Other than the renewal of Baptismal promises, which is not inherent in the sacrament, what promises are made during confirmation? If an infant or young child is confirmed, no promises are made. It is not a part of the sacrament. Practicing Catholics regularly have the opportunity to renew their Baptismal promises.People who are confirmed later in life tend to stick with the faith because they understand the promises they make during confirmation.
I don’t disagree that people who make promises later in life are more likely to stick with their Faith. I think it makes statistical sense in the same way that saying someone who lives until the age of 25 has a greater chance to live to age 85 than someone who is only six months old.People who are confirmed later in life tend to stick with the faith because they understand the promises they make during confirmation.
Again, I don’t disagree. But I’m not sure what that has to do with the age of confirmation. I haven’t noticed that young people are likely to stay involved in the Church just to receive Confirmation. Many drop out prior to confirmation.These days, children don’t understand the these promises nor does the Catholic church have a universal education program which educates the children about the faith well into early adulthood.
But the young people drop out after First Communion anyway. I do understand the long-standing western tradition of waiting for children to reach the age of reason prior to confirmation. But those children are already bound by the baptismal promises made for them. Why not confirm them and let them have the graces to live out those promises before the chaos of the teen years?If most parishes did, then I could see the ages for confirmation remaining as it is. Until then, children will appear for their First Communion and Confirmation and disappear until they decide to get married in a church. We need to do more to keep these children inside the parishes otherwise, most parishes will disappear in the next 20 years.
Leaving it up to the priest who baptizes, just as it’s done in our Eastern Catholic and Orthodox parishes. After all, he already confirms infants in danger of dying and he confirms those adults he baptizes and receives into full communion.For those who support infant Confirmation, I would like to pose the question of how you feel about the Bishop being the Ordinary Minister of the Sacrament. It is impractical or sometimes impossible for a Bishop to go to every parish for every Baptism, so what would you suggest? Delaying Baptism and/or holding them en masse in the Cathedral? Delegating faculties to priests as a matter of routine?
So the priest would be an Extraordinary Minister of Confirmation in perpetuity? How do you feel about the use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion at each and every Mass in a parish?Leaving it up to the priest who baptizes, just as it’s done in our Eastern Catholic and Orthodox parishes. After all, he already confirms infants in danger of dying and he confirms those adults he baptizes and receives into full communion.
No, the priest would become an ordinary minister of Confirmation, just as he is in the Eastern Churches.So the priest would be an Extraordinary Minister of Confirmation in perpetuity? How do you feel about the use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion at each and every Mass in a parish?
The priest could perform the Confirmation at Baptism, but if the Latin Church wished to preserve the Bishop as the ordinary minister of Confirmation, all the babies who had been baptized, but not confirmed, could be brought for the sacrament every year or two when the Bishop visits. It was done that way in several countries (Philippines, Latin America) until fairly recently.For those who support infant Confirmation, I would like to pose the question of how you feel about the Bishop being the Ordinary Minister of the Sacrament. It is impractical or sometimes impossible for a Bishop to go to every parish for every Baptism, so what would you suggest? Delaying Baptism and/or holding them en masse in the Cathedral? Delegating faculties to priests as a matter of routine?
Comparing priests conferring the sacrament of confirmation to lay extraordinary ministers of the Holy Communion is not valid at all.So the priest would be an Extraordinary Minister of Confirmation in perpetuity? How do you feel about the use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion at each and every Mass in a parish?
Can. 883 The following possess the faculty of administering confirmation by the law itself:
1/ within the boundaries of their jurisdiction, those who are equivalent in law to a diocesan bishop;
2/ as regards the person in question, the presbyter who by virtue of office or mandate of the diocesan bishop baptizes one who is no longer an infant or admits one already baptized into the full communion of the Catholic Church;
It is immediately apparent from the above law that a priest administering confirmation for adults entering the church is to be done “in perpetuity”, to use your phrase.3/ as regards those who are in danger of death, the pastor or indeed any presbyter.
I think this is a good point. Certainly infant confirmation is much preferable to our current practice of teenage confirmation. But the age of reason is much better, and in keeping with the law of the church.For those who support infant Confirmation, I would like to pose the question of how you feel about the Bishop being the Ordinary Minister of the Sacrament. It is impractical or sometimes impossible for a Bishop to go to every parish for every Baptism, so what would you suggest? Delaying Baptism and/or holding them en masse in the Cathedral? Delegating faculties to priests as a matter of routine?
Why is the age of reason “much better”?I think this is a good point. Certainly infant confirmation is much preferable to our current practice of teenage confirmation. But the age of reason is much better, and in keeping with the law of the church.
It is inline the universal norm for the latin church.Why is the age of reason “much better”?
Edited to add: I see you are in a different rite, so the argument may not hold with regards to your rite. I suspect it doesn’t.Can. 891 The sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred on the faithful at about the age of discretion unless the conference of bishops has determined another age, or there is danger of death, or in the judgment of the minister a grave cause suggests otherwise.
While it is currently the current practice in the Latin Church, and is therefore reflected in canon law, I don’t see that as an argument that it is “best”. Neither the Latin Church nor the universal Church teaches that it is best, but I’m interested in your reasoning for stating that it is best. Different approaches developed for different reasons. Those reasons could change now or in the future, and the practice could change.It is inline the universal norm for the latin church.
It seems to me that the Church is saying that the unity of the sacraments is good, and so it is also good to reserve Confirmation to the Bishop. Both are good, neither is best. Both approaches are a compromise from the ideal that was practiced in the early Church, in which the three Sacraments were administered together, by the Bishop.1290 In the first centuries Confirmation generally comprised one single celebration with Baptism, forming with it a “double sacrament,” according to the expression of St. Cyprian. Among other reasons, the multiplication of infant baptisms all through the year, the increase of rural parishes, and the growth of dioceses often prevented the bishop from being present at all baptismal celebrations. In the West the desire to reserve the completion of Baptism to the bishop caused the temporal separation of the two sacraments. The East has kept them united, so that Confirmation is conferred by the priest who baptizes. But he can do so only with the “myron” consecrated by a bishop.101
1291 A custom of the Roman Church facilitated the development of the Western practice: a double anointing with sacred chrism after Baptism. The first anointing of the neophyte on coming out of the baptismal bath was performed by the priest; it was completed by a second anointing on the forehead of the newly baptized by the bishop.102 The first anointing with sacred chrism, by the priest, has remained attached to the baptismal rite; it signifies the participation of the one baptized in the prophetic, priestly, and kingly offices of Christ. If Baptism is conferred on an adult, there is only one post-baptismal anointing, that of Confirmation.
1292 The practice of the Eastern Churches gives greater emphasis to the unity of Christian initiation. That of the Latin Church more clearly expresses the communion of the new Christian with the bishop as guarantor and servant of the unity, catholicity and apostolicity of his Church, and hence the connection with the apostolic origins of Christ’s Church.
I didn’t really see an argument here. You’re just basically saying “this is the way we currently do it, so it is best”. For example, I would argue that it is best to have Confirmation conferred by the priest at Baptism. It seems to me that the unity with the Bishop is clearly understood in the Eastern Churches, even though the Bishop does not perform the Sacrament. On the other hand, the current western practice of delaying Confirmation until the age of reason (or beyond) seems to have caused no end of confusion regarding the sacrament and what it is. Too many people assume that, because the church generally waits until the age of reason to confer the sacrament, that Confirmation is about “making a choice for the Church” or some other such thing that has nothing to do with the sacrament itself. So, that is my argument for why I think infancy is best. Also, it is not insignificant that the Latin Church teaches that Confirmation should be given to infants in danger of death. What is your argument for why you think that the age of reason is best?Edited to add: I see you are in a different rite, so the argument may not hold with regards to your rite. I suspect it doesn’t.
While this is an argument for waiting until the age of reason for the reception of the Eucharist, there is no danger of sacrilege in the confirmation of infants, which is what this thread is about. The difference is seen in the canons quoted here. Confirmation should be given to children in death or if the minister judges that there is a grave reason to confirm. In Latin practice, even in danger of death, Holy Communion is not to be given to children unless they can differentiate between the Eucharist and ordinary bread. There is also no requirement that they be given together. In some places with restored order, children are confirmed in 2nd grade and receive Holy Communion in 3rd grade.The Latin confirmation and first communion may now be given (with restored order) together at the earliest age of reason. Of course those less than the age of discretion cannot commit actual sins. So it is a safeguard against sacrilege. In the eastern Catholic churches there is emphasis on the nurturing of the Holy Spirit from the time of baptism. CIC 891
The sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred on the faithful at about the age of discretion, unless the episcopal conference has decided on a different age; or there is a danger of death; or, in the judgment of the minister, a grave reason suggests otherwise.
CIC 913
§1 The administration of the Most Holy Eucharist to children requires that they have sufficient knowledge and careful preparation so that they understand the mystery of Christ according to their capacity and are able to receive the body of Christ with faith and devotion.
“Catechism of the Catholic Church” said:1313 In the Latin Rite, the ordinary minister of Confirmation is the bishop.132 If the need arises, the bishop may grant the faculty of administering Confirmation to priests,133 although it is fitting that he confer it himself, mindful that the celebration of Confirmation has been temporally separated from Baptism for this reason. Bishops are the successors of the apostles. They have received the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders. The administration of this sacrament by them demonstrates clearly that its effect is to unite those who receive it more closely to the Church, to her apostolic origins, and to her mission of bearing witness to Christ.
Thanks for sharing this link. It is interesting to read the previous code of canon law. I found this interesting:The Catechism says:
In the 1917 Code of Canon Law, a priest was definitely considered an extraordinary minister. I don’t see where that has changed at all.
The bolded is the part that I found interesting. It is deferred out of convenience, not for any theological reason.Canon 788: Although the administration of Confirmation in the Latin Church is conveniently deferred until about 7 years, nevertheless, it can be conferred earlier if an interview is constituted in danger of death or there appears to the minister grave and just causes to expedite it.
That is so true, if a baptized infant does not have the use of discretion there can be no actual sin, so there can be no sacrilege in reception of any sacrament. (It could be that discretion occurs before age 7 however so there may be actual danger.) When sacraments are given in the danger of death, there can be some risk of not being properly disposed. Baptism and Confirmation are different from others in being given only once.While this is an argument for waiting until the age of reason for the reception of the Eucharist, there is no danger of sacrilege in the confirmation of infants, which is what this thread is about. The difference is seen in the canons quoted here. Confirmation should be given to children in death or if the minister judges that there is a grave reason to confirm. In Latin practice, even in danger of death, Holy Communion is not to be given to children unless they can differentiate between the Eucharist and ordinary bread. There is also no requirement that they be given together. In some places with restored order, children are confirmed in 2nd grade and receive Holy Communion in 3rd grade.
So wait, parents care so much about their children receiving the Sacraments that, unable to attend the afterschool club for Sacramental preparation, they pay to send their children to private Catholic schools for years, just to make sure they receive the Sacraments? And the Archbishop considers this a problem, because they choose not to send their children to private Catholic schools once they have received the Sacraments? In what world is parents sending their children to public schools rather than paying to send them to Catholics schools a problem for the Archbishop? How is this cause for something other than rejoicing that parents apparently care so deeply about the Sacraments?I think this is a little skewed number. My Archbishop feels that there are many who want earlier Confirmation so they can stop sending their kids to Catholic School. There are many (not all) parishes in the Archdioceses of Philadelphia which only have CCD (or whichever program they are using) during the week. So many parents send their kids to Catholic School because they can’t get them to CCD. Then, as soon as the child is Confirmed, they go to public school. The Archbishop said you can tell who these people are because they don’t attend Mass.
But I do think that the real reason why Confirmation started happening much later was an attempt by the Parishes to keep children in faith formation classes much longer (as Catholic children started attending public school).
The problem is that the parents don’t care about anything more than getting the kids ‘done’. Sending them to Catholic schools means they don’t have to care beyond getting them to school. And as soon as they’re ‘done’ they see no benefit to keeping them in Catholic schools. And from what I’ve seen in my parish, many times it’s more about the souvenir certificate ‘suitable for framing’ than it is about the sacrament.So wait, parents care so much about their children receiving the Sacraments that, unable to attend the afterschool club for Sacramental preparation, they pay to send their children to private Catholic schools for years, just to make sure they receive the Sacraments? And the Archbishop considers this a problem, because they choose not to send their children to private Catholic schools once they have received the Sacraments? In what world is parents sending their children to public schools rather than paying to send them to Catholics schools a problem for the Archbishop? How is this cause for something other than rejoicing that parents apparently care so deeply about the Sacraments?
I feel like I’ve crossed over into Wonderland.