Splitting apart RCIA sacraments?

[thistle]

From the sounds of this, you were already Baptized so that’s a different situation than the OPs. Even so, that order is unusual. Were you confirmed by the Bishop?

The main reason children are confirmed later is that they are confirmed by the Bishop. For adults, most priests have been given the authority to Confirm. If the priest has that authority, he should not delay the Sacrament for those coming into the Church.

For the unbaptized, even children over the age of discretion, the order is the traditional one Baptism, Confirmation, then First Communion. I have seen FHC delayed for children over the age of discretion in order for them to participate in a “regular” FHC Mass with classmates. But not a delay of Confirmation.

In my group of 50 myself and one other were already baptised Methodists but the only difference was that on Easter Sunday 48 were baptised and the 2 of us us were formally accepted into the Church. The Confirmation of all 50 took place 6 months later by the Bishop.

 

[Phemie]

In my group of 50 myself and one other were already baptised Methodists but the only difference was that on Easter Sunday 48 were baptised and the 2 of us us were formally accepted into the Church. The Confirmation of all 50 took place 6 months later by the Bishop.

While the bishop needs to give a priest permission to confirm a Catholic who is not in danger of dying, it’s Canon Law which gives the priest permission to confirm an adult he baptizes or receives into full communion.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

Only if you’re a Christian being received into full communion do you make the “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God” profession of faith and you make that immediately after you recite the Nicene Creed with the entire community.

Ok, wait. So if I, for example, got baptized as as an Episcopalian, and then converted I WOULD have to say the “I believe and profess…” thing. But if I get baptized as a Catholic, then I don’t have to say that? That might actually solve my problem…

 

[Phemie]

Ok, wait. So if I, for example, got baptized as as an Episcopalian, and then converted I WOULD have to say the “I believe and profess…” thing. But if I get baptized as a Catholic, then I don’t have to say that? That might actually solve my problem…

Now you’ve got it.

But if you don’t think you can follow and believe all the teachings of the Catholic Church, why would you want to be baptized into the Catholic Church??

 

[QuasiCatholic]

But if you don’t think you can follow and believe all the teachings of the Catholic Church, why would you want to be baptized into the Catholic Church??

My boyfriend is Catholic. And presumably my kids will be Catholic (at least through First Communion, they get to decide on their own if they want to be confirmed or not, that’s our deal). And now that I’ve started regularly attending church I feel like it would be nice to belong somewhere. It’s kind of weird going to church every week and being stuck on the sidelines.

I don’t think there is any church whose beliefs fully match up with my own, though. And, say what you want about obedience to God and surrendering your will and all that, but I know there are things the Catholic church teaches that in my heart of hearts I just know are wrong. Things that, if they were really God’s will, would make me think less of God. (Sometimes my cradle Catholic boyfriend is surprised and a little disturbed to learn these things are part of his faith, too.) But at the same time, these tend to be kind of esoteric and not really something that affects me personally, so I can handle day-to-day Catholicism. But I can’t in good faith profess to believe all of it.

If I had somehow become a regular churchgoer without my boyfriend’s influence I think I probably would have ended up in the Episcopal Church eventually. But I know my boyfriend won’t switch, and I’d like us to be able to keep attending church together. So I’m just trying to figure out what the best option is given all of that.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

As I see it, my options are basically:

1. Stay unaffiliated and continue attending Catholic church.
2. Join the Catholic Church for the sake of familial harmony despite my strong objections to some teachings.
3. Join the Episcopal Church (or some other Protestant denomination) and continue attending Catholic church, but maybe pop into the other church once in a while for communion, etc.
4. Stop attending Catholic church altogether and lose out on sharing that experience with my boyfriend each week.

None of them are really a perfect solution :\

 

[thistle]

While the bishop needs to give a priest permission to confirm a Catholic who is not in danger of dying, it’s Canon Law which gives the priest permission to confirm an adult he baptizes or receives into full communion.

Forgive me but I don’t see what that has to do with my comment.

 

[Corki]

As I see it, my options are basically:

1. Stay unaffiliated and continue attending Catholic church.
2. Join the Catholic Church for the sake of familial harmony despite my strong objections to some teachings.
3. Join the Episcopal Church (or some other Protestant denomination) and continue attending Catholic church, but maybe pop into the other church once in a while for communion, etc.
4. Stop attending Catholic church altogether and lose out on sharing that experience with my boyfriend each week.

None of them are really a perfect solution :\

OR

1. continue with RCIA and perhaps come to a fuller understanding of the Church.

 

[Hopey]

I don’t think you have to become a Catholic in order to marry your boyfriend unless he has said he wants to marry a Catholic. That is probably something y’all need to discuss.

Although it is best that both are in agreement in how to raise their children, especially the faith, it doesn’t seem you want to do this. At least not all the way.

There are some misconceptions on what we teach and believe. There are areas also where Catholics can and do disagree - take immigration reform for example.

I would urge you to keep studying, asking questions, going to RCIA.

 

[Hopey]

This is a good place to clarify questions you may have about the faith and what we believe.
If you want to further explore what/why we believe certain things, this is a good place to come!
Sometimes, especially if you are getting information from the media, it will seem the Church is cold and strict.
Take our teachings about marriage being between one man, one woman. The secular world tries to make her, the Church as old, behind in the “times”, but there are reasons for this, natural first and religious tradition.
I say stay in RCIA and let us help you unpack the questions you have!

 

[Phemie]

My boyfriend is Catholic. And presumably my kids will be Catholic (at least through First Communion, they get to decide on their own if they want to be confirmed or not, that’s our deal).

Your kids will be Catholic by virtue of their baptism into the Catholic Church, not by whether or not they opt to be confirmed. Confirmation does not ‘confirm’ their Catholicism, not do they choose to be Catholic by choosing to be confirmed. A non-confirmed Catholic has the same obligations as a confirmed Catholic.

I know there are things the Catholic church teaches that in my heart of hearts I just know are wrong. Things that, if they were really God’s will, would make me think less of God. (Sometimes my cradle Catholic boyfriend is surprised and a little disturbed to learn these things are part of his faith, too.) But at the same time, these tend to be kind of esoteric and not really something that affects me personally, so I can handle day-to-day Catholicism. But I can’t in good faith profess to believe all of it.

Care to share?

I also suggest that you enroll in the RCIA in your parish and find out more about the Catholic faith. Simply enrolling does not commit you to anything. It just means that you are studying the faith. Should you decide to progress to the Catechumenate, it doesn’t mean that you have to be baptized at the next Easter Vigil, regardless of what the parish’s usual process is. Some people remain in the Catechumenate for years before they feel ready for Baptism.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

Care to share?
.

Well for example the discussion on here yesterday about impotent men not being able to marry. I was disgusted by that idea and it’s implications for the nature of marriage. I also found it inconsistent w/ other church teachings. And my cradle catholic boyfriend insisted that I was misinformed until I showed him the canon law. Think for a moment of a soldier, engaged to be married, who is deployed before the wedding and suffers a traumatic injury that renders him impotent (genital injuries have become very common due to ieds). Do you really think God would say that in addition to all that pain and injury, and the loss of any future sex life, and the loss of future biological children, God is also going to tell him that he must separate from the woman he loves? Causing both of them even more pain in the process? That he must come home to an empty house every night for the next 70 years or so because he was brave, honorable and unlucky? And that even if they did marry it would have to be a completely chaste marriage because no other form of sexual unity/gratification is allowed except for that one act? That is not my God. I don’t know how that could be anyone’s God.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

I can think of a million reasons why I find that particular idea repulsive (and a handful of similar disagreements) but primarily I see it as either a) letting The Enemy win or b) acknowledging that evil is part of God’s plan, which seems to contradict the idea of him as loving and good. That is to say, if a man is called to marriage, and the injury caused by an evil act makes that vocation impossible, we have let evil subvert God’s calling. If God actually intends all along for the man to be celibate, he is using evil himself. Which would be against the idea that he is all good all the time. But also, if you don’t have to have sex to make a marriage valid and you don’t have to be able to have children to make a marriage valid, then why does it matter if you can have sex? It’s these sort of capricious legalisms that I cannot accept

 

[Phemie]

Well for example the discussion on here yesterday about impotent men not being able to marry. I was disgusted by that idea and it’s implications for the nature of marriage. I also found it inconsistent w/ other church teachings. And my cradle catholic boyfriend insisted that I was misinformed until I showed him the canon law. Think for a moment of a soldier, engaged to be married, who is deployed before the wedding and suffers a traumatic injury that renders him impotent (genital injuries have become very common due to ieds). Do you really think God would say that in addition to all that pain and injury, and the loss of any future sex life, and the loss of future biological children, God is also going to tell him that he must separate from the woman he loves? Causing both of them even more pain in the process? That he must come home to an empty house every night for the next 70 years or so because he was brave, honorable and unlucky? And that even if they did marry it would have to be a completely chaste marriage because no other form of sexual unity/gratification is allowed except for that one act? That is not my God. I don’t know how that could be anyone’s God.

Which just goes to show a lack of understanding of marriage. Marriage is about sex and founding a family.

A couple who, after serious discernment with a spiritual advisor, agree to a josephite marriage (one that remains unconsummated) may be granted permission to marry but, once married, if one party changes his/her mind the other party MUST do his/her duty and have sex.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

A woman who has had her uterus removed has absolutely no chance of ever conceiving. Yet those marriages are valid. So clearly marriage is not about starting a family. That may be the normal way of things but it is not necessary for validity. And I do not see why someone who agrees to a sexless marriage (especially knowing that it’s not just a choice but a certainty) should be able to change their mind and “demand” anything anymore than a priest could change his mind about celibacy after his vows.

AlsoI’d like to see a source for the idea that you have a right to sex. I believe (could be wrong) that it says it’s a sin to withhold it UNJUSTLY. I’m pretty sure inability would be a just reason.

Like I said, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of consistency in how these rules are applied.