Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in MoCo and the confirmation candidates have to take notes on the homily and their thoughts on it 4 times during each "quarter" (so I think 12 times in 8th grade), plus have to volunteer at mass 2-3 times and after mass (donuts) once. I am so glad my kids are done with this.

See this seems less burdensome on me than attending (every) week at least. I’d rather go 12 times and put the burden on the kid to do notes etc.

Yes, that’s the point of a faith community, to make it the least possibly burdensome on you.

For the record, I attend Mass at least a hundred times a year and I don’t think I’ve found it burdensome a single time.

You will go straight to heaven

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a joke? Seriously? I’m not religious so it’s a serious question. I thought churches were supposed to be full of the honest people and it was the rest of us heathens who were apparently dishonest and dishonorable. I can’t even imagine being called a liar by a priest.

It's not that the priest calls people liars, just that they want proof that you're being truthful.

Missing mass is a mortal sin for Catholics, yet many do it and apparently some will even lie about it -- yet another sin.

It is a mortal sin if the person in question chooses not to go and replaces God with other activities. A kid without someone to take them or guide them is not acting with intent by missing mass. I’m always amazed at how many ‘Christians’ seem to forget the many biblical exhortations to not judge others. Frankly your making assumptions about other people, their motivations and worthiness is a grave sin in and of itself. You know what they say about people in glass houses and such!

It may not be the kid's fault, but they are still not in church and still can't get credit (for confirmation class) for being there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in MoCo and the confirmation candidates have to take notes on the homily and their thoughts on it 4 times during each "quarter" (so I think 12 times in 8th grade), plus have to volunteer at mass 2-3 times and after mass (donuts) once. I am so glad my kids are done with this.

See this seems less burdensome on me than attending (every) week at least. I’d rather go 12 times and put the burden on the kid to do notes etc.

Yes, that’s the point of a faith community, to make it the least possibly burdensome on you.

For the record, I attend Mass at least a hundred times a year and I don’t think I’ve found it burdensome a single time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a joke? Seriously? I’m not religious so it’s a serious question. I thought churches were supposed to be full of the honest people and it was the rest of us heathens who were apparently dishonest and dishonorable. I can’t even imagine being called a liar by a priest.

It's not that the priest calls people liars, just that they want proof that you're being truthful.

Missing mass is a mortal sin for Catholics, yet many do it and apparently some will even lie about it -- yet another sin.

It is a mortal sin if the person in question chooses not to go and replaces God with other activities. A kid without someone to take them or guide them is not acting with intent by missing mass. I’m always amazed at how many ‘Christians’ seem to forget the many biblical exhortations to not judge others. Frankly your making assumptions about other people, their motivations and worthiness is a grave sin in and of itself. You know what they say about people in glass houses and such!

Doubt very much that pp is Christian. It’s probably the Jew who comes on here constantly to bash Catholics.

Anonymous wrote:We live in MoCo and the confirmation candidates have to take notes on the homily and their thoughts on it 4 times during each "quarter" (so I think 12 times in 8th grade), plus have to volunteer at mass 2-3 times and after mass (donuts) once. I am so glad my kids are done with this.

See this seems less burdensome on me than attending (every) week at least. I’d rather go 12 times and put the burden on the kid to do notes etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a joke? Seriously? I’m not religious so it’s a serious question. I thought churches were supposed to be full of the honest people and it was the rest of us heathens who were apparently dishonest and dishonorable. I can’t even imagine being called a liar by a priest.

It's not that the priest calls people liars, just that they want proof that you're being truthful.

Missing mass is a mortal sin for Catholics, yet many do it and apparently some will even lie about it -- yet another sin.

It is a mortal sin if the person in question chooses not to go and replaces God with other activities. A kid without someone to take them or guide them is not acting with intent by missing mass. I’m always amazed at how many ‘Christians’ seem to forget the many biblical exhortations to not judge others. Frankly your making assumptions about other people, their motivations and worthiness is a grave sin in and of itself. You know what they say about people in glass houses and such!

Anonymous wrote:Is this a joke? Seriously? I’m not religious so it’s a serious question. I thought churches were supposed to be full of the honest people and it was the rest of us heathens who were apparently dishonest and dishonorable. I can’t even imagine being called a liar by a priest.

Where did you get the idea that Christians don't sin. The fact that we're all sinners is pretty much a central tenet of the faith.

Growing up, when we attended Mass without our parents, we had to bring home the bulletin as proof, and of course they put those out after communion.
One day, my younger brother and sister and I went on a Sunday morning and getting out of the car, my sister slammed her hand in the door. We opened the door and freed her and she wanted to go home. Oh no! My brother and I weren't coming home without that bulletin! She had to sit through mass with a swelling and color-turning hand. Turns out, my parents would have given us a pass for that, but we didn't know that when it happened, LOL
Still gets brought up occasionally! Hilarious to me and my brother, her, not so much

Anonymous wrote:Is this a joke? Seriously? I’m not religious so it’s a serious question. I thought churches were supposed to be full of the honest people and it was the rest of us heathens who were apparently dishonest and dishonorable. I can’t even imagine being called a liar by a priest.

It's not that the priest calls people liars, just that they want proof that you're being truthful.

Missing mass is a mortal sin for Catholics, yet many do it and apparently some will even lie about it -- yet another sin.

Is this a joke? Seriously? I’m not religious so it’s a serious question. I thought churches were supposed to be full of the honest people and it was the rest of us heathens who were apparently dishonest and dishonorable. I can’t even imagine being called a liar by a priest.

We live in MoCo and the confirmation candidates have to take notes on the homily and their thoughts on it 4 times during each "quarter" (so I think 12 times in 8th grade), plus have to volunteer at mass 2-3 times and after mass (donuts) once. I am so glad my kids are done with this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two thoughts: The church shouldn't deny communion to a child because their parent isn't as "good" as they would like. We don't deny children food and care because their parents aren't great. The parents are the stewards but you shouldn't punish a child for having a lousy steward.

Second: You shouldn't have to 'prove' mass attendance. It is working on the assumption that the child is a liar. Not the best set up for that kind of a scenario. I'd favor a situation where you reminded the child of their obligations, remind them that lying is wrong and expect the best. I don't think Jesus would be checking church attendance.

It's the parents' responsibility to take the child to church and the parents who would take the children (or not) to an out-of-town church when away from home, and the parents who are expected to get the signature of the priest in the other town. Thus it is the parents who are lying and driving the child to sin -- missing mass and lying.

The priest can only be in contact with any child through the child's parents and it is the parents who are trying to cheat their way to the child's communion. Do you expect the priest to ask the child if they lied for their parents?

Not a good example to the child.

So you are ok denying the sacraments to a child even when it isn't their fault? How very Christian of you.

In the situation we're discussing, the child is old enough to know that missing mass is a mortal sin. It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is - if you miss mass, you miss mass. Like if you fell down vs your parents pushed you down -- you'd still have bruises that need treatment.

Of course, even a confirmation-age child would not go to hell for parental sins that the child couldn't control, but to be a Catholic in good standing, the child would have to go to confession, go to communion and attend mass regularly.

So a 10 year old cannot partake of the sacraments unless their parents are good Catholics. I see. I guess it is important to have rules. Wouldn't want just anyone having access to this stuff would we.

No -- the 10 yo's parents don't have to be good Catholics - or Catholics at all, but the child needs to have someone who gets them to church regularly so they can fulfill their obligations.

Right because kindness and salvation should only be offered to those who meet their obligations. Totally good Christian thinking.

Absolutely standard Roman Catholic thinking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two thoughts: The church shouldn't deny communion to a child because their parent isn't as "good" as they would like. We don't deny children food and care because their parents aren't great. The parents are the stewards but you shouldn't punish a child for having a lousy steward.

Second: You shouldn't have to 'prove' mass attendance. It is working on the assumption that the child is a liar. Not the best set up for that kind of a scenario. I'd favor a situation where you reminded the child of their obligations, remind them that lying is wrong and expect the best. I don't think Jesus would be checking church attendance.

It's the parents' responsibility to take the child to church and the parents who would take the children (or not) to an out-of-town church when away from home, and the parents who are expected to get the signature of the priest in the other town. Thus it is the parents who are lying and driving the child to sin -- missing mass and lying.

The priest can only be in contact with any child through the child's parents and it is the parents who are trying to cheat their way to the child's communion. Do you expect the priest to ask the child if they lied for their parents?

Not a good example to the child.

So you are ok denying the sacraments to a child even when it isn't their fault? How very Christian of you.

In the situation we're discussing, the child is old enough to know that missing mass is a mortal sin. It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is - if you miss mass, you miss mass. Like if you fell down vs your parents pushed you down -- you'd still have bruises that need treatment.

Of course, even a confirmation-age child would not go to hell for parental sins that the child couldn't control, but to be a Catholic in good standing, the child would have to go to confession, go to communion and attend mass regularly.

So a 10 year old cannot partake of the sacraments unless their parents are good Catholics. I see. I guess it is important to have rules. Wouldn't want just anyone having access to this stuff would we.

No -- the 10 yo's parents don't have to be good Catholics - or Catholics at all, but the child needs to have someone who gets them to church regularly so they can fulfill their obligations.

Right because kindness and salvation should only be offered to those who meet their obligations. Totally good Christian thinking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two thoughts: The church shouldn't deny communion to a child because their parent isn't as "good" as they would like. We don't deny children food and care because their parents aren't great. The parents are the stewards but you shouldn't punish a child for having a lousy steward.

Second: You shouldn't have to 'prove' mass attendance. It is working on the assumption that the child is a liar. Not the best set up for that kind of a scenario. I'd favor a situation where you reminded the child of their obligations, remind them that lying is wrong and expect the best. I don't think Jesus would be checking church attendance.

It's the parents' responsibility to take the child to church and the parents who would take the children (or not) to an out-of-town church when away from home, and the parents who are expected to get the signature of the priest in the other town. Thus it is the parents who are lying and driving the child to sin -- missing mass and lying.

The priest can only be in contact with any child through the child's parents and it is the parents who are trying to cheat their way to the child's communion. Do you expect the priest to ask the child if they lied for their parents?

Not a good example to the child.

So you are ok denying the sacraments to a child even when it isn't their fault? How very Christian of you.

In the situation we're discussing, the child is old enough to know that missing mass is a mortal sin. It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is - if you miss mass, you miss mass. Like if you fell down vs your parents pushed you down -- you'd still have bruises that need treatment.

Of course, even a confirmation-age child would not go to hell for parental sins that the child couldn't control, but to be a Catholic in good standing, the child would have to go to confession, go to communion and attend mass regularly.

So a 10 year old cannot partake of the sacraments unless their parents are good Catholics. I see. I guess it is important to have rules. Wouldn't want just anyone having access to this stuff would we.

No -- the 10 yo's parents don't have to be good Catholics - or Catholics at all, but the child needs to have someone who gets them to church regularly so they can fulfill their obligations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two thoughts: The church shouldn't deny communion to a child because their parent isn't as "good" as they would like. We don't deny children food and care because their parents aren't great. The parents are the stewards but you shouldn't punish a child for having a lousy steward.

Second: You shouldn't have to 'prove' mass attendance. It is working on the assumption that the child is a liar. Not the best set up for that kind of a scenario. I'd favor a situation where you reminded the child of their obligations, remind them that lying is wrong and expect the best. I don't think Jesus would be checking church attendance.

It's the parents' responsibility to take the child to church and the parents who would take the children (or not) to an out-of-town church when away from home, and the parents who are expected to get the signature of the priest in the other town. Thus it is the parents who are lying and driving the child to sin -- missing mass and lying.

The priest can only be in contact with any child through the child's parents and it is the parents who are trying to cheat their way to the child's communion. Do you expect the priest to ask the child if they lied for their parents?

Not a good example to the child.

So you are ok denying the sacraments to a child even when it isn't their fault? How very Christian of you.

In the situation we're discussing, the child is old enough to know that missing mass is a mortal sin. It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is - if you miss mass, you miss mass. Like if you fell down vs your parents pushed you down -- you'd still have bruises that need treatment.

Of course, even a confirmation-age child would not go to hell for parental sins that the child couldn't control, but to be a Catholic in good standing, the child would have to go to confession, go to communion and attend mass regularly.

So a 10 year old cannot partake of the sacraments unless their parents are good Catholics. I see. I guess it is important to have rules. Wouldn't want just anyone having access to this stuff would we.