Can a First Communion and a Confirmation be invalid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicLife
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CatholicLife

Guest
Can a First Communion and a Confirmation be invalid? In my church the teens are required to do 20 hours of community service, however some of them lie about it and just say they did ( even though they didn’t) and they still receive thier sacraments. Does this make the sacraments they receive invalid? :)Sorry but I’m full of wierd quetions.😛
 
there is nothing in canon law that requires a service project, retreat or any other specific action on the part of the candidate to make the sacrament of confirmation valid. It is the bishop (or his delegate) who confirms and it his proper use of matter and form that make the sacrament valid. What is required for those who have reached the age of reason (the minimum age in the western Church at this time) is that they be “properly prepared and worthily disposed” and that they ask for the sacrament. The bishop decides what “properly prepared” means. Worthily disposed means they have a basic understanding of what the sacrament does and who is the Holy Spirit, appropriate to their age, and that they are in the state of grace.

No DRE or catechist has the right to tell a candidate he may not receive the sacrament at this time. It may be delayed (never denied, delayed) only on the judgment of the pastor and he must inform the candidate (and parents) in writing of his decision. This is almost never done without an interview with the pastor & candidate, and the usual reason is the child simply does not want to be confirmed.

What happens to those hundreds of teens every year who go through the motions in a confirmation program, never take advantage of the opportunities for grace and spiritual growth which are offered to them by the diocese and parish as a gift–retreats, service opportunies, classes etc.? They receive the valid sacrament, but the graces and gifts of the Holy Spirit may not be as readily available until such time as they open themselves up to these occasions of grace. Because they have not done service for the church and God’s poor, they have not learned to see the face of Christ in those whom they serve, and they are impoverished because of this. Because they did not pay attention to the value of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, they don’t know to ask for those gifts when they are needed.

With someone who receives in a state of mortal sin (which will probably be the next question) the sacrament is valid, but the grace of Christ and gifts of the Holy Spirit are not available to them at all until they confess and are absolved.

It is the pastor who as part of the confirmation rite presents the candidates to the bishop and affirms that they are prepared and disposed for the sacrament. He has already asked the catechists and sponsors for their recommendations, but it is his right to tell a candidate who has provided no assurance that the sacrament may be delayed until he does.

the requirement for First Communion is also that the child be of the age set by the bishop, properly prepared and worthily disposed. That means they must receive catechesis suitable for their age, understand the nature of the sacrament, who Jesus is and what his sacrifice means for us, how that sacrifice is celebrated in Mass, the difference between ordinary bread and wine and the Eucharist, and that they want to receive Jesus, and that they make confession first. Retreats, parent meetings etc. or lack of them are not reasons to deny the sacrament to the child who ask for them, although again only the pastor can delay reception of the Eucharist if he has reason to doubt the child’s disposition. The validity of the Eucharist depends on the proper matter and form used by the presiding priest, not on the communicant.

Someone may receive a sacrament illicitly–say the Catholic school student who himself is not Christian, but mistakenly receives with all the others in his class, but that does not affect validity.
 
What if someone who doesn’t believe in all the official Church teachings, is confirmed? Do they need to be reconfirmed?
 
What if someone who is confirmed is a secret agnostic?
Confirmation is dependent on the one doing the confirming, the bishop or his delegate. It is not dependent on the person receiving the sacrament.
 
This is a question of worthiness not valid reception or licitness.

To receive Confirmation worthily it is necessary to be in the state of grace.
It seems it could be a matter of licitness also, but not validity, as others have stated here regarding validity. So if one is not worthy to receive (yet still baptised) it would be illicit but nevertheless valid reception (if administered by the bishop or his duly appointed priest).
CIC Can. 889

§1. Every baptized person not yet confirmed and only such a person is capable of receiving confirmation.
§2. To receive confirmation licitly outside the danger of death requires that a person who has the use of reason be suitably instructed, properly disposed, and able to renew the baptismal promises.
 
Here is more specific teaching on the Holy Mysteries.

Baltimore Catechism 3

A590. The effect of the Sacraments does not depend on the worthiness or unworthiness of the one who administers them, but on the merits of Jesus Christ, who instituted them, and on the worthy dispositions of those who receive them.
A591. Some of the Sacraments give sanctifying grace, and others increase it in our souls.
A596. The Sacraments that increase sanctifying grace in our souls are: Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony; and they are called Sacraments of the living.
A598. Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony are called Sacraments of the living because those who receive them worthily are already living the life of grace.
A599. He who receives the Sacraments of the living in mortal sin commits a sacrilege, which is a great sin, because it is an abuse of a sacred thing.

ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3-13.htm
 
First Communion is not a Sacrament so validity has nothing to do with it. That is to say that the Sacrament is the Eucharist. The first reception of it is nothing more than the same Sacrament that is received every time you go to Mass and receive. It may be illicit but the reception of it can not be invalid. Only think that could be invalid would the the Eucharist itself.

Confirmation may be invalid if the priest doing the confirmation does not have faculties from his bishop to do so.
 
First Communion is not a Sacrament so validity has nothing to do with it. That is to say that the Sacrament is the Eucharist. The first reception of it is nothing more than the same Sacrament that is received every time you go to Mass and receive. It may be illicit but the reception of it can not be invalid. Only think that could be invalid would the the Eucharist itself.

Confirmation may be invalid if the priest doing the confirmation does not have faculties from his bishop to do so.
I’m not sure that I understand this. Are you saying that one that does not have the proper disposition for Holy Mystery of the Eucharist can validly receive it? I was taught that the unbaptized or those with unforgiven serious sin are not worthy to receive and therefore eat their own condemnation, which is a sacrilege: that there will be no sanctifying effect of the Holy Spirit from reception by one who is unworthy to receive.
 
I’m not sure that I understand this. Are you saying that one that does not have the proper disposition for Holy Mystery of the Eucharist can validly receive it? I was taught that the unbaptized or those with unforgiven serious sin are not worthy to receive and therefore eat their own condemnation, which is a sacrilege: that there will be no sanctifying effect of the Holy Spirit from reception by one who is unworthy to receive.
When speaking of the Sacraments validity speaks of if they are present not if we may receive them.

One would illicitly receive the Eucharist if they did not have the proper disposition. Not having the proper disposition does not invalidate the Eucharist.

Being a sacrilege does not invalidate the Eucharist.

If not being properly disposed to receive the Eucharist invalidated it then there would be no sacrilege as there would be no Eucharist.
 
When speaking of the Sacraments validity speaks of if they are present not if we may receive them.

One would illicitly receive the Eucharist if they did not have the proper disposition. Not having the proper disposition does not invalidate the Eucharist.

Being a sacrilege does not invalidate the Eucharist.

If not being properly disposed to receive the Eucharist invalidated it then there would be no sacrilege as there would be no Eucharist.
You mean to express the valid confection of the Eucharist then. When I read this “It may be illicit but the reception of it can not be invalid.” It seemed that you meant the actual reception.
 
You mean to express the valid confection of the Eucharist then. When I read this “It may be illicit but the reception of it can not be invalid.” It seemed that you meant the actual reception.
I did. Validity when speaking of Sacraments has nothing to do with reception.
 
I did. Validity when speaking of Sacraments has nothing to do with reception.
Ok, I see how you intend it now. As expressed by Fr. John Hardon Modern Catholic Dictionary we have your meaning as the matter, form, and circumstances.
VALIDITY

Having not only legal force but actually producing the effect intended. Applied to the sacraments, it refers to the conditions of matter, form, and circumstances required for valid administration. In ecclesiastical law it means that certain prescriptions must be fulfilled for the law or contractual agreement to bind or take effect.
There are conditions for validity that are of the Divine law, which is what I mean. There are also conditions for validity of ecclestical law. A priest is not to give the Holy Eucharist to one that has not been baptized, or in other violation of Divine Law.

Canons CIC 915 and CCEO 712, I have read, refer to Divine Law. Refer to:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html

CIC Can. 915
Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

CCEO Canon 712
Those who are publicly unworthy are forbidden from receiving the Divine Eucharist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top