Baptised converts receive communion--when?

[flameburns623]

OK, I’m confused. Immediately upon being baptised in the RCC I know that I was allowed to receive communion. I was NOT confirmed. The priest in the parish that baptised me lo these 31-plus years ago was much too traditional to have allowed something irregular. Yet most Catholics talk about not receiving First Communion till after confirmation. Clarify please.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

Because since the 31plus years since you were baptized, RCIA has been in effect.

At the Easter Vigil, after having gone through RCIA, the catechumen elect are baptized by the priest celebrating the Mass, usually the pastor; the newly baptized and candidates from other Christian denominations who have been baptized are confirmed by the same priest; and then at that Mass, receive Communion for the first time.

The traditional order of the Sacraments of Inititation is Baptism, Confirmation (also known as Chrismation) and Eucharist. These are still kept in this order in the Eastern Churches, even for infants, which are also a part of the Catholic Church and loyal to the Holy Father. The Latin Church separates these sacraments, having infant bapitsm, currently First Eucharist around the age of discretion (also First Reconcilation, or Penance), and Confirmation anywhere after the age of discretion- unless a person over the age of seven is received into the Church.

 

[Phemie]

The Latin Church separates these sacraments, having infant bapitsm, currently First Eucharist around the age of discretion (also First Reconcilation, or Penance), and Confirmation anywhere after the age of discretion- unless a person over the age of seven is received into the Church.

Although each year a few more dioceses return the order to Bapstism/Confirmation/Communion, celebrating Confirmation & Communion in the same liturgy around the age of 7 or 8.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

OK, I’m confused. Immediately upon being baptised in the RCC I know that I was allowed to receive communion. I was NOT confirmed. The priest in the parish that baptised me lo these 31-plus years ago was much too traditional to have allowed something irregular. Yet most Catholics talk about not receiving First Communion till after confirmation. Clarify please.

Have you been confirmed since then?

 

[flameburns623]

Have you been confirmed since then?

I haven’t been Catholic since then. Or to be precise, not for the past 28 years or thereabouts. Long story and probably a distraction form this thread.

OutinChgoburbs:

Because since the 31plus years since you were baptized, RCIA has been in effect.

So the rules changed somewhere along the line? So far as ‘RCIA’ is concerned, I was catechized from The New Baltimore Catechism for about 9 months or so.

Funny story about that: I had more or less covertly been getting lessons through the mail from the Knights of Columbus when I made up my mind to meet with a priest. I made an appointment with him, he gave me the Baltimore Catechism and asked me to get permission from my Mom to teach me. (Remember–I was 16-and-a-half at this point).

So I had to tell my Mom what was going on, something I had been putting off. She wasn’t surprised, had seen the KofC stuff in the mail, and her only concern was that her parents, my grandparents, would take it badly. So she met me after school one day and we drive down to the little office where the priest was at.

We walk in and the first thing she sees is a statue, which she gives a very hard look at, as if it were a savage animal that she was trying to keep at bay. The priest walks around the corner and Mom holds out her hand and says,

“Hi, I’m Carolyn; I don’t know what to call you”. (She’d seen priests before but I can only assume this was the first one she’d ever spoken to).

The priest answers, “I’m Father XXXXX”.

Mom says, “You’re not my father–my dad is going to be absolutely sick over all of this”.

The priest was obviously taken aback, and then recovered and said something like, “You can call me Reverend XXXXX . . . . Umm . . . Your son is wanting to study about the Catholic faith. May I have your permission to let him do this?”

Mom looked at me and then at the priest and said “He’s man enough to join the Army . . . " (I’d just enlisted via the Delayed Entry Program, which high school boys could do at 16-and-a-half, contingent on their successful graduation from high school). " . . . He’s man enough to pick a church. Do you need me to sign something?” Then they chitchatted for less than a minute, and Mom and I walked out. She glowered at the statue again, still not certain it wouldn’t ambush us I suppose.

I expected a miserable ride home, but oddly enough Mom liked the priest and said something like “He looked just like Catholics look in the movies”.

Anyhow, based on that conversation, the priest treated this as if I were an adult making a decision to join the Church. I would have been 17 when baptised. It was a somewhat unusual situation given my age I was somewhere between being an adult and not being an adult and no one quite knew where to fit me in.

When I was baptised, the priest indicated that I would have to be Catholic for a minimum of a year before the Bishop could confirm me, but that since I was received as an ‘adult’, I could receive communion and confession. I had already enlisted in the Army at that point, via the Delayed Entry Program, and it happened that the visit of the Bishop and my 1-year anniversary coincided with my time in Basic Training. By the time I spent three years in Europe, with Catholic military chaplains who were liberal beyond anything I had seen, I had ceased being Roman Catholic. So I never got around to getting confirmed.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

OK, I’m confused. Immediately upon being baptised in the RCC I know that I was allowed to receive communion. I was NOT confirmed. The priest in the parish that baptised me lo these 31-plus years ago was much too traditional to have allowed something irregular. Yet most Catholics talk about not receiving First Communion till after confirmation. Clarify please.

I assume that you were Baptized under the age of seven. Which is the only way Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Communion , can be separated. Catholics in the Latin Rite receive Holy Communion abour the age of seven to nine, and are Confirmed about 12-17.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

Although each year a few more dioceses return the order to Bapstism/Confirmation/Communion, celebrating Confirmation & Communion in the same liturgy around the age of 7 or 8.

Yes they do!

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

I assume that you were Baptized under the age of seven. Which is the only way Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Communion , can be separated. Catholics in the Latin Rite receive Holy Communion abour the age of seven to nine, and are Confirmed about 12-17.

Nope, at 17, right before he went into the Army.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

I haven’t been Catholic since then. Oh no. You’ve been Catholic. You just haven’t been practicing. Did you formally defect from the Faith? If not, all you have to do is go to confession. It has not changed a great deal since the last time you went. Or to be precise, not for the past 28 years or thereabouts. Long story and probably a distraction form this thread.

So the rules changed somewhere along the line? So far as ‘RCIA’ is concerned, I was catechized from The New Baltimore Catechism for about 9 months or so. Not so much the “rules” as the way the catechesis is presented.

Funny story about that:
Yep, it was a pretty good story.

When I was baptised, the priest indicated that I would have to be Catholic for a minimum of a year before the Bishop could confirm me, but that since I was received as an ‘adult’, I could receive communion and confession. That must’ve been something in the diocese, but OK. I had already enlisted in the Army at that point, via the Delayed Entry Program, and it happened that the visit of the Bishop and my 1-year anniversary coincided with my time in Basic Training. By the time I spent three years in Europe, with Catholic military chaplains who were liberal beyond anything I had seen, I had ceased being Roman Catholic. That’s a shame, as military chaplains have the faculty to confirm. I know what you mean about liberal clergy in the military at that time, though, as I was in the Navy about 31 years ago. So I never got around to getting confirmed.

 

[jmcrae]

OK, I’m confused. Immediately upon being baptised in the RCC I know that I was allowed to receive communion. I was NOT confirmed. The priest in the parish that baptised me lo these 31-plus years ago was much too traditional to have allowed something irregular. Yet most Catholics talk about not receiving First Communion till after confirmation. Clarify please.

If it was an older priest, or if this was before 1980 (when RCIA began to be implemented), then this was how they did it, back then - converts received private instruction from a priest, then were baptized and recieved First Holy Communion, then joined something called the Guild of St. Paul, which would have weekly discussion meetings about various topics of interest to new Catholics, and after a year in the Guild, they would become Confirmed by the Bishop.

The book I have states quite matter of factly, “Converts received in this way fall away from the practice of the faith within nine months to a year. This is to be expected. Simply write up a letter of encouragement, inviting the convert back to the practice of his new faith.” A sample letter is included as a guide for what to say to a convert who has fallen away from the faith.

 

[John_Lilburne]

Being confirmed immediately after baptism, is normal, but optional, for adults.

The RCIA book has “215. In accord with the ancient practice followed in the Roman liturgy, adults are not to be baptized without receiving confirmation immediately afterward, unless some serious reason stands in the way.” The rite also provides for an “Anointing After Baptism” to be used if the person is not Confirmed immediately (n. 228 in USA edition, n. 222 in UK edition.)

What is a “serious reason”? Perhaps it is deliberately vague. The priest or bishop thought the confirmation should be later? In case of danger of death, anyone can baptise but not anyone can confirm?

This has applied at least since 1974 in the USA. According to a Foreward to the RCIA book, by Bishop Joseph Delaney:
“… In the United States, the provisional translation had been approved “ad interim” by the Executive Committee of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and was confirmed by the Apostolic See on 23 September 1974 (Prot. N. 1993/74) and, in the same year, was published by authority of the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy for use in the dioceses of the United States of America.”
(The Rites Volume One, Liturgical Press, 1990, ISBN: 0-8146-6015-0, page 30).

The 6 January 1972 decree for this RCIA book by the Congregation for Divine Worship has:
“It likewise decrees that this new rite may be used in Latin at once and in the vernacular from the day appointed by the conference of bishops, after it has prepared a translation and had it confirmed by the Apostolic See.”
(The Rites Volume One, Liturgical Press, 1990, ISBN: 0-8146-6015-0, page 34).

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Nope, at 17, right before he went into the Army.

I’m confused, Who is “he” you or the person the OP is talking about?

If a person is Baptized at 17 they must be Confirmed and receive Holy Communion at the same time as the Baptism.

 

[BlyssfulDreamer]

I was only 14 when I became interested in the Catholic faith. I was an only child, there were problems at home and I went into the church one afternoon after school. I took some pamphlets, read them…started going to Mass regularly and then daily Mass. 7AM Mass…then to school for band practice. After a few months of reading and going to Mass I approached the elderly Catholic priest about becoming a Catholic. (This was 1963 and a small town). After talking to my parents and getting their approval I began instruction. He was like what you would think a drill sargeant would be like…but I began to know the church. I was baptized a few months later at age 15…had Holy Communion the next day and was Confrimed 5 months later by the bishop.

 

[flameburns623]

I’m confused, Who is “he” you or the person the OP is talking about?

If a person is Baptized at 17 they must be Confirmed and receive Holy Communion at the same time as the Baptism.

I was 17. I was baptised. I was told I could confess and receive communion but would have to wait a year to be confirmed. Remember this was in 1977 so note some of the other responses to this thread:

jmcrae:

If it was an older priest, or if this was before 1980 (when RCIA began to be implemented), then this was how they did it, back then - converts received private instruction from a priest, then were baptized and recieved First Holy Communion, then joined something called the Guild of St. Paul, which would have weekly discussion meetings about various topics of interest to new Catholics, and after a year in the Guild, they would become Confirmed by the Bishop.

Pretty much conforms with what I was told though I knew nothing about any ‘Guild of St. Paul’
OutinChcgoburbs:

Oh no. You’ve been Catholic. You just haven’t been practicing. Did you formally defect from the Faith? If not, all you have to do is go to confession. It has not changed a great deal since the last time you went.

One is what one defines oneself as being. I define myself as an Episcopalian. In any case, I’m the divorced husband of a divorced wife. I AM considering a return to the RCC but it’s a little more complex than just ‘going to confession’. At a minimum I would need two decrees of nullity. (One for myself and one for my wife–there are technical terms for each type of decree needed but I won’t belabor the point). Not to mention theological divides on several issues. I haven’t been a tabula rasa during my absence.

 

[puzzleannie]

OK, I’m confused. Immediately upon being baptised in the RCC I know that I was allowed to receive communion. I was NOT confirmed. The priest in the parish that baptised me lo these 31-plus years ago was much too traditional to have allowed something irregular. Yet most Catholics talk about not receiving First Communion till after confirmation. Clarify please.

the ordinary way a baptized adult Christian is received into full communion with the Catholic Church is through profession of faith and the sacrament of Confirmation (the profession is part of the rite of Confirmation) and reception of first holy communion at the same celebration, after a suitable period of preparation.

the ordinary way an unbaptized adult (over age 7) person is received into the Catholic Church is through reception of baptism, confirmation and first communion at the same time, during the Easter Vigil (unless another time is chosen for pastoral reasons), after a suitable period of preparation.

This process is called the RCIA, Rites of Christian Initiation for Adults, which includes the doctrinal instruction, evangelization with the Gospel, and the rites that mark progress through the stages of conversion and preparation.

I suspect that if you request a new baptismal certificate from the parish where you were received it will indicate you were baptized and confirmed at the same time, and made your first communion, when you were received into the Church (am assuming from OP that you were unbaptized when you sought to enter the Church). before the RCIA was restored that was the ordinary way new adult Catholics were received. The anointing, with holy chrism, of baptism and the anointing of confirmation are separated in time when a baby is baptized, and later confirmed sometime during the school years. For adults received into the Church there is only one anointing.

 

[John_Lilburne]

If a person is Baptized at 17 they must be Confirmed and receive Holy Communion at the same time as the Baptism.

No, the confirmation is optional. Read post #11 again.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

No, the confirmation is optional. Read post #11 again.

Can. 866 Unless there is a grave reason to the contrary, immediately after receiving
baptism an adult is to be confirmed, to participate in the celebration of the Eucharist and
to receive holy communion.

Confirmation is not optional at the discretion of the person celebrating the Sacrament when an adult is Baptized.
I should have included the words “under the current Code of Canon Law” in my previous post.

I’m not sure what the Law was prior to 1983.

 

[flameburns623]

the ordinary way a baptized adult Christian is received into full communion with the Catholic Church is through profession of faith and the sacrament of Confirmation (the profession is part of the rite of Confirmation) and reception of first holy communion at the same celebration, after a suitable period of preparation.

the ordinary way an unbaptized adult (over age 7) person is received into the Catholic Church is through reception of baptism, confirmation and first communion at the same time, during the Easter Vigil (unless another time is chosen for pastoral reasons), after a suitable period of preparation.

This process is called the RCIA, Rites of Christian Initiation for Adults, which includes the doctrinal instruction, evangelization with the Gospel, and the rites that mark progress through the stages of conversion and preparation.

I suspect that if you request a new baptismal certificate from the parish where you were received it will indicate you were baptized and confirmed at the same time, and made your first communion, when you were received into the Church (am assuming from OP that you were unbaptized when you sought to enter the Church). before the RCIA was restored that was the ordinary way new adult Catholics were received. The anointing, with holy chrism, of baptism and the anointing of confirmation are separated in time when a baby is baptized, and later confirmed sometime during the school years. For adults received into the Church there is only one anointing.

My baptismal certificate reflects what I was told and what jmcrae shows was probably normative prior to the institution of what everyone is calling the RCIA program: I was taught privately, baptised (conditionally baptised–I had been baptised in a Protestant denomination, but the priest was concerned about scruples arising later), and told I would have to wait at least 1 year before being confirmed by the local bishop. There is no record of confirmation. The only confirmation I received was from an Episcopalian REC bishop, a few years ago.

I think that was is throwing a lot of people off is that the RCIA program has been around a long time now–since 1980. When the local priest learned that I was going to be going into the Army, he asked me if I wanted him to get a special dispensation from the local bishop allowing him to perform my confirmation. (I’m only just remembering this). I declined, mainly because we thought that I would be home from BCT and AIT (Army jargon for training) at about the time the bishop was visiting. Again, because the priest was worried about ‘scruples’ arising if I wasn’t actually ordained by a bishop. He left it up to me, but sort of ‘steered’ me according to what he considered the best way of doing things. In the 1970’s and earlier, apparently, it was very unusual for a regular parish priest to perform a confirmation.
OutinChcgoburbs:

military chaplains have the faculty to confirm. I know what you mean about liberal clergy in the military at that time, though, as I was in the Navy about 31 years ago

Again, you jarred my memory. In the Army, one of my BCT/AIT priests indicated that he could make arrangements to confirm me. The problem was finding the time–a soldier in training has his (or now, her) days pretty well programed and it’s tough to find time for personal affairs. In my permanent assignment, the priest did not consider the issue of confirmation a very important one. As I say, he was drastically, radically liberal–he was visibly angry when Cardinal Ratzinger was made head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and actually had disparaging things to say about virtually anything that seemed to him too ‘conservative’ or ‘traditional’. When I asked him to bless something for me–a scapular I think–he asked what the h— I was wearing something like that for: we weren’t living in the Middle Ages. He was that kind of priest.

Meanwhile, the only devout Christians I was meeting my own age were Protestant Evangelicals and Pentecostals. (We didn’t yet refer to conservative Protestants as Evangelicals btw–it was that long ago that the word had not yet come into vogue). So I had the good example of holy Protestants and the bad example of a priest. Not to make excuses for myself but you can see why I went the direction I did. But I’m derailing my own thread with personal reminisciences.

What puzzled me in my opening post was the impression that most more-recent converts who post here or whom I read about elsewhere were baptised/confirmed/confessed/given First Communion all in the same fell swoop. Or, in the case of persons whom I assume were baptised as infants, did not receive First Communion or go to their first confession until they were confirmed at whatever age is normative for that.

First Communion normally seems to be a major rite of passage for Catholics, but in my case was actually a postlude to the main event which was my baptism. I was beginning to wonder if my reception of Holy Communion and confession prior to my confirmation were irregularities.

Anyhow, things are starting to ‘gel’ a little bit as respondents to this thread clarify things. Thanks folks.

 

[flameburns623]

Can. 866 Unless there is a grave reason to the contrary, immediately after receiving
baptism an adult is to be confirmed, to participate in the celebration of the Eucharist and
to receive holy communion.

Confirmation is not optional at the discretion of the person celebrating the Sacrament when an adult is Baptized.
I should have included the words “under the current Code of Canon Law” in my previous post.

I’m not sure what the Law was prior to 1983.

I think the preponderance of the evidence suggests this was changed in 1983. I honestly doubt my local parish priest would have done anything irregular in 1977. He was very careful about those things. See the post I just made. But thanks!

 

[jmcrae]

One is what one defines oneself as being. I define myself as an Episcopalian. In any case, I’m the divorced husband of a divorced wife. I AM considering a return to the RCC but it’s a little more complex than just ‘going to confession’. At a minimum I would need two decrees of nullity. (One for myself and one for my wife–there are technical terms for each type of decree needed but I won’t belabor the point). Not to mention theological divides on several issues. I haven’t been a tabula rasa during my absence.

I think your very first step would be to return to the practice of attending Sunday Mass at a Catholic Church. You can do this without receiving Holy Communion or participating (yet) in other Sacraments.

I did it for years prior to my own conversion; it’s no different in feeling than attending any Protestant service of worship where you don’t receive Holy Communion, with the difference that it has the advantage of being the Catholic Mass. While doing this, you can make a Spiritual Holy Communion, which is simply to ask Jesus to come into your heart while the others are going forward to receive Him in their bodies.

In this way, you can get back used to living the Catholic lifestyle. Meanwhile, be in touch with your parish priest regarding the complexities of your situation, and take advantage of this “silver plate” opportunity to practice the virtue of patience.

May God bless you on your return to the faith of your youth.