Am I qualified to do readings at mass

[Catholicskier]

I said nothing contrary to that.

I am curious OP:
What religion will your children be raised in when your wife deems them old enough to be cleansed of original sin?

I could call her religion and attempt to raise them “modern evangelical” while I attempt to raise them catholic. We are actually going to go to a councilor to discuss what to do because it is getting confusing for the kids as we argue each weekend

 

[Catholicskier]

Hello CS.

I’m confused - if you are in a mixed marriage and are truly living according to Church teachings as you say, then your children would be Baptized already and going to Church with you each Sunday. Your question about the Readings is an aside. That question can only be answered by your Pastor as it is ultimately his decision who participates at the Altar and who doesn’t. So ask him.

Glenda

Yes it is a valid mixed marriage, my wife has decided she has changed her mind on how the kids should be brought up she heard what the priest said about that I had a commitment to raise them catholic

 

[Rau]

How can you deny the immense and immeasurable benefit of Baptism on a soul? You say no harm in leaving them un-baptized so hubby can have his warm and cozy each night? “No harm, no suffering befalls such a soul?” This is a direct refutation of what the Church teaches about the necessity of Baptism. Without it no one gains Heaven. How can this be harmless or lack suffering? Please explain.

Glenda

I did not say any of what you wrote!

My belief is that God does not condemn the innocent to suffering. That belief seems to be in keeping with a Just God. Consequently, I was not living in a panic during the few weeks between the birth and baptism of my children. Whether this stands in conflict with the statement requiring baptism for salvation - I do not know.

 

[Rau]

Yes it is a valid mixed marriage, my wife has decided she has changed her mind on how the kids should be brought up she heard what the priest said about that I had a commitment to raise them catholic

So she is choosing to break her promise. I don’t see that your view needs to come second. Perhaps you should speak with you priest. I believe you have the option of administering the sacrament yourself, and notifying the Priest that you have done so.

Your wife’s actions seem quite an assault on you, not to mention her own integrity.

 

[Tigg]

Hoosier Daddy:

:tiphat:

Thank you for your defense of the faith!

 

[Rau]

I guess what I don’t understand from you is if it is necessary for the OP to baptize his children then why do we even have the sacrament at all? And why does the Church demand it of children?

This is the problem of limbo. Which you may or may not believe in. But just because the Church does not officially teach limbo does not automatically solve the problem that limbo was created to address.

I guess the fact that limbo was once taught, and now is not, and that the fate of the unbaptised innocents is in the hands of God’s mercy, and the Church says it does not know a way absent baptism for salvation, says something about the state of our understanding. My memory of primary school teaching was that Limbo was not a ‘place’ of suffering - which was the statement I made earlier.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I guess the fact that limbo was once taught, and now is not, and that the fate of the unbaptised innocents is in the hands of God’s mercy, and the Church says it does not know a way absent baptism for salvation, says something about the state of our understanding. My memory of primary school teaching was that Limbo was not a ‘place’ of suffering - which was the statement I made earlier.

The Church, and indeed my own understanding of it is crystal clear. Baptism is necessary for salvation and we need to baptize those who are not baptized starting first with our own children. This is fundamental to our faith as we understand the state of mankind. Original Sin is a dogma that cannot be changed.

Which is why many firemen and police officers even carry with them Holy Water. And the necessity for baptism needs to be understood by everyone who professes the faith, because not only should we be able to evangelize, but we also are charged with the responsibility to be a priest prophet and king, so, one day we might be in a life and death situation where we need to be able to react in the blink of a eye. And a Christian’s first thought should be eternal life of those involved. This is why the Church has given permission for anyone, not just Catholic priests to baptize. You see, the sacrament of baptism is something any baptized like you or me is called to do in times of emergency. The Church has seen fit to do this rather than say “Well, just trust in God’s mercy” Because baptism is necessary. It is even more necessary than confession. Because you and I cannot absolve, but we can baptize which does absolve of all sin…

Kind of fascinating and powerful when you think about it…

And a reason for us to fully understand the importance of baptism.

Earlier you said you know many good people who have not been baptized. This is kind of true and not true. Because if good means Holy and if Holy means able to be in heaven then that is not really true because of the stain of original sin. We must be careful though not to go too far in the opposite direction and take the route of “total Depravity” that some protestants profess.

Now,

Go and baptize and preach the Gospel to all nations.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Hoosier Daddy:

:tiphat:

Thank you for your defense of the faith!

Thank you for the hat tip.

I must confess, though I have always understood the faith, I never really had as good a grasp on the theological aspects of it until I started homeschooling my children with Catholic curriculum. in my experience 99 percent of any thread on CAF can be handled with a second grade curriculum and a Baltimore Catechism. That is not to put any of us on here down, but rather to show that though we make the faith complicated, it really is very simple when you look at the bare bones of it.

 

[Rau]

The Church, and indeed my own understanding of it is crystal clear. Baptism is necessary for salvation and we need to baptize those who are not baptized starting first with our own children. This is fundamental to our faith as we understand the state of mankind. Original Sin is a dogma that cannot be changed.

Which is why many firemen and police officers even carry with them Holy Water. And the necessity for baptism needs to be understood by everyone who professes the faith, because not only should we be able to evangelize, but we also are charged with the responsibility to be a priest prophet and king, so, one day we might be in a life and death situation where we need to be able to react in the blink of a eye. And a Christian’s first thought should be eternal life of those involved. This is why the Church has given permission for anyone, not just Catholic priests to baptize. You see, the sacrament of baptism is something any baptized like you or me is called to do in times of emergency. The Church has seen fit to do this rather than say “Well, just trust in God’s mercy” Because baptism is necessary. It is even more necessary than confession. Because you and I cannot absolve, but we can baptize which does absolve of all sin…

Kind of fascinating and powerful when you think about it…

And a reason for us to fully understand the importance of baptism.

Earlier you said you know many good people who have not been baptized. This is kind of true and not true. Because if good means Holy and if Holy means able to be in heaven then that is not really true because of the stain of original sin. We must be careful though not to go too far in the opposite direction and take the route of “total Depravity” that some protestants profess.

Now,

Go and baptize and preach the Gospel to all nations.

What is the nature of suffering in the afterlife that awaits the newborn who meets with a fatal car accident on the way home from hospital? I believe none, and I’m not aware of a direct positive statement to the contrary. The Church refers to trusting in God’s mercy - and I do - I have complete confidence in his mercy and justice. That is not the same as devaluing Baptism.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

What is the nature of suffering in the afterlife that awaits the newborn who meets with a fatal car accident on the way home from hospital? I believe none, and I’m not aware of a direct positive statement to the contrary. The Church refers to trusting in God’s mercy - and I do - I have complete confidence in his mercy and justice. That is not the same as devaluing Baptism.

What is the nature of suffering in the afterlife that awaits the newborn who meets with a fatal car accident on the way home from hospital?

I don’t know.

I believe none, and I’m not aware of a direct positive statement to the contrary.

That is nice that you believe that. And you may believe that and still be in the confines of the faith. I am not sure though what that entails. And you probably don’t know either. Because being without God in heaven would to me, be suffering in the afterlife. And I don’t know the how original sin was dealt with in that case. But I do know for millions and millions of people between Adam and Christ there was no access to heaven. Which is why the teaching of limbo fit so nicely into the equation. It borrowed from Jewish teaching as well.

But God saw fit in his infinite mercy as well to close the gates of heaven and separate us and all human descendants of Adam and Eve. He owes no one salvation, not a baby, and not a saint. God does not owe us or need to answer to us on if or if not he is cruel or merciful by our tainted standards.

I am glad you do not devalue baptism because in your initial posts it seemed as if you either did, or did not understand it’s necessity. Either way, it is not really the point of this thread, though it is fascinating.

And bringing it back to the thread, because you do not devalue baptism and because you understand it’s necessity and importance for salvation, you also would agree that the OP needs to baptize his children. ASAP.

 

[twf]

The OP should discuss this issue with his priest. He is not sinning - and he will only get conflicting and confusing responses from posters here (as has already been the case). He has an obligation to raise his children in the faith, yes, but as Phemie pointed out, the Church also expects him to respect his wife’s position and not to force the faith upon her. He has an obligation to do all in his power to preserve the marital bond.
OP: Talk to your priest.

 

[Rau]

… you also would agree that the OP needs to baptize his children. ASAP.

I in fact suggested it a few posts ago. It is a possibility for these children.

 

[CB_Catholic]

You know, this thread has gone far off track. The OP DID NOT ASK FOR ANYBODY’S OPINIONS ABOUT HIS CHILDREN BEING UNBAPTIZED. He asked if he was qualified to do readings at Mass because they were not baptized. He is quite distressed, and instead of support he gets a bunch of judgmental, unsolicited, opinionated and even nasty posts about his children being unbaptized and the state of his marriage. Who do some of you people think you are??? The remark about the poster preferring to get his “warm and cozy” every night instead of getting his children baptized was totally uncalled for and one of the rudest remarks I have seen yet on CAF. A total lack of charity. I suggest people take a look at themselves and how they have treated the OP, and despite possible denials and excuses given about defending the faith, etc, this poster has been judged and chastised; furthermore, no one here has a clue about his marriage or what has transpired in it. Marriage is a holy and sacred and permanent Sacrament, and it is not to be treated as if it is somehow disposable in this situation, and we do NOT pit one Sacrament against another.

To the OP: you will get no help here, sad to say. Talk to your priest. He is the one to turn to about the whole situation. You need prayers, not unqualified and unsolicited opinions.

I have reported this thread to the moderator, it’s up to them if they want to keep this thread open. I find it rather disgusting.

 

[Rau]

You know, this thread has gone far off track. The OP DID NOT ASK FOR ANYBODY’S OPINIONS ABOUT HIS CHILDREN BEING UNBAPTIZED. He asked if he was qualified to do readings at Mass because they were not baptized. He is quite distressed, and instead of support he gets a bunch of judgmental, unsolicited, opinionated and even nasty posts about his children being unbaptized and the state of his marriage. Who do some of you people think you are??? The remark about the poster preferring to get his “warm and cozy” every night instead of getting his children baptized was totally uncalled for and one of the rudest remarks I have seen yet on CAF. A total lack of charity. I suggest people take a look at themselves and how they have treated the OP, and despite possible denials and excuses given about defending the faith, etc, this poster has been judged and chastised; furthermore, no one here has a clue about his marriage or what has transpired in it. Marriage is a holy and sacred and permanent Sacrament, and it is not to be treated as if it is somehow disposable in this situation, and we do NOT pit one Sacrament against another.

To the OP: you will get no help here, sad to say. Talk to your priest. He is the one to turn to about the whole situation. You need prayers, not unqualified and unsolicited opinions.

I have reported this thread to the moderator, it’s up to them if they want to keep this thread open. I find it rather disgusting.

The OP’s question was answered many times, and for the most part, consistently. Most threads wander, and In this case, to a more substantive matter. Personal criticism of the OP has been at a minimum.

Do you really think the OP’s distress relates just to the matter of reading at Mass??

 

[CB_Catholic]

The OP’s question was answered many times, and for the most part, consistently. Most threads wander, and In this case, to a more substantive matter. Personal criticism of the OP has been at a minimum.

Do you really think the OP’s distress relates just to the matter of reading at Mass??

No. He is distressed that his children are not yet baptized, that is what he said. He did not, however, ask anyone to comment on that–only did it disqualify him from reading. And yes, some answered the question directly. And yes, there were some rather nasty remarks, and people confusing the issue. The thread turned into a discussion of Baptism and his unbaptized children and his marriage promises. Way off track.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

You know, this thread has gone far off track. The OP DID NOT ASK FOR ANYBODY’S OPINIONS ABOUT HIS CHILDREN BEING UNBAPTIZED. He asked if he was qualified to do readings at Mass because they were not baptized. He is quite distressed, and instead of support he gets a bunch of judgmental, unsolicited, opinionated and even nasty posts about his children being unbaptized and the state of his marriage. Who do some of you people think you are??? The remark about the poster preferring to get his “warm and cozy” every night instead of getting his children baptized was totally uncalled for and one of the rudest remarks I have seen yet on CAF. A total lack of charity. I suggest people take a look at themselves and how they have treated the OP, and despite possible denials and excuses given about defending the faith, etc, this poster has been judged and chastised; furthermore, no one here has a clue about his marriage or what has transpired in it. Marriage is a holy and sacred and permanent Sacrament, and it is not to be treated as if it is somehow disposable in this situation, and we do NOT pit one Sacrament against another.

To the OP: you will get no help here, sad to say. Talk to your priest. He is the one to turn to about the whole situation. You need prayers, not unqualified and unsolicited opinions.

I have reported this thread to the moderator, it’s up to them if they want to keep this thread open. I find it rather disgusting.

This thread has been civil and quite on topic. The OP asked directly about this subject and the teaching of the Church has been discussed. Both Rau and I have debated respectfully and quite knowledgeably about the subject. I am sure Rau has no issues with what was discussed. And the OP has not complained at all, not only that but the OP answered a question I asked about the wife’s faith.

To the OP:

Your classification of your wife’s faith was ambiguous. What are her views on the purpose of baptism and how her children can be saved?

As always we will submit to the moderators direction but I feel confident that the logical and charitable discussion will be allowed to continue, even if it is a little off topic because really, it is kind of on topic.

Certainly we could open another thread to discuss the purpose and teaching of baptism and infants if need be.

 

[Elizium23]

This is technically not the way the Church decides who is a “member of a parish” It is a geographical decision, not a registration at the front desk one.

Nonetheless, if you live in a typical parish of the USA such as my own, the parish will require that you be a registered member before you can undertake any liturgical ministry there. Mine actually requires that members be active for four consecutive months, using donation envelopes on a regular basis, in order to establish Mass attendance, before volunteering in any ministry, as well as receiving sacraments, such as baptizing a child, or beginning marriage preparation, or requesting a letter of recommendation to be a sponsor, or for immigration purposes, etc. etc.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Nonetheless, if you live in a typical parish of the USA such as my own, the parish will require that you be a registered member before you can undertake any liturgical ministry there. Mine actually requires that members be active for four consecutive months, using donation envelopes on a regular basis, in order to establish Mass attendance, before volunteering in any ministry, as well as receiving sacraments, such as baptizing a child, or beginning marriage preparation, or requesting a letter of recommendation to be a sponsor, or for immigration purposes, etc. etc.

Yes, for the purposes of the subject that is true but it is important to remember that it is not the “Church” that works that way but a parish may have found that is the easiest way to do it. Now, you are fortunate to live in an area that can be so choosy about it’s ministries. Having worked in youth ministry for years I can assure you that many youth ministers are indeed NOT “members” of their employed parish. Many live outside the geographical boundary of their employment. In larger cities, perhaps MOST are technically not members where they provide ministry. They may attend, they may spend all of their time there, they may even never set foot in their “real” parish.

 

[glendab]

Hello CB.

You know, this thread has gone far off track. The OP DID NOT ASK FOR ANYBODY’S OPINIONS ABOUT HIS CHILDREN BEING UNBAPTIZED. He asked if he was qualified to do readings at Mass because they were not baptized. He is quite distressed, and instead of support he gets a bunch of judgmental, unsolicited, opinionated and even nasty posts about his children being unbaptized and the state of his marriage. Who do some of you people think you are??? The remark about the poster preferring to get his “warm and cozy” every night instead of getting his children baptized was totally uncalled for and one of the rudest remarks I have seen yet on CAF. A total lack of charity. I suggest people take a look at themselves and how they have treated the OP, and despite possible denials and excuses given about defending the faith, etc, this poster has been judged and chastised; furthermore, no one here has a clue about his marriage or what has transpired in it. Marriage is a holy and sacred and permanent Sacrament, and it is not to be treated as if it is somehow disposable in this situation, and we do NOT pit one Sacrament against another.

To the OP: you will get no help here, sad to say. Talk to your priest. He is the one to turn to about the whole situation. You need prayers, not unqualified and unsolicited opinions.

I have reported this thread to the moderator, it’s up to them if they want to keep this thread open. I find it rather disgusting.

Since I’m the one who made the “rudest comment” you ever seen here, I thought I’d remark. The comment wasn’t about the OP but to the poster who thought the comment about him having to sleep on the couch at night because he insisted on getting the children Baptized, so keep it straight. I did not say that to the OP but to someone who thought the children’s unbaptized state was an acceptable thing if it caused trouble in the marriage bed that might lead to a removal of the marital favors by one of the spouses, which BTW, in Catholic teaching isn’t a right reason for withdrawal from conjugal relations anyway.

As for all of us being as you say, judgmental I’d say your comments are the rudest and most judgmental of them all. You’ve critiqued everyone and think there is only one acceptable reply, on that seems “charitable” by your standards. To determine whether or not a statement is charitable enough one has to judge. False charity does nothing to defend the faith for a lie with much kindness is still a lie and the devil usually coats his seductions with much honey. One of the things that happen here at CAF is that when a person shares or asks a question, they do get various opinions and answers for their queries. This is true debate. If you don’t agree then you should say so with charity yourself and not with a condescending and rude attitude. If you are so easily offended perhaps you can find a tamer place to communicate your opinions.

One more thing. Defending the poor children’s need for Baptism and the true faith is exactly what is happening. Those poor children were promised Baptism by both spouses before they were even conceived. The woman had to promise to not only secure their Baptism but had to also agree to raise those children in the faith and all of this had to happen to be given the permission to marry. The fact that this has played out in a different manner says two things: she was being false in her words and actions just to get married and this is major grounds for an annulment. This is one of the exact reasons someone can get not only divorced, but annulled. She gave a false pretense. This is much more serious than simply being able to do the Readings at Mass. And since some of us have seen that and made comments regarding that sad state of things, you seem to think it would be a charity to not say a word so nothing but the Readings at Mass can get done by this man, well, sorry if I offend but more needed saying than, “Yes, you can if the Pastor says you can.”

How do you know that this isn’t going to facilitate a big change in their lives? Why do you think reminding the OP of his obligations before God to bring his offspring into the Church and hand on the faith to them is a bad thing and uncharitable? This I don’t get. Please if you can assist me in understanding that conclusion.

Glenda

 

[OraLabora]

I confess to being unclear exactly what this means. Large numbers of good people and children are not baptised - what consequence does this imply? All I can say is that I am certain no harm, no suffering befalls such a soul.

Correct, God does not punish innocent children. She did away with the concept of “limbo”.

The point I was so glibly trying to make and that so many took offence to, was that it is far better for the husband to try to win his wife over to his point of view gently and with time. To baptize them behind her back could in fact even imperil the marriage.

Would the good of the children enhanced by their parents splitting apart? I don’t think so. Would family life be enhanced by prolonged anger between the parents? I doubt it.

It’s nice to put aside common sense and be principled… when it’s someone else involved and one doesn’t have to suffer the consequences.