Age at Confirmation

  • Thread starter Thread starter davidosb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think (and I’m sorry if I’m repeating any or all of this!) that the sacrament ought to be given younger rather than older. Not only does this more accurately reflect the sacramental reality of Confirmation (as opposed to our perceptions of it), but it gives young Catholics at least a chance at a more solid foundation in their faith. I think that society challenges our beliefs and practices much earlier in life than it ever has, and there’s enough blame to go around in that regard.

But I think it is a mistake to insist that a Catholic be “fully prepared” to embrace their responses and responsibilities to the sacramental grace that Confirmation imparts. Both Baptism and Confirmation must be viewed through the “lens” of the Holy Eucharist and our communion. And speaking of Holy Communion, if we also insisted that Catholics (of any age) be “fully prepared” to receive that most precious sacrament, I have a feeling few of us ever would. 🙂 Grace perfects us; why not receive it sooner and then grow in preparation/understanding/etc. as we are nourished by grace?
 
guanophore said:
Yes, but I am also aware that the bishop requires that each candidate write a letter to the bishop, explaining why they want the sacrament. .
Click to expand...
Not every bishop, in every diocese, demands a letter before confirming. The bishop can expect the pastor to make sure the confirmand is ready to receive, and it is the pastor who presents the confirmands for confirmation in the West.
40.png
guanophore:
I take my viewpoint from the liturgy of confirmation (the rite) where it asks the candidate their intentions, reasons, and commitment. If the candidate is not willing to take on those responsibilities, then I think they are not ready. I grieve over the “waste” of this beautiful sacrament on young people who really don’t care, I have seen a number of them go through the confirmation classes. They are there to keep their parents off their back, and because they beleive they won’t have to come to ccd anymore once they get confirmed. It is very sad.

Could you show me where the bishop asks the confirmands to state their intentions in the rite? As far as I know, the only thing asked of the confirmands at the ceremony is the same baptismal promises made in baptism. The bishop traditionally asked the confirmands some catechism questions, but even that isn’t always done, and is not necessarily part of the rite.

I agree, a person of a certain age should not be forced to be confirmed. However, if the sacrament were kept in its proper place immediately after baptism, it’s my opinion these young people would have the grace through the sealing of baptism by confirmation to live better it today’s world.
 
guanophore said:
In the early days of the church, everyone who joined was an adult, or a child that was brought by a parent. In the early centuries, the catechesis took about three years before the sacraments of initiation. One reason for this long period of instruction was to make sure they were not being infiltrated by spies who were working for persecutors. Anyway, since Jesus said “suffer the children to come unto me” and confirmation is one of the sacraments of initiation, it was never separated from baptism. In the beginning there was always a bishop available, but as the church spread, the bishop had to travel to preside and recieve converts. Priests and deacons could baptize and administer communion, so they were given to children, but it took longer for the bishop to make the rounds, so confirmation got separated out. At least, that is what I read in my church history book. 🙂

Yes, but I am also aware that the bishop requires that each candidate write a letter to the bishop, explaining why they want the sacrament. I take my viewpoint from the liturgy of confirmation (the rite) where it asks the candidate their intentions, reasons, and commitment. If the candidate is not willing to take on those responsibilities, then I think they are not ready. I grieve over the “waste” of this beautiful sacrament on young people who really don’t care, I have seen a number of them go through the confirmation classes. They are there to keep their parents off their back, and because they beleive they won’t have to come to ccd anymore once they get confirmed. It is very sad.
Click to expand...
Exactly…i for one was definately not aware of the enormity [and beauty] of the sacrament i was partaking in when i received confirmation. This is sad…had i been older i would have been better prepared. Could anybody out there please explain to me whether the age of confirmation is ‘fixed’ at sixteen forever…just wondering ?!
 
I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with Confirmation being older (although it doesn’t make much theological sense to me), as long as the proper order of the Sacraments of Initiation were maintained. I honestly never understood why Catholics were able to receive the Eucharist when they weren’t technically “full” members of the Church. Why bother even getting confirmed if you’re already receiving the Eucharist anyway?
 
THutch04 said:
I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with Confirmation being older (although it doesn’t make much theological sense to me), as long as the proper order of the Sacraments of Initiation were maintained. I honestly never understood why Catholics were able to receive the Eucharist when they weren’t technically “full” members of the Church. Why bother even getting confirmed if you’re already receiving the Eucharist anyway?
Click to expand...
Precisely…also can anybody out there there must be one brain box somewhere!] please tell me how confirmation came about in the first place ; is it biblically based ?
 
Without going into quoting and driving everybody nuts quoting their own stuff back at them ('cause that’s hard to do for what might turn out to be a long read):

1.) The first premise of being Catholic is that we are based on Tradition, with a capital T, as well as Scripture. So, when it comes to “Where is it in the Bible?” that doesn’t necessarily play with us. We also rely on the early Church fathers and the guidance of Tradition for this.
2.) Catholics are not exactly into quoting one verse out of context.
3.) That being said, the first Confirmation was the Apostles on Pentecost, in the beginning of Acts, Chapters 1 and 2.

You can read the other posts above for more on the history of confirmation.

This is my point on Confirmation: It is not a sacrament of maturity, in the sense the person being confirmed must have a “stand up for Jesus” moment. The CCC clearly states that it is the action of the bishop, who administrates the sacrament, and not that of those being confirmed.

Further, the CCC says:

Although Confirmation is sometimes called the “sacrament of Christian maturity,” we must not confuse adult faith with the adult age of natural growth, nor forget that the baptismal grace is a grace of free, unmerited election and does not need “ratification” to become effective. St. Thomas reminds us of this:
  • Age of body does not determine age of soul. Even in childhood man can attain spiritual maturity: as the book of Wisdom says: “For old age is not honored for length of time, or measured by number of years.” Many children, through the strength of the Holy Spirit they have received, have bravely fought for Christ even to the shedding of their blood.126
    I don’t understand what you mean by “brain box”. The history of Confirmation is quoted in the above posts.
 
OutinChgoburbs said:
Without going into quoting and driving everybody nuts quoting their own stuff back at them ('cause that’s hard to do for what might turn out to be a long read):

1.) The first premise of being Catholic is that we are based on Tradition, with a capital T, as well as Scripture. So, when it comes to “Where is it in the Bible?” that doesn’t necessarily play with us. We also rely on the early Church fathers and the guidance of Tradition for this.
2.) Catholics are not exactly into quoting one verse out of context.
3.) That being said, the first Confirmation was the Apostles on Pentecost, in the beginning of Acts, Chapters 1 and 2.

You can read the other posts above for more on the history of confirmation.

This is my point on Confirmation: It is not a sacrament of maturity, in the sense the person being confirmed must have a “stand up for Jesus” moment. The CCC clearly states that it is the action of the bishop, who administrates the sacrament, and not that of those being confirmed.

Further, the CCC says:

Although Confirmation is sometimes called the “sacrament of Christian maturity,” we must not confuse adult faith with the adult age of natural growth, nor forget that the baptismal grace is a grace of free, unmerited election and does not need “ratification” to become effective. St. Thomas reminds us of this:
  • Age of body does not determine age of soul. Even in childhood man can attain spiritual maturity: as the book of Wisdom says: “For old age is not honored for length of time, or measured by number of years.” Many children, through the strength of the Holy Spirit they have received, have bravely fought for Christ even to the shedding of their blood.126
    I don’t understand what you mean by “brain box”. The history of Confirmation is quoted in the above posts.
Click to expand...
Thankyou for your response…i almost feel embarrased as i , being a good catholic boy , should know the meaning behind confirmation. I do however like the protestant style ‘confirmation’ when a young adult asks to ‘make a choice for jesus’. At sixteen i was far too immature to fully comprehend what it was i was declaring…some say that it is not important to understand the meaning behind it all…wow i wonder what our archbishop would think of all this !!! Anyway i made my own 'choice for jesus after attending an ALPHA course not long ago…and found a peace i never thought was possible in this life !
The ‘brain-box’ idea was inserted in order to add some humour…dont you find some catholics to be far too serious !!!🙂 👍
 
OutinChgoburbs said:
This is my point on Confirmation: It is not a sacrament of maturity, in the sense the person being confirmed must have a “stand up for Jesus” moment. The CCC clearly states that it is the action of the bishop, who administrates the sacrament, and not that of those being confirmed.

Further, the CCC says:

Although Confirmation is sometimes called the “sacrament of Christian maturity,” we must not confuse adult faith with the adult age of natural growth, nor forget that the baptismal grace is a grace of free, unmerited election and does not need “ratification” to become effective. St. Thomas reminds us of this:
  • Age of body does not determine age of soul. Even in childhood man can attain spiritual maturity: as the book of Wisdom says: “For old age is not honored for length of time, or measured by number of years.” Many children, through the strength of the Holy Spirit they have received, have bravely fought for Christ even to the shedding of their blood.126
    I don’t understand what you mean by “brain box”. The history of Confirmation is quoted in the above posts.
I don’t understand this. You say it is NOT a sacrament of maturity, then you quote where it states that it IS!?!?!
Click to expand...
 
DB_AND_ALI said:
Thankyou for your response…i almost feel embarrased as i , being a good catholic boy , should know the meaning behind confirmation. I do however like the protestant style ‘confirmation’ when a young adult asks to ‘make a choice for jesus’. At sixteen i was far too immature to fully comprehend what it was i was declaring…some say that it is not important to understand the meaning behind it all…wow i wonder what our archbishop would think of all this !!! Anyway i made my own 'choice for jesus after attending an ALPHA course not long ago…and found a peace i never thought was possible in this life !
The ‘brain-box’ idea was inserted in order to add some humour…dont you find some catholics to be far too serious !!!🙂 👍
Click to expand...
Don’t be embarrassed! I learn something new on this forum every day.
 
guanophore said:
I don’t understand this. You say it is NOT a sacrament of maturity, then you quote where it states that it IS!?!?!
Click to expand...
1.) I’m quoting the CCC, not pulling this out of my own head.
2.) I am saying it is NOT a “stand up for Jesus” moment, in that sense of maturity, or age determines “proper” confirmation, yes.
3.) I am not quoting that the CCC says age is necessary to receive the sacrament of confirmation. If you read carefully, the CCC states that age of the body has has nothing to do with age of the soul. Let’s try it again (the emphases are mine):

"Although Confirmation is sometimes called the ‘sacrament of Christian maturity,’ we must **not **confuse adult faith with the adult age of natural growth, nor forget that the baptismal grace is a grace of free, unmerited election and does not need ‘ratification’ to become effective.

Paraphrase: Just because Confirmation is considered the “sacrament of Christian maturity” doesn’t mean a person has to be a certain age to be confirmed. Confirmation is related to Baptism. Baptismal grace is free and unmerited, doesn’t have to be earned. Baptism does not have to be ratified (endorsed, consented) to become effective.

St. Thomas reminds us of this:
Age of body does not determine age of soul. Even in childhood man can attain spiritual maturity*: as the book of Wisdom says: “For old age is **not ***honored for length of time, or measured by number of years.” Many children, through the strength of the Holy Spirit they have received, have bravely fought for Christ even to the shedding of their blood.

St. Thomas is telling us that children who have been confirmed have had the Holy Spirit give them the strength to be brave and fight for Christ, evne to the point of death.

Does that make more sense? If not, think again of the Eastern Church and the fact that they chrismate, or confirm, babies. Those babies are every bit as confirmed as the eldest adult who gets confirmed at the Easter Vigil. It isn’t their bodies that need to be mature in order to receive the sacrament. It is their souls that are made mature through the sacrament.
 
OutinChgoburbs said:
1.)

Does that make more sense? If not, think again of the Eastern Church and the fact that they chrismate, or confirm, babies. Those babies are every bit as confirmed as the eldest adult who gets confirmed at the Easter Vigil. It isn’t their bodies that need to be mature in order to receive the sacrament. It is their souls that are made mature through the sacrament.

It does, I have just been so disgusted with my experience of high school confirmation classes. It seems like the majority of them don’t deserve the sacrament. I hate to see such a beautiful ceremony wasted on immature and rude teenagers that don’t appreciate the nature of what it is all about . It seems like throwing pearls before swine. I wish that I did not feel this way, but having experienced it for so many years in so many different parishes leaves me with the sense that it is rampant. Others have told me that they NEED the sacrament more than ever because they have these attitude and behavior problems, and that it will help them change. However, if one does not perceive or cooperate with the grace imparted in the sacrament, the grace does not flow very well. Most of them seem to need to be evangelized first. I must say, I am mystified by the Orthodox method of chrismation at baptism. Perhaps the Orthodox raise their children in the faith more soundly than the Latin church in America? It seems to me that most teenage Catholics don’t know some of the most fundamental parts of their faith.
Click to expand...
 
It isn’t just the Orthodox. The Orthodox churches are not in question here. Maybe I’m not making myself clear.

It is our fully unified brothers and sisters in what are considered the Eastern Churches (Byzantine, Oriental Church, Greek Catholic, the lovely Melkite Rite, etc.). forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=12783 (Scroll down if you haven’t read this sticky yet.)

They are fully in union with Rome, and fully Catholic, even as are we Latins. These Rites, these Churches, these fully Catholic, NOT Orthodox, chrismate babies, which has the same definition as Confirmation.

I agree with you on some snotty teenagers, doing their parents a “favor” by “consenting” to be confirmed. Over fifteen years ago, when my son was confirmed, the kid ahead of him in line wore jeans and a t-shirt, had a pony tail with designs carved into his skull hair, and made noises about “doing a favor” for his parents (His sponsor, by the way, was tastefully dressed). Father pointed out that the boy was in for a surprise, as the Holy Spirit blows where He will. Don’t know what happened to him, but it would serve him right if he was finishing studies for the priesthood.😉

Fortunately, the sacrament “kicks in” if and when they do get clarity. In fact, it “kicks in” ASAP, upon reception. Their souls are also indelibly marked, and they will carry this mark with them to God’s throne. It changes the character of the soul. The flow of grace rests with the Holy Spirit, so to my mind, it is better to open that channel of grace as early as possible, so that these children are more receptive to catechesis. Besides, evangelization is an on-going process, and never stops. We are all being continually called to evangelize, and to be evangelized.

In my opinion, it’s better to catch them when they are babies.

As a side note, baby confirmation of infants born into the Faith, either right after baptism or during “confirmation reception” once a month or once a quarter at the Cathedral, eliminates Confirmation dresses, suits or lack thereof, dancing statues in First Communion veils, and overdone parties emphasizing the kid repeatedly and not the sacraments, along with teenagers “doing Mom and Dad a favor” in exchange for an iPod or car. The next step for these babies will be to learn how to go to confession.
 
Yes, I like the idea of moving to a quarterly (or even annual) reception of infants born in the previous year. This would make theological sense. Did not the early church have a “double sacrament” with baptism and confirmation?
 
dranzal said:
Did not the early church have a “double sacrament” with baptism and confirmation?
Click to expand...
Hi, Dranzal!

It’s not just the early Church that we’re talking about here. As OutinChgoburbs stated in the post immediately above (and in other posts within this thread), the Catholic Church of today administers not just a “double sacrament” but, in fact a “triple sacrament” to infants being received as members of the Eastern Catholic Churches! All three Sacraments of Initiation (Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Communion) are administered to infants in the same ceremony, thus completing the sacramental initiation of these souls, making them full members of the Catholic Church. This differs from the current practice of the Latin (Roman) Catholic Church, which has chosen to spread the full initiation of her members out over many years.

Again, I stress (as did OutinChgoburbs) that we’re talking about Catholic Churches here (not Orthodox Churches) which are in full communion with the Pope of Rome. These Churches are every bit as Catholic as the Roman Catholic parish that you (I assume) currently attend. The priest who administers these sacraments is just as Catholic as any Roman Catholic priest and you, as a member of the Catholic Church, are absolutely free to attend and participate in the liturgical life of any of these Eastern Catholic parishes.

In short, there already is a Catholic precedent for administering the Sacraments of Initiation in the ancient, prescribed order, thus granting full membership to infant Church members, along with the immediate spiritual benefits of the many graces that come with that membership and the associated sacraments.
 
dranzal said:
Yes, I like the idea of moving to a quarterly (or even annual) reception of infants born in the previous year. This would make theological sense. Did not the early church have a “double sacrament” with baptism and confirmation?
Click to expand...
we still do it is called RCIA
this entire discussion should be made a sticky because it perfectly articulates the many competing views about the doctrine and canon law aspects of the sacrament of confirmation. Refer to the above linked statements of the Bishop of Fargo, and of the Bishop of Denver, which I believe is linked on another thread with the same topic, for the best explanation of the reality of the sacrament, and the valid case to be made for 1st confession at the age of reason, confirmation and 1st communion about a year later, following preparation for the candidate, parents and sponsors. Until such time as we follow age-old time tested practice of the Eastern Church and initiate fully soon after birth, we should follow the clear catechetical and sacramental directives of Church documents since VII and restore the original order of the sacraments, and make the RCIA the model for sacramental prep and implementation, that is the next best logical step.
 
a_pilgrim said:
Hi, Dranzal!

It’s not just the early Church that we’re talking about here. As OutinChgoburbs stated in the post immediately above (and in other posts within this thread), the Catholic Church of today administers not just a “double sacrament” but, in fact a “triple sacrament” to infants being received as members of the Eastern Catholic Churches! All three Sacraments of Initiation (Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Communion) are administered to infants in the same ceremony, thus completing the sacramental initiation of these souls, making them full members of the Catholic Church. This differs from the current practice of the Latin (Roman) Catholic Church, which has chosen to spread the full initiation of her members out over many years.

Again, I stress (as did OutinChgoburbs) that we’re talking about Catholic Churches here (not Orthodox Churches) which are in full communion with the Pope of Rome. These Churches are every bit as Catholic as the Roman Catholic parish that you (I assume) currently attend. The priest who administers these sacraments is just as Catholic as any Roman Catholic priest and you, as a member of the Catholic Church, are absolutely free to attend and participate in the liturgical life of any of these Eastern Catholic parishes.

In short, there already is a Catholic precedent for administering the Sacraments of Initiation in the ancient, prescribed order, thus granting full membership to infant Church members, along with the immediate spiritual benefits of the many graces that come with that membership and the associated sacraments.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that, in theory, a new parent in the Latin Rite could conceivably have the infant receive all three sacraments in an Eastern Rite parish, though still attend in their Latin Rite parish? If so, what would the requirement be for the infant? Would the parent need to completely switch parishes or bring the baby to an Eastern Rite parish periodically to receive Eucharist?

How can we encourage the Latin Rite to re-adopt this practice?

Jennifer
 
Hi Jennifer!

There are those of us who have been encouraging it for years, even a couple decades.

I brought this up yesterday at a small group meeting. After I put it on the table, I let other people disagree with me, and essentially talk themselves into proving their own positions had weak merit and even fallacy of argument (and it is hard for me to keep my mouth shut). These were not fresh adult confirmation candidates, but veteran, dedicated teachers and catechists (some of them Level III) with decades of experience in sacraments of initiation.

Some of the responses I received to my call to bring back the ancient order of initiation for infants in a similar format to the Eastern Churches which are fully Catholic (I am just stating these, not saying they are valid reasons by any stretch):
  • It’s OK to baptize infants, but not to confirm or communicate them because they do not “understand” what they are receiving in the Eucharist or Confirmation.
  • It makes it more the confirmand’s choice to accept the Church if they wait until they are at least in junior high.
  • Confirmation is a rite of passage and the Church has always done it this way.
  • They will not receive any religious instruction if they don’t have to attend rel. ed. to receive Confirmation.
The discussion (and it was a polite, though fervored, discussion) came to the conclusion that if the parents aren’t living a Catholic life, even waiting until the kids are in their teens to “make an informed choice” does no good, that it is just a pretty, traditional ceremony and entitles one to a quinceanara and at least one wedding in a Catholic church.
 
otjm said:
The sad part of Confirmation is that all too many Cahtolics take that sacrament as a sign that they now have the fullness of the faith, as in, they have no more to learn, no more to research, no more to grow. And that is too true of Catholics in the pew as it is of those who quit going to Mass.

and that is nothing new, meaning it is not a result of vatican 2, or the fall-out after Vatican 2; it was true before as well.

It is, and has been, at least in part, a failure of those doing the training of the individuals approaching Confirmation.

And in part, a failure of the parents…
Click to expand...

It would help if Confirmation were not​

  • a “poor relation” to Baptism
  • treated as a rite of passage from childhood to adolescence
    The problem is a lack of vision, IMO. ISTM that Baptism should be delayed until adolescence - then people could become Christians voluntarily, rather than because they had to “join the dots” in a theological pattern to please others. It’s dreadful that reception of the sacraments should be contaminated by what suits people’s parents & family - talk about mixing motives 😦 No wonder people don’t bother coming back - unless this confusion is reformed, people are going to continue to receive a sacrament which are they not going to bother living by ##
 
And here’s the problem with waiting until they are adolescents and “could become Christians voluntarily”…

…Infant baptism is biblical (look in Acts of the Apostles- as in “whole households”), and infant baptism is Big-T Traditional (read the early Church fathers). There is nothing wrong with baptizing babies immediately into the Household of Faith, as soon as possible.

…If it is scritpural and follows Tradition to baptize infants, as baptism is the NORMAL, NECESSARY way to salavation, it only stands to reason that Confirmation of the Baptism and reception of the Eucharist should also take place as soon as possible.

…Waiting to baptize infants until they “choose” has a lot of people running around looking for water in the event of emergency.

…Waiting to baptize infants until they “choose” denies children and adolescents grace.

…Waiting to baptize infants until they “choose” abolishes Traditional with a Capital-T and ignores the works of the early Church Father and Scripture (not llittle-t, as in “That’s how we’ve always done it”, but big-t as in “We are the early Church fathers who had contact with the Apostles, and we are telling you this is how they did it”). This reduces Catholicism to Protestantism.

A young adult is always free to reject the Household of Faith and the Faith of his or her parents, as we’ve seen happen. A young adult is less likely to totally reject that Faith, or to come back to it, if that young adult has always been in the Church, and there is an open channel for grace to return.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top