoid hot button issues (for now), I’ll continue on some points that have already been raised, especially some quotes from Derek L. Ramsey / Ramman3000.  I’m a little confused about which of Derek’s statements are his own interpretation of Catholicism, and which ones are his own beliefs.  So I’m going to address his statements line by line.

The Red Pill is best expressed through Marriage

“…for even a man — who follows all the Red Pill advice and achieves a wife who submits and gives him all the sex he could ever want — would still be a failure if he loses his soul.”

Well, obviously, if we are looking at this from an eternal perspective.  The Red Pill is insufficient to save one’s eternal soul (but it sure helps avoid unnecessary suffering). In taking this view, it is assumed that one is already lost.  But if we address the social impacts rather than the soteriological, such a man wouldn’t be a total failure in society and especially in a church fellowship IF he pursues (or is pressured into accepting) either celibacy or marriage and thereby cuts down on his engagement in the culture of lust and fornication that would cause others to stumble / sin and ultimately erode the civilized aspects of society.  OTOH, Red Pill advice would probably increase fornication if sexual continence (i.e. celibacy or marriage) is not already set forth as a goal or a priority.

In this view, a Red Pilled marriage is a small but insufficient step towards righteousness / salvation / sanctification, at least for others, if not for one’s self.  If diligently pursued, especially by the grand majority of people in a church body, I suppose it could culminate in such, by the Power of God. At the very least, there is hope for civilization.

img-1783682789-6a50d6e52f7011.41258636.jpg

Is Sacramental Marriage a Soteriological Issue?

In Regulations vs. Reality (2023/5/30), I discussed how Sacramental Marriage has more value as a policy than as a doctrine. But the more I’ve thought about this, I’ve realized that there are some real problems in making it into a doctrine.

“You can’t help a man with general relationship advice if you fail in the prerequisite that Christ be his Lord first.”

I agree with this.  At least, it becomes a lot easier and more efficient with the Power of God and regeneration. But even for non-believers, taking the Red Pill does help, and it’s not just simple advice, but is better described as rejecting the lies and renewing the mind (Romans 12:2). So we might think of the Red Pill as a stepping stone to the Truth.

But when we get to this…

“Salvation under the covenant of Jesus should precede both baptism and marriage, as part of the already established covenant, not sacraments.”

…then all the questions come up.  Yes, it should.  But does that mean people should wait to get married until they “find God”? No, because the statement above describes an ideal situation.  Reality is messy.  Most people are far from the ideal, even many of the elect, and especially early in life. Perhaps this is why the Catholic church defines baptism as the starting point.

As I stated before, I do believe that marriage is more fulfilling / sanctified for those who are believers / saved.  But the quoted text above sounds like the equivalent of saying, “You cannot be truly married unless you are truly saved.”

Maybe I’m boiling this down into a straw man, but even so, people will take such a meaning to heart as I described in the first post in this series.

This begs for clarification. Does “marriage” mean God’s recognition of a one flesh union, or does it mean a marriage that is officially recognized by the church?

If it means the former, then the truth of this statement is doubtful, because marriage goes back to the Adamic covenant, which means it applies to all humanity.

If it means the latter, then it makes perfect sense for the church to pose certain requirements in order to receive its endorsement.

Moreover, we must beware of logical categorizations that are devoid of faith and/or removed from reality.

img-1783680482-6a50cde2c70649.29486698.jpg

Is Sacramental Marriage a Pitch for Cathodoxy?

Thanks to EoS’s insights here and here, we know that the purpose for requiring new converts to go through marital “reeducation” and be married again within the church is to make sure those coming in are clear about what a Sacramental Marriage is and what is required of them. We could think of this as a “quality control” device of the church.

But to those coming in, this…

“…in the Roman Catholic frame one cannot have a sacramental marriage unless one has first experienced the Roman Catholic sacrament of baptism.”

…sounds like a pitch for Catholicism, saying in effect, “If you want to be married in OUR church (according to OUR definition of marriage), then you have to do things OUR way”, which is not unreasonable, IMO, because the church should be setting forth a protocol in which, if followed, people are more likely to find salvation (and better marriages too) if they haven’t already done so.

Like I outlined in the previous section, even though the above statement is valid if it is instituted as a church policy, this sounds like saying, “You cannot be truly married unless you are truly saved.”  We might as well add, “And you cannot be truly married / saved unless you are truly Red Pilled.”  Followed by, “And you cannot be truly Red Pilled unless you truly love and seek the Truth.”  It makes a fine syllogism, and there is some truth there, but it’s pretty nebulous, difficult in the application, full of sufferings, and somewhat evasive.  That’s the reality.

“If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.”

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)

Thus is the beginning of true humility.

Related