Baptism before first communion

dahamsta

Apologies if this has been asked before, I have searched but I'm browsing on my phone, which makes it a bit tricky!

Note that this is a technical question and I'd appreciate a technical answer or none at all:

If my child is not baptised now but decides later (for good reason, obviously) that they want first communion, can they be baptised beforehand? I'd so, what is required and how far in advance do they need to make the decision? Similarly, what happens if they get as far as confirmation without baptism or communion?

(They can figure out marriage themselves if they get that far. )

Thanks,
Adam

Onesimus

Baptism must precede confession and then confession precedes Holy Communion and then you have confirmation.

Nobody can reach confirmation without first going through Baptism, confession and Holy Communion.

It depends also what age your child is. If he/she is at the age of reason now between 7-8 years old then there would be some preperation done beforehand known as RCIA for kids, usually RCIA is for adults but they have one for children I would think, so your best approach instead of this forum would be your local parish Catholic Priest as each parish is different to the next with regards to how they go about these things.

So you see, your child after having been baptised must go through the steps to understand the Sacrament he/she is receiving.

That is how it is done in the Roman rite parishes.

georgieporgy

A person can convert and be baptised at any age.

Onesimus

georgieporgy wrote: »

A person can convert and be baptised at any age.

Yes I just read my post and it looked like I was saying ''it depends on what age your child is as to whether or he or she can be baptised''

But I was simply saying the steps in which she would go through would be a lot faster depending upon her age.

But yes Children ( or anyone ) can be baptised whenever or whereever but the Church does encourage baptism from infancy.

georgieporgy

Agreed Onesimus. I think we both posted at the same time but you got the number 2 slot.

Onesimus

georgieporgy wrote: »

Agreed Onesimus. I think we both posted at the same time but you got the number 2 slot.

Yeah that would explain it. I thought you were adding to my post as if I had missed something.

dahamsta

I appreciate the responses but they're a bit short on factual information. I know a person can be baptised at any time, but what's the procedure? What does "RCIA" mean? /Is/ there a path for kids, or is that speculation? What are the timelines?

I accept that parishes are different and I will consult the local priest, after I've talked to the local school, but I'm looking more for technical facts. The church must have a position on this, that's what I'm trying to find out.

Going to the priest is all well and good, but it'll be no good to me if he pops his clogs in the meantime. Given the makeup of the church these days, that's a lot more likely now than it used to be.

"Now" was intended to imply that the child is a baby, since that's generally when children are baptised.

The Quadratic Equation

dahamsta wrote: »

I appreciate the responses but they're a bit short on factual information. I know a person can be baptised at any time, but what's the procedure? What does "RCIA" mean? /Is/ there a path for kids, or is that speculation? What are the timelines?

"The Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (often abbreviated RCIA) is the process through which interested adults and older children are gradually introduced to the Roman Catholic faith and way of life. Children who were not baptised as infants are also initiated through an adapted process of this rite."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rite_of_Christian_Initiation_of_Adults

dahamsta wrote: »

If my child is not baptised now but decides later (for good reason, obviously) that they want first communion, can they be baptised beforehand?

- Yes

dahamsta wrote: »

I'd so, what is required and how far in advance do they need to make the decision?

I would imagine the Child would need a few basic catechism lessons to catch up on anything they might have missed, and so they have an understanding of first communion, as for duration/format etc. best to check with a Priest you can identify with / find approachable. The tinternet will probably have too many conflicting opinions.

dahamsta wrote: »

Similarly, what happens if they get as far as confirmation without baptism or communion?

Again I would imagine it would be a matter of catching up on on anything they might have missed, being baptised, making first communion etc., again as for duration / requirements etc. best to check with Priest.

On a side note, the Catholic belief is that it can be known without doubt, that any child that dies after receiving baptism, and before they are old enough to know right from wrong, goes straight to heaven/eternal life, it cannot be known by us what happens those children who die before they are baptised, that will be up to the infinite mercy of God. This of course means they could also be perfectly fine, it's just that we don't know for sure, thats all. I appreciate you may not want to have been told that, and what you do in the case of your child is of course your own business, but I would feel that to be fair I should let you know this straight, rather than try to sugar coat it in any way, or not mention it.

Personally, in my opinion, I think it might be more straight forward for you, if the child had a low key baptism now, and then let them decide at first communion time if they wish to participate further or not, but of course that is entirely up to you. I suggest this method, as I believe that is somewhat in line with your own thinking. Again probably best to talk it over with a Priest and then decide what you prefer.

Peregrinus

In practical reality, there’s a bit of a gap between infant baptism and the baptism of adults.

Infants and young children are baptized in the expectation that they will be brought up and formed in the faith by their families. Adults are expected to make a conversion decision themselves, and to undergo at least some degree of formation in the RCIA process before being baptized.

In between, there’s a bit of a gap. If in fact a child has been brought up in the faith, and has received Christian formation appropriate to his or her age and development, there’s no difficulty about baptizing that child in the expectation that this will continue. But in fact there would not be many instances where this happens, since a family wishing to bring up their child as a (Catholic) Christian will want to have him baptized in infancy, and it’s rare for this not to be possible. A much more usual state of affairs is of parent who have an, um, semi-detached relationship to Christianity. The immediate reason why they may want their child baptized may be that he has reached first communion age, and they don’t want to separate him from his friends and classmates, or they want to send the child to a Catholic school. But very often there are wider and deeper reasons, even if the parents cannot fully articulate them.

This presents a difficult pastoral problem, since the child shouldn’t be baptized unless there is at least a well-founded hope that they will be formed in the faith by their families. Agreeing that the child will participate in sacramental preparation for first communion is not really enough. So the parents will need to explore why they want their child baptized, and what this means, and in particular what kind of a commitment on their part it means, and whether they are willing to make it.

As children grow up, the primary focus shifts from parents and family to the children themselves. In the case of (say) a 16-year old, the question is no longer do the parents want their child baptized, and are they ready to make the necessary commitments, but does the young person want to be baptized, and is he ready to make the necessary commitment? But the structures set up to support this - RCIA - are really aimed at adults, and most teenagers wouldn’t find an RCIA process aimed at adults very supportive or relevant. I suppose it’s possible that there may be RCIA groups aimed at teenagers and young adults, but not many. In many cases the interested teenager will be encouraged to participate in the church as a catechumen, but to defer a commitment to baptism until they are of an age and state of development to participate fully in the RCIA process.

I‘ll just quibble with one thing that Onesimus says. If you are baptized in infancy, then the usual sacramental sequence is baptism, first reconciliation (at age 7), first eucharist (at age 8), confirmation (at age 11). But if you go through the RCIA process, or a similar process aimed at adolescents, the sequence is baptism, confirmation, eucharist (usually all three on the same occasion, and in that order) followed some time afterswards by first reconciliation. Baptism being effective for the remission of sins, a person who has just been baptized can immediately proceed to receive any other sacrament for which they have been prepared. They can’t make their first reconciliation, however, until they have sinned after baptism and, for obvious reasons, there is no time limit set for this.

dahamsta

Thanks for the info Quadratic Equation. I'll have a look through the references on Wikipedia to see if someone can shed more light on the "incorrectly referred" RCIC. (Dear Wikipedia author, if that's not correct, what is!? :rolleyes: )

I don't believe in "heaven" or "eternal life", so I'm not concerned about that. And while I can understand that the path of least resistance is to baptise the child as future-proofing, I don't think that's the right way to go about things. (If our children behaved that way, we wouldn't accept it.)

They can make that decision later if they wish, which is why I'm trying to sort this out now.

dahamsta

Also thanks Peregrinus for such a detailed post.

In part, it's the "you must practice our religion for your children to practice our religion" I object to, as well of course as the "you must baptise your oblivious child into our religion if you don't want them to feel left out in our schools later". We criticise Scientology for doing the same type of things, and I don't find it acceptable in this circumstance either, even if Christianity is 2000 years old and Christianity's L. Ron Hubbard's "sins" have been entirely scrubbed from the record.

If my child decides to go to church then I'll take them and I'll answer any questions they have as best I can, but I won't worship alongside them. I'll continue to do what I've always done in church, including at the Catholic wedding I didn't really want to have* -- admire the architecture that good people's money was spent on, and daydream, as respectfully as I can. And fume, probably.

Anyway, I've gone all philosophical now and that's not really why I'm here, so apologies for that. If anyone has any further technical info to add, please do.

Adam


* I wanted, and continue to want to spend the rest of my life with my partner. I just didn't like having the church involved. My wife convinced that that it was best for the kid(s), and I let it slide because I love her. This time, I'm putting more work into finding evidence that it's not. While still loving her.

tommy2bad

In part, it's the "you must practice our religion for your children to practice our religion" I object to, as well of course as the "you must baptise your oblivious child into our religion if you don't want them to feel left out in our schools later". We criticise Scientology for doing the same type of things, and I don't find it acceptable in this circumstance either, even if Christianity is 2000 years old and Christianity's L. Ron Hubbard's "sins" have been entirely scrubbed from the record.

Thats a serious misrepresentation of an excellent response to your question?
I suggest to you that your stance regarding the RCC would be a serious hindrance to infant baptism and would council you against it.
When the child is old enough to decide for themselves they can act accordingly.
You don't believe but somehow think that your child will want or be pressured into first communion. Then it's up to you to deal with that when it happens or not as I don't think your alone in your position and might find that the expected peer pressure never materializes.
Of course SAF might come into play, Oh if only it was just like buying a 50 inch tv.

dahamsta

If you'd like to rephrase your post in a less patronising manner, I'd be happy to reply.

Peregrinus

dahamsta wrote: »

In part, it's the "you must practice our religion for your children to practice our religion" I object to, as well of course as the "you must baptise your oblivious child into our religion if you don't want them to feel left out in our schools later".

I have to disagree with you on both of these, I think.

Catholicism sees Christianity is a faith which must be lived both communally and invididually. Thus you don’t just have individual Christians; you have Christian communities of every scale - including Christian families.

In that context, the notion that a couple of nonbelieving parents would baptize their child and say “he’s a Christian; we’re not” makes no sense at all. If they don’t want to be Christians with him, then they don’t want him to be a Christian, in the sense that Catholicism understands Christianity. And if the parents don’t want their child be a Christian as the Catholic church understands Christianity, why on earth would we expect the Catholic church to baptize their child?

You can criticize - strongly criticize - the Catholic church for failing to live up to its vision of Christianity. What you cannot reasonably do is to object to the Catholic church for failing to live up to your vision of Christianity - or, more accurately, to a vision of Christianity which you don’t hold yourself, but which you would like the Catholic church to hold.

As for “you must baptize your child in our religion if you don’t want him to feel out of place in our schools”, I don’t see any way around this. If you send your non-Christian child to a Christian school, he is going to feel out of place, because he does not share the Christian identity which characterizes the school, the school community and most of its members. It’s a bit like sending your Anglophone child to a French-speaking school, and expecting him not to feel out of place. It’s entirely unrealistic.

I think you can legitimately feel richly cheesed off if you want to send your child to a non-religious school, but have to send him to a Catholic school, because nothing else is available. Within reason, you are entitled to the kind of education you want for your child, and I think in modern Irish conditions it is reasonable in most places to expect non-Catholic education to be available. And you can, I think, criticize the Catholic church for the dominance it has exercised, and continues to exercise, over the state education system.

But, fundamentally, the responsibility to provide your child with a non-religious education does not and cannot lie with the Catholic church, and you shouldn’t feel upset that the Catholic church is not providing the non-Christian school that you legitimately want. You should feel upset that the state isn’t providing it.

dahamsta

Fair points, but as you say, in modern Ireland choice is limited. Laying blame (at a personal level, rather than institutional or governmental) isn't going to fix it and neither is waiting. Sadly, it is as it is and I need to deal with that as best I can. That's why I'm asking.

I'm afraid your initial comments just validate my view of the church though. Your overview suggests that the church believes a child has no decision-making abilities; or worse, should have none. Like I said, if my child wants to go to church, and can give me a somewhat reasonable explanation for why, then I'll take them. I don't see why that means I have to have the same beliefs as them; and I don't see how I could, given that my belief systems are grounded in facts and evidence.

I appreciate your comment though, I hope you realise I'm not being personally critical. Other people seem to have trouble separating general commentary with personal.

ISAW

dahamsta wrote: »

Fair points, but as you say, in modern Ireland choice is limited. Laying blame (at a personal level, rather than institutional or governmental) isn't going to fix it and neither is waiting. Sadly, it is as it is and I need to deal with that as best I can. That's why I'm asking.

While the influences on people might be more complex and the choices be difficult choice is not limited! You chose to believe or not!

I'm afraid your initial comments just validate my view of the church though. Your overview suggests that the church believes a child has no decision-making abilities; or worse, should have none.

The Church, Society and a whole lot of other structures (football teams, banks, schools hospitals, ...) all believe children are not as developed as adults.

Like I said, if my child wants to go to church, and can give me a somewhat reasonable explanation for why, then I'll take them. I don't see why that means I have to have the same beliefs as them; and I don't see how I could, given that my belief systems are grounded in facts and evidence.

I agree with you. It wold be difficult however for you to go to a Man City end of the ground if you follow United or allow your child to vote for a democratic government if you believe in a totalitarian dictatorship though would it not?

I appreciate your comment though, I hope you realise I'm not being personally critical. Other people seem to have trouble separating general commentary with personal.

Fair enough but the thing is your personal beliefs are yours but the dogmatic beliefs of the church whether in a family or not are non negotiable e.g. they believe in God . If you dont they dont compromise on that.

Peregrinus

dahamsta wrote: »

I'm afraid your initial comments just validate my view of the church though. Your overview suggests that the church believes a child has no decision-making abilities; or worse, should have none. Like I said, if my child wants to go to church, and can give me a somewhat reasonable explanation for why, then I'll take them. I don't see why that means I have to have the same beliefs as them; and I don't see how I could, given that my belief systems are grounded in facts and evidence.

It’s not really your child that is seeking baptism, is it? It’s you that is seeking baptism for your child. So the issue here is not your child’s decision-making capacity.

Bear in mind that the Catholic church mostly baptizes infants, so clearly the lack of a decision-making capacity is not an impediment to baptism.

But, as I set out in my first post, there is a fundamental difference between infant baptism and the baptism of adults, and that difference is based on an understanding of human development that I think most people would share. While the baptism of adults can and must be based on a personal commitment, the baptism of infants - if you’re going to celebrate it at all, which is a whole ‘nother question - clearly cannot be. It must have another basis, and that basis is participation in the Catholic community, including a Catholic family.

There’s a legitimate debate to be had over the age or state of development at which it becomes appropriate to focus on the commitment of the individual as a basis for baptism, but presumably your chilld is seven or eight, and very few people would accept that a seven or eight year old was capable of the kind of commitment which is a necessary foundation for adult baptism. We therefore come back to the question of whether your child has the kind of participation in Catholic life that would support infant baptism. And the answer, fairly clearly, is no. Your being willing to accompany the child to church, if she wishes to go, is nothing like the kind of participation which would provide a basis for baptism.

I appreciate that this is not the answer you want, but I don’t think it’s an answer that you are entitled to resent. In Christian thinking, baptism is a hugely significant step, and not one to be undertaken lightly. And, obviously, it is reasonable for Christians to base their baptismal practice on what they think about baptism, rather than on what you think about it.

I appreciate the dilemma you’re in. For better or worse, your child goes to a Catholic school, and now feels marginalized because she is not a Catholic. She’s not a Catholic because she has been raised by you in accordance with your own beliefs and values, and you’re not Catholics.

As I said before, if she’s in a Catholic school because you have no other choice, you are probably entitled to feel a degree of resentment over that.

But I think you also need to recognize that you are, in Irish society, a minority. And if you raise your child in accordance with your own beliefs and values she too is likely to be in a minority, at least for the foreseeable future. Even if the education system ceases to be dominated by the Catholic church - and there are certainly promising moves afoot - it’s still likely to be the case that not every minority will always have access to a school of the character they want, and that in other ways minorities will have to accommodate to the realities of what it is to be a minority.

In other words, your daughter could escape the consequences of being in a minority if (in this instance) she became Catholic. But perhaps you hope to raise her with values which include the idea that conformity to the expectations of others is not always a good thing, and that the inconvenience of being in a minority is sometimes a price worth paying. She is still at an age where her beliefs are absorbed primarily from you, and I doubt that her wanting to become a Catholic at the age of seven or eight is evidence of a startling maturity and independence of thought. It’s far more likely to be a desire to join her schoolmates in a big and special celebration. Think about the signal you send her if you appear to condone or approve her abandoning the beliefs you have given her in order to conform to the expectations of her classmates, and to reap the rewards of conformity.

dahamsta

He's 4 months, I'm planning ahead.

Perhaps by the time he's 5 all will be resolved and the catholic church will be out of the business, but I think we know that's pretty unlikely. It's going to be slow going, and I need to plan for his education. I am not going to be one of those parents that deals with the problem a month before he's due to start school.

We're going to visit the local school - catholic, I can see it out my window - to find out what their policies are, and we'll visit the local priest after that, but I remain annoyed - albeit not surprised - by the policies of the church. They're simply abusive imho, designed to recruit, recruit, recruit. I find it disgusting.

Peregrinus

dahamsta wrote: »

We're going to visit the local school - catholic, I can see it out my window - to find out what their policies are, and we'll visit the local priest after that, but I remain annoyed - albeit not surprised - by the policies of the church. They're simply abusive imho, designed to recruit, recruit, recruit. I find it disgusting.

And yet you want to have your child baptised?

No offence, dahamsta, but is there not a certain inconsistency there? You object to the church trying to recruit, and yet you're pissed off because they won't recruit your child?

georgieporgy

Fair play to you for forward thinking Adam. It's good you are engaging with this now and giving it some thought.

Would you mind sharing with us what are Eve's views on the subject . Is she quite keen on the catholic education bit and nudging you along, or is she stepping back and waiting to see how it all plays out. Does she have no opinion or a very strong opinion. Tricky things these mixed marriages....

dahamsta

Peregrinus wrote: »

And yet you want to have your child baptised?

No, I don't. How can that not be clear at this point?

You object to the church trying to recruit, and yet you're pissed off because they won't recruit your child?

Who said anything about them recruiting my child, or not recuiting my child? I think you might be reading between the lines, which is kind of a waste of time because I don't write between them.

georgieporgy wrote: »

Fair play to you for forward thinking Adam. It's good you are engaging with this now and giving it some thought.

Yikes, positivity! (Thanks.)

Would you mind sharing with us what are Eve's views on the subject .

Same as mine, albeit more cautious. Doesn't particularly want a christening, but wants to be sure babs gets to go to a local school and has a full education when it comes to religion in the classroom context.

It's not a mixed marriage, unless you consider a non-practicing catholic and an organised-religion-hater a mixed marriage. (If you want to label me, I'd probably be called a humanist, but I just believe in facts and science and don't subscribe to any particular grouping.)

I know what a mixed marriage is like for the catholic church when it rules the roost though, my mother was treated like absolute crap by them when she wanted to marry my father. A charming bishop that one.

TravelJunkie

Hi, You sound in a dilemma. But I think your issue goes a little deeper than baptism. Because, at this point the baby doesn't know better. And, the child won't know better until later on.

So, the real question is, when your child comes to you and asks you, who is God? What will you say?
Now, are you really going to leave it up to the child? Or are you going to say - there is no God?
If you are being true to yourself, and think that you are going to say something like - the bible/church says that God is the beginning of everything and creator of the world and our saviour, but I'm not too sure about it, and you need to read about it when you're older - then bravo.
In that instance, you need to make a decision - what kind of path would you want to see your child take. I suppose, you might think, in order to please your wife/partner, yes, why object to the baptism? Because, if the child does choose to believe, then there's no extra fuss to carrying out the rest of the sacraments.

So really, the big problem is trying to explain your very grown up beliefs to a small child, because as soon as they can talk they are asking about God. Mine did - I think we're wired that way.

x

georgieporgy

dahamsta wrote: »

Same as mine, albeit more cautious. Doesn't particularly want a christening, but wants to be sure babs gets to go to a local school and has a full education when it comes to religion in the classroom context.

It's not a mixed marriage, unless you consider a non-practicing catholic and an organised-religion-hater a mixed marriage. (If you want to label me, I'd probably be called a humanist, but I just believe in facts and science and don't subscribe to any particular grouping.)

I know what a mixed marriage is like for the catholic church when it rules the roost though, my mother was treated like absolute crap by them when she wanted to marry my father. A charming bishop that one.

Seeing as you are a non catholic and your wife is a non practising catholic then you do not have grounds for requesting baptism for your child.It would not be fair to him. It would just be a sham baptism and serve no useful purpose. Attending catholic school as a pretend catholic wouldn't do your kid any good. Likewise lining up for first communion when the time comes would all be a charade. You will find that the school wants practising catholics not just baptised catholics.

The child can still attend the school. Simply be open and above board with the enrolment process. Expect to pay a little more than the regular parishionor because the local church supplements the school fees on behalf of its members . This supplement comes out of the sunday collection that all churchgoers contribute to throughout their life.

In other words tell the school you (even though not catholics)would like to enroll your child there because 1. it's local, and 2. it's a good school and you prefer it over the alternatives available in your area.

You would have to be happy with your child absorbing christianity through osmosis. It's more than learning religion as a subject, it's a way of life.

On a side note, if you like poetry and would like to know more about your Opponent, this might interest you;

http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/HNDHVN.HTM

dahamsta

I have to stop after the first sentence. First of all I never said I was a non-catholic, in fact I specifically said earlier in the thread that I haven't defected from the church yet in case it affects my kids. And secondly the thread is very specifically about baptism at a later date. It's right there in the first post.

I'm not replying to or even reading any more posts from people that obviously haven't bothered their arse reading the thread, or even the first post. You're just wasting my time, and your own, and your commentary is worthless to me if you can't do that simple thing.

Since it seems there isn't actually a technical answer to my question, which is typical of catholicism, I'm just going to leave it there unless anyone comes back with solid factual evidence. You know, like in science.

gigino

dahamsta wrote: »

Note that this is a technical question and I'd appreciate a technical answer or none at all:

If my child is not baptised now but decides later (for good reason, obviously) that they want first communion, can they be baptised beforehand?

yes. No matter what denomination of Christianity they decide.

Be warned however if you send them to a Roman Catholic school, it is likely the RCC will attempt to indoctrinate them in to the RCC faith.

dahamsta

gigino wrote: »

yes. No matter what denomination of Christianity they decide.

Thank you. Do you have any answers to my follow-up questions:

If so, what is required and how far in advance do they need to make the decision? Similarly, what happens if they get as far as confirmation without baptism or communion?

Be warned however if you send them to a Roman Catholic school, it is likely the RCC will attempt to indoctrinate them in to the RCC faith.

While some of them are certainly notorious, I don't believe it's fair to the schools to apply that standard across the board. From what I've heard, some church-operated schools are very, uh, "liberal".

lmaopml

dahamsta wrote: »

I have to stop after the first sentence. First of all I never said I was a non-catholic, in fact I specifically said earlier in the thread that I haven't defected from the church yet in case it affects my kids. And secondly the thread is very specifically about baptism at a later date. It's right there in the first post.

I'm not replying to or even reading any more posts from people that obviously haven't bothered their arse reading the thread, or even the first post. You're just wasting my time, and your own, and your commentary is worthless to me if you can't do that simple thing.

Since it seems there isn't actually a technical answer to my question, which is typical of catholicism, I'm just going to leave it there unless anyone comes back with solid factual evidence. You know, like in science.

When you baptise your child you're promising to bring them up in faith, your child will most likely thank you for not being a hypocrite if you learn this later on...

This is very simple.

You are either a person of faith or one that is not of faith - you can fool anybody anywhere here, and play politics, but simply speaking if you want to change things, and feel strongly, than I suggest being able to say 'no' - and be yourself, and get active for change in your community to see that your child gets the education you in particular would like....The world didn't fall into place for you when you landed on it.

Most parents have to learn this ability once or twice along the way of bringing up their children, the ability to be who they are, and also to say 'no' to them every now and then, and 'no' to the status quo - it's not a new concept.

Ask any Catholic.

dahamsta

Be more condescending. Do you need a hand down off that horse?

lmaopml

dahamsta wrote: »

Be more condescending. Do you need a hand down off that horse?

I'm not trying to be condescending, just real. Believe it or not, the world didn't just fall into place when I decided what I would like it to be either...

That's not condescending, that's truth!

Look, the world is your oyster, shape it, make it, but don't land on it expecting it to fit you perfectly all the time...

Best of luck with your little one.....You want the best for them, I don't blame you for that - not at all...

a little get up and go, doesn't go amiss...

tommy2bad

dahamsta wrote: »

Be more condescending. Do you need a hand down off that horse?

Be a little less offensive and you might get some help, actually you got a good answer and just came back whining.

dahamsta

It was condescending garbage. If you think it was a good answer you need your eyes tested.

tommy2bad wrote: »

dahamsta wrote: »

Be more condescending. Do you need a hand down off that horse?

Be a little less offensive and you might get some help, actually you got a good answer and just came back whining.

PDN

I think the OP has had their question answered.