Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 10, 2024 8:19:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2014 19:04:41 GMT
If the mother's that concerned about her child's Catholic religious education, wouldn't it behoove her to see that the child gets some? It appears to me she's upset that the child's getting only another version of Christianity, but she's got only herself to blame if she's not taking the child for Catholic training when she has the chance (as the OP states). If she's not going to do it, it's hardly fair for her to want to restrain the father from raising HIS child in HIS faith. We don't know if the child is not getting any instruction from his mother or the Catholic Church so that is an assumption on your part. What we do know is that the child is with his father EVERY week-end and that the step-mom wants to take the child to HER church EVERY week-end. We also don't know what faith the father is. Accompanying his new wife to church on a Sunday doesn't mean he follows or believes in her faith. He could be going for the ride for all we know!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 10, 2024 8:19:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2014 19:07:35 GMT
That's OK yes I did see if but it was after I posted my reply. Sorry I didn't refresh the page.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Aug 19, 2014 19:09:15 GMT
First Holy Communion isn't a party. It's two years of Faith Formation classes *outside* of mass (sort of like Sunday School, but often it's on a week night.) The children celebrate their first rite of reconciliation, and they actively prepare for the reception of the Holy Eucharist. I don't mean to be scornful, but it isn't something that is just done on a whim. Does dedicate mean the same thing as baptize? Because in the Catholic faith, you aren't "re"baptized. Once is all that is necessary. I'm not sure that these are the same things, but I agree with BackToPeality. When you agreed to have your child baptized in the Catholic church, you agreed to raise that child Catholic. You should not have agreed to it if you didn't believe in it. But if the child was indeed baptized in a Catholic church, the child is now Catholic in the eyes of The Church.When I made my 1st communion our 'special' classes were very few. But then we did have at least an hour a day of catechism in school.
no 're-baptism' in the CC? Can you then tell me why I (and my sisters) were all re-baptized? It wasn't because we wanted to.
ah... the eyes of the CC. They are blind - and they mean nothing to me. Or to the great number of xCatholics I know - we're just a number the CC adds to their tally.
those of you so concerned about your child hearing something in another church during maybe 1 hr a wk.... do you send your kids to a public school? Do you let your kids play with non-Catholic kids?
|
|
|
Post by coaliesquirrel on Aug 19, 2014 19:13:26 GMT
Well, we don't KNOW that the child isn't getting instruction, but the OP says this: so, I was taking OP at her word. Sure, we don't know what faith the father is, but if you get to assume the mother's directly instructing the child or taking the child to church when the OP says she's not, I get to assume the father's current faith is the same as the stepmother's.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 10, 2024 8:19:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2014 19:20:25 GMT
But the OP is going on what her friend has told her. Anyhow how can she take the child to a Catholic Church on a Sunday if he spends each Sunday with his Dad?
|
|
|
Post by Tamhugh on Aug 19, 2014 19:26:37 GMT
"See, no Catholic would EVER baptize their child, then take them to another faith and have a dedication ceremony. In fact I have trouble wrapping my head around such a casual approach to faith. Of course you're not scared of Catholicism...first of all there's nothing to be scared of, and second, you know nothing about it so why would you have any fear of it?
ETA: Actually, I'm curious about this baptism your child had. What Pastor, family member or not, takes baptism so lightly that he would perform a ceremony to commit a child to God, knowing it meant basically nothing to the parents....or is he a non-denominational, got called by God, but didn't do a degree in theology, or go to a divinity school? Or is that your faith...non-denominational Christian?"
I-95, I know several families who are mixed religions and have done both a Catholic baptism and a dedication at the spouse's church. Most of them are trying to raise the children in both denominations. However, I do admit that none of them are super devout. Being an ELCA Lutheran, I also belong to a church that has a lot of former Catholic members.
As to the second part, you have to remember that most Protestant denominations don't see baptism in the same light as Catholics. When my children were baptized, DH and I promised to bring them to church and put the scriptures in their hands. The church we currently belong to has no set age for communion. When the family thinks the child is ready to understand the meaning behind it, they meet with the pastor and the child can begin to take communion. Confirmation is in 9th grade, after a few years of instruction. That is when they actually become members of the church.
|
|
back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Aug 19, 2014 19:27:59 GMT
When you and your husband accepted the Sacrament of Baptism in the Catholic Church on behalf of your child, along with his godparents you made a commitment to raise the child as a Catholic. If you had no intention to raise your child as a Catholic, you should not have had him baptised. I feel you took this sacred vow too lightly - "we just did it to make extended family happy", full well knowing we would "dedicate" him to another church. You talk about the First Holy Communion like it was no big deal, what do you mean I'd throw him one? Chill out. You are assuming we baptized our son in a Catholic church. That isn't the case- nor would they have allowed it. The baptism was performed by a family member who is also a Pastor. The thread is "if you are Catholic" and Btw I am not a mind reader. I feel you have a flippant attitude about the Catholic faith our sacraments and traditions because they don't line up with your point of view.
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Aug 19, 2014 19:45:25 GMT
Back to *pea*ality, I'm sorry you feel that way. I have respect for Catholics and understand how seriously the sacraments and traditions are to them. I appreciate where you're coming from. I personally prefer a more open denomination that doesn't restrict anyone from the family of God from participating in the sacraments that were practiced from the start by Christ Himself and the early church. Baptism and Communion are incredibly important to me- so important I don't feel comfortable with any man-made rules preventing any of my Christian brothers and sisters from taking part. In the terms of THIS discussion, I hold to my opinion as a Christian parent that both parents should have equal say in the Christian upbringing of their child and that a child attending more than one denomination of Christian church is not a terrible thing.
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Aug 19, 2014 19:50:30 GMT
I agree with this. Both parents should be able to make the choice to expose their child to their faith. If they have different views then the child gets exposed to two different faiths. I think the father has just as much right as the mother to make this decision.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Aug 19, 2014 19:56:06 GMT
The OP doesn't even know the mother in question so she has no idea what she's doing with regard to religious education, nor do any of us. I think she was just repeating what her friend, the new wife, told her. However, the thing that non-Catholics don't always understand about Catholics is, unless we voluntarily renounce the religion, we are Catholics for life....doesn't matter whether we set foot in a church for years. If you ask a lapsed Methodist what religion they are they are likely to say 'I don't practice any religion'. If you ask a lapsed Catholic what religion they are, you're likely to hear 'I'm Catholic'.
What the Catholic posters are saying in this thread is that if the bio-mom wants her child raised Catholic, and doesn't want him going to a church of another faith, we, the Catholics, agree with her. She and her ex baptized their child in a faith and promised to raise the child in that faith. The mother has every right to object to a change of plans, especially since she wasn't consulted about it. You might be ecumenical in the upbringing of your child, and that's your right, but it is also the right of a Catholic mother to choose not to do that. The father doesn't appear to be anything but agreeable to whatever woman he's married to at the moment, so I'm sure if the parents can't work it out between themselves, they'll be back in court.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Aug 19, 2014 20:02:10 GMT
... We have three readings every mass, in which the saints are almost always mentioned, Much of the bible was written by the disciples, who were saints. Children socialize with their parent's friend's children, in the nursery, during CCD, over donuts after church, etc. yes, peas have posted before claiming those readings as their weekly Bible reading and study. The NT was written by disciples. Bible believing non Catholics consider them saints too. The Bible calls the followers of Christ 'Saints' - dead or alive. when are CCD classes held now? Many (other peas / other threads) have posted they are in the evening during the week or on a Saturday. The CC has donuts now after a svc? Wow, things have changed there. That's something to remember when a Catholic knocks a nonCC for having a 'social time' before or after svc. obviously, in the CC it would be after svc. ... that would be that ALL people become Catholic - since other than the CC doesn't have the real truth. Only the CC does, according to the CC. this means?
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Aug 19, 2014 20:10:56 GMT
JeremyGirl said:
Both parents did make a choice. They had the child baptized Catholic. The father, who didn't go to church before marrying his current wife, now wants to take the child to his wife's church. He did not discuss it with the bio-mom before making this unilateral decision, and she's justifiably POed. Bio-mom has physical custody, and since the father originally agreed to raise the child Catholic, maybe he should stick to that.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Aug 19, 2014 20:13:34 GMT
Tamhugh said
lol. Maybe I should have said 'no Catholic I know...'
|
|
back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Aug 19, 2014 20:37:58 GMT
Back to *pea*ality, I'm sorry you feel that way. I have respect for Catholics and understand how seriously the sacraments and traditions are to them. I appreciate where you're coming from. I personally prefer a more open denomination that doesn't restrict anyone from the family of God from participating in the sacraments that were practiced from the start by Christ Himself and the early church. Baptism and Communion are incredibly important to me- so important I don't feel comfortable with any man-made rules preventing any of my Christian brothers and sisters from taking part. In the terms of THIS discussion, I hold to my opinion as a Christian parent that both parents should have equal say in the Christian upbringing of their child and that a child attending more than one denomination of Christian church is not a terrible thing. You are sorry that I feel that way about the traditions of my faith? How very condescending of you. You clearly don't understand what others here have articulated better than I have so repeating it will serve no purpose. You are like a dog with a bone @katycupcake about what you *personally prefer*.
|
|
|
Post by jennyap on Aug 19, 2014 20:38:56 GMT
JeremyGirl said: Both parents did make a choice. They had the child baptized Catholic. The father, who didn't go to church before marrying his current wife, now wants to take the child to his wife's church. He did not discuss it with the bio-mom before making this unilateral decision, and she's justifiably POed. Bio-mom has physical custody, and since the father originally agreed to raise the child Catholic, maybe he should stick to that. That's as big an assumption as any other I've seen in this thread - nothing the OP has said that I've seen has indicated that the child was baptised, or has even ever been to church prior to the divorce. You may well be correct, btut you can't state that the father agreed to it as fact unless the OP is able to confirm that.
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Aug 19, 2014 20:39:45 GMT
JeremyGirl said: Both parents did make a choice. They had the child baptized Catholic. The father, who didn't go to church before marrying his current wife, now wants to take the child to his wife's church. He did not discuss it with the bio-mom before making this unilateral decision, and she's justifiably POed. Bio-mom has physical custody, and since the father originally agreed to raise the child Catholic, maybe he should stick to that. I had my children baptized Catholic too. And I have since changed my mind on religion. As the mother, when my kids are with me I feel that I have every right to expose them to whatever religion I want to. I have the right to change my own faith and beliefs. There was no mention of the mother having full custody. Most parents these days have joint legal and physical custody. So he would have just as much right to make decisions regarding the well-being of his child as she does. When the child is with the father, the child does what the father wants to do. This is how parenting time works. Now, if the mother would like to take her child to a Catholic church on Sundays, then it would be nice if the father would accommodate that so the child can have exposure to her religion too, but unless the parenting time order is changed then the mother will just have to deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by pierogi on Aug 19, 2014 20:45:30 GMT
The OP doesn't even know the mother in question so she has no idea what she's doing with regard to religious education, nor do any of us. I think she was just repeating what her friend, the new wife, told her. However, the thing that non-Catholics don't always understand about Catholics is, unless we voluntarily renounce the religion, we are Catholics for life....doesn't matter whether we set foot in a church for years. If you ask a lapsed Methodist what religion they are they are likely to say 'I don't practice any religion'. If you ask a lapsed Catholic what religion they are, you're likely to hear 'I'm Catholic'. I tried to explain this earlier in the thread, but it was like talking to a wall. And after seeing the insulting post about our Holy Communion, I understand why.
|
|
|
Post by monklady123 on Aug 19, 2014 21:15:14 GMT
Just a quick comment about baptism, since there were a few misinterpretations somewhere above (page 6 or 7, but I've lost track, lol). Most mainline Protestant churches have two sacraments, baptism and communion (Presbyterians call it "the Lord's Supper" usually). Among the Protestant churches and the Catholic church baptism is "interchangeable", for lack of a better word. When my Catholic-baptized daughter joined the Presbyterian church with me she was not re-baptized because the Presbyterians recognize the Catholic baptism as valid. We don't believe in rebaptism. When I joined the Catholic church years ago I was not re-baptized because the Catholic church recognized my Presbyterian baptism as valid. Catholics do not believe in rebaptism. The important point is if it is a trinitarian baptism, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." This is what makes it valid. So if someone comes to a Catholic church or a mainline Protestant church who was not baptized using water and invoking the Trinity (and I don't know enough about other churches to know who might do that) they might possibly be baptized. We wouldn't call it being "re-baptized" because we wouldn't recognize the first one as a real baptism. Conversely, there are churches -- some Baptists, many non-denominationals -- who do not believe in infant baptism. Therefore if you were baptized Catholic or Methodist or Presbyterian or anything else as an infant they do not recognize that and will baptize you as an adult or teen. I think they do not believe in "re-baptism" either, and to their eyes they are not doing that since they don't recognize the infant baptism. I once baptized a baby in the hospital who the doctors thought would die. She did not, and later the parents wanted her to be baptized in their church. They had told the minister that the baby had been baptized in the hospital and he wouldn't do it again in the church. Instead they had a blessing ceremony, and presented her to the congregation in the same way we do after a baptism but without the water and actual baptismal words. -- This is always a delicate subject in hospitals, because I personally do not believe that baptism is necessary for the baby's salvation. I do not believe that God would allow an innocent baby who died right after birth to be out of His sight, ever. But as I said in another post, that's not the time to discuss theology with parents. And for those of you who seem to think the Catholic church is teaching against other denominations or teaching their kids that everyone else is wrong, or whatever...well, you need to get out more and meet some of today's priests and nuns. Especially the nuns. lol. Most of the ones I interact with (at the hospitals, and through an ecumenical group I belong to in my area) firmly believe that Catholicism is right *for them* and that Presbyterian is right *for me*. etc. Nothing wrong with telling kids in CCD classes that they (the teachers) believe the Roman Catholic church is the best for them. I certainly told my dd that about being Presbyterian, when she was younger. We teach them in the way we want them to go, to the best of our abilities. When they become adults they can choose for themselves. Hmmm...I think I started this post by saying "just a quick comment". I guess it wasn't.
|
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,387
Jun 26, 2014 0:42:38 GMT
|
Post by cycworker on Aug 19, 2014 21:30:36 GMT
I can see both sides. Ultimately, though, I think I have to agree with the dad and step-mom, by virtue of the fact that Mom isn't taking the child to church anyway. She is not very devout, and yes, to me, that takes away her credibility. I have to agree that there are number of Peas who take some of these things far more seriously than people I know in real life. I was raised Anglican. I'm now Christian Reformed. My dad is Catholic and I have attended the Catholic church at various times. And yes, rules be damned, I take communion when I'm there. It's between me and God. And there's never been anyone at the church stopping people as they come up and checking to make sure they have the correct credentials. I've seen other non-Catholics go up when I have been in attendance. And call me cynical, but for most kids? The whole First Communion process, and then later the Confirmation classes, are mostly about the party. My brother and I certainly wouldn't have done it were it not for the promised party. Heck, my brother practically had the money he knew he'd get already spent two weeks before the party. I managed to hold on to mime a while longer.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Aug 19, 2014 22:08:45 GMT
Jennyap said:
Nah, it's not the biggest assumption...but the OP said the mother was furious, then she said 'I'm not Catholic, so I would think...' It's a fairly reasonable assumption to make that the mother she's talking about is a Catholic, and it's a fairly safe assumption that if she's objecting to the child going to the stepmom's church, then her child has also been baptized as a Catholic. If we run with that assumption, which is what we do or we would have said, we don't have enough information to give an opinion, sorry and the thread would have stopped on p.1....but we're Peas, so we make all kinds of assumptions, some reasonable, some not...but the OP posted a second time to say that the father was not attending a church before he married his current wife, so I'll assume if we were all wrong about the mother and child being Catholic, she would have said something about it then. She didn't. Anyway... IF the child was baptized, it's a safe assumption that the father attended the baptism, and he would have, at that time, promised to raise the child in the Catholic faith, and IF the child hadn't been baptized, why would the mother be furious, and why would the OP have asked the question about attending a different faith church?
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Aug 19, 2014 22:23:42 GMT
Jeremysgirl said
Yes, there is so much we don't know. However, the OP said that the dad had the child 'most weekends' so we can presume that the mother has physical custody. The question is, if they both have legal custody whose rights triumph, the mom or the dad? What I got from the OP's two brief posts were that the dad practices whatever religion his current wife is in favor of, and in between wives he didn't attend church at all. We have no information on what the mother does as far as religious education but the fact she is unhappy about the child going to the stepmom's church, we have to presume she feels strongly about her own faith or she would have said 'Fine by me, do whatever you want', but this whole discussion is based on the fact she objected, and since the father has the child most weekends that would preclude the mother taking him to Mass. I do think the father should have an opinion, but the OP said he didn't discuss it with his ex before making the decision to take the child to the stepmom's church and THAT'S probably the biggest problem. It's would certainly be an issue for me if I were in her position.
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Aug 19, 2014 22:53:17 GMT
There are many reasons why the mom wouldn't want her child going to a different church, including the fact that she now be atheist or agnostic.
Holy smokes, this is about the most disrespectful thing I have read on this thread. If you had any respect for religion you would never take communion in a denomination that you are not baptized and confirmed as a member.
|
|
|
Post by kelly316 on Aug 19, 2014 23:03:53 GMT
I sincerely regret asking this question. There are so many more details, but I won't elaborate. This has turned into something ugly. Jesus loves us all!
|
|
back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Aug 19, 2014 23:16:25 GMT
I sincerely regret asking this question. There are so many more details, but I won't elaborate. This has turned into something ugly. Jesus loves us all! kelly316 if you give just the minimum details and don't answer questions posed then assumptions are made. Have you been reading the thread and ignoring the questions?
|
|
|
Post by Tamhugh on Aug 19, 2014 23:16:28 GMT
Tamhugh said lol. Maybe I should have said 'no Catholic I know...' You probably just know more devout Catholics than me. Where I grew up, it was predominantly Catholic and they were more devout (ie my mom and all of her friends are named Mary). It is kind of the opposite around here.
|
|
|
Post by pierogi on Aug 19, 2014 23:17:11 GMT
Just a note: not every parish has the resources to offer weekday mass. The mother has the child during the week. She doesn't have him during the weekend when he's obligated to attend. So the statement that "she's not taking him to church" is somewhat misleading.
|
|
|
Post by Tamhugh on Aug 19, 2014 23:21:59 GMT
Holy smokes, this is about the most disrespectful thing I have read on this thread. If you had any respect for religion you would never take communion in a denomination that you are not baptized and confirmed as a member. Again, this is mostly applicable in the Catholic church. When I attend mass for any reason, I do not take communion because I know that the church does not want me to. But I have never been to a protestant church other than MSLC where all believers were not welcome to the Lord's Table.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Aug 20, 2014 0:31:07 GMT
I just read this entire thread, and was delighted to see my second favorite Catholic word -"transubstantiation" - used twice. Here's hoping the thread won't die until someone uses "concupiscence." And I agree with whomever said that nuns these days are really cool. They should be running the world.
|
|
|
Post by monklady123 on Aug 20, 2014 2:05:27 GMT
Holy smokes, this is about the most disrespectful thing I have read on this thread. If you had any respect for religion you would never take communion in a denomination that you are not baptized and confirmed as a member. Oy. If you are not "baptized and confirmed as a member" you are still welcome at my church's communion table. And at most of the mainline Protestant ones. And I was the one who made the comment about nuns. I know one who is this teeny thing, doesn't even come up to my shoulder. You should see her stand up to anyone who's trying to make trouble in the ER waiting room, or anywhere else in the hospital. lol. Nobody gives Sister any trouble. And no one calls her "Sister Mary Patrick" [not her real name], it's only "Sister." "Sister is coming, she'll take care of it!" lolol.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Aug 20, 2014 2:20:50 GMT
Now it's highly likely that I, and about 1000 other Collins are wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure you can also take Communion in the Catholic Church before confirmation (I am 100% correct that one's First Communion comes BEFORE confirmation). I thought that as long you were a Catholic and in a state of grace you could receive Communion, even if you're not confirmed.
|
|