Confirmation before Communion has ended forever?

[Chris_McAvoy]

Why is it allowed for people to receive communion before they are confirmed/chrismated?

 

[Lazerlike42]

Why is it allowed for people to receive communion before they are confirmed/chrismated?

Why shouldn’t it be? Confirmation is not required to receive Communion. One must only be in a state of Grace, which is effected by Baptism. The Baptized Catholic has the indwelling of the Trinity and the mark of the Baptismal Character. Confirmation adds nothing that would relate to one’s reception of the Holy Eucharist.

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

I have found an older thred that answers my question, thank you .

Pushing back the age of confirmation has flawed our understanding of the sacrament, where it has become more about what the teens do to receive it than about what the sacrament does to the teens. I honestly don’t see where the Church universal requires 3 years of preparation for Confirmation the way it is in many dioceses.

What we have occurring today is absolutely a heresy.

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3524568

 

[Lazerlike42]

I have found an older thred that answers my question, thank you .

What we have occurring today is absolutely a heresy. May God help those under this terrible practice.

Chris, it is not a heresy. You may not think it is as prudent as offering confirmation prior to Holy Communion, but it is not a heresy. On the contrary, to declare that one must receive Confirmation prior to Communion is heretical. It is contrary to Catholic doctrine.

If you wish to be authentically traditional, then you must firstly make sure that you know the facts about your faith, and secondly embrace the these truths, regardless of your own opinions or desires. You are treading on extremely dangerous ground in delcaring heretical something which is not. If you are obstinant in this, you will be incur automatic excommunication. You don’t want that.

Communion may be received by any validly baptized member of the Catholic Church. It used to be practiced that it was granted after, but it is not a theological or doctrinal requirement.

Peace and God bless

 

[vocatio]

I would love to see infants receive 3 sacraments at once. Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Communion. This would align us with eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, making unification more accessable. I see the beauty of this and hope for it. You know how rumors are, but I’ve heard rumors that this was considered, but by whom, I don’t know. New Catholic converts typically are confirmed before first communion.

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

newadvent.org had some on this

Alcuin also in his letter to Odwin describes how the neophyte, after the reception of baptism and the Eucharist, prepares to receive the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands. “Last of all by the imposition of the hands by the chief priest [summo sacerdote] he receives the Spirit of the seven-fold grace to be strengthened by the Holy Spirit to fight against others” (De bapt. cæremon. in P.L., CI, col. 614).

Than again I could be wrong.

 

[markadm]

I would love to see infants receive 3 sacraments at once. Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Communion. This would align us with eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, making unification more accessable. I see the beauty of this and hope for it. You know how rumors are, but I’ve heard rumors that this was considered, but by whom, I don’t know. New Catholic converts typically are confirmed before first communion.

I, for one, would not like to see this. I have no problem with infant baptism, but I see an element of free assent coming to play in Confirmation, and indeed First Communion cannot be made before a child can readily identify that the Eucharist is Jesus.

In short, I have no problem with the practice as envisaged by Pope St. Pius X at the time of issueing Quam singulari, though I do share concerns about what it’s become…

Mind you, I was confirmed as an adult, and received first Holy Communion then, hence I speak so strongly about informed, reasoned, assent.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I, for one, would not like to see this. I have no problem with infant baptism, but I see an element of free assent coming to play in Confirmation, and indeed First Communion cannot be made before a child can readily identify that the Eucharist is Jesus.

In short, I have no problem with the practice as envisaged by Pope St. Pius X at the time of issueing Quam singulari, though I do share concerns about what it’s become…

Mind you, I was confirmed as an adult, and received first Holy Communion then, hence I speak so strongly about informed, reasoned, assent.

Well, Eastern Catholic Churches have always given all three Sacraments to infants. There is nothing inherently wrong with giving Communion to infants. One may make judgment as to which provides the greatest benefit, but it’s not wrong in any way.

 

[markadm]

Well, Eastern Catholic Churches have always given all three Sacraments to infants. There is nothing inherently wrong with giving Communion to infants. One may make judgment as to which provides the greatest benefit, but it’s not wrong in any way.

Oh, yes, I’m not saying it’s wrong. I just think there is a benefit in delaying confirmation and Holy Communion.

 

[Phemie]

Well, Eastern Catholic Churches have always given all three Sacraments to infants. There is nothing inherently wrong with giving Communion to infants. One may make judgment as to which provides the greatest benefit, but it’s not wrong in any way.

We also confirm infant who are in danger of dying, yet we don’t give children communion until they can distinguish between the sacred species and bread & are able to have the proper reverence.

 

[First_of_9]

I have found an older thred that answers my question, thank you .

What we have occurring today is absolutely a heresy.

If it is heresy, it has been going on for quite a while. I made my First Communion in Dec. 1954 in first grade. Confirmation was in third grade.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

In the Greek Church and in Spain, infants are now, as in earlier times, confirmed immediately after baptism. Leo XIII, writing 22 June, 1897, to the Bishop of Marseilles, commends most heartily the practice of *confirming children before their first communion as being more **in accord with the ancient usage ***of the Church.

It seems that the practice of only having the bishop confirm (not always the case) older children was a result of Scholasticism and not an ancient practice. I’m not arguing that they were wrong.

But, I do hear of priests who deplore the whole “Debutante Ball” atmosphere that the Sacrament has become as these teen-age girls put on their promenade dresses and show their flesh in the Churches. More than a few priests have commented that they would welcome a return to the more ancient practice of the first 3 Sacraments at infancy.

 

[HollyDolly]

What you are refering to Volodymyr 988 is called a quincenera
which is the hispanic verison of the sweet 16 party.
The girls usually wear white dresses,much like a bride’s dress.
The family’s get sponsors to help foot the bill.One family might pay for the Dj,others help pay for the church,food,etc.
The reason I assume for the white dress is to show they are virgins and also of marriageable status.
Has absolutely nothing to do with confirmation and receiving the Holy Spirit.
I guess they hold the ceremony in Church is because they want the Church’s blessing on the girl and her future.Very common
in areas with heavy hispanic populations.

I was confirmed on Elemendorf Air Force Base,Alaska,by the Archbishop of Anchorage.None of us girls wore anything but modest but becoming clothing,certainly no wedding dresses or gowns on that order.

That is what the priests object to,using the Church for a purely secular social event which has nothing whatso ever to do the sacrements of the Church or Jesus.
Don’t know if my dad’s aunts ever had a sweet 16 party,but if any of them did,it was strictly at home with family and invited guests
and if the church was invovled,it was because great grandma invited the parish priest and sisters to the party.
Don’t even know if German girls have such a party anyway.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

What is happening in Europe and what we have been told to do by the Vatican is to confirm at the age of 7. The U.S. was told to do this over 20 years ago and we have asked for and been granted extensions several times. The Vatican has said no more extensions.

 

[aristotle]

If you are obstinant in this, you will be incur automatic excommunication. You don’t want that.

Hardly. He must be obstinant in the face of the teaching authority of the Church. Which you are not.

He can doubt you, yell at you, spit in your face, all day, denying that what you say has merit. Until he actually sees the official teaching of the Church himself (though he is obliged always to search and study), he will not incur any form of excommunication.

Nevertheless, from the canons of the Council at Trent (and from the whole tradition of the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches), it does seem very clear that baptism is the gate to the full sacramental life, and nothing more is needed for any of the sacraments.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

What you are refering to Volodymyr 988 is called a quincenera
which is the hispanic verison of the sweet 16 party.
The girls usually wear white dresses,much like a bride’s dress.
The family’s get sponsors to help foot the bill.One family might pay for the Dj,others help pay for the church,food,etc.
The reason I assume for the white dress is to show they are virgins and also of marriageable status.
Has absolutely nothing to do with confirmation and receiving the Holy Spirit.
I guess they hold the ceremony in Church is because they want the Church’s blessing on the girl and her future.Very common
in areas with heavy hispanic populations.

I was confirmed on Elemendorf Air Force Base,Alaska,by the Archbishop of Anchorage.None of us girls wore anything but modest but becoming clothing,certainly no wedding dresses or gowns on that order.

That is what the priests object to,using the Church for a purely secular social event which has nothing whatso ever to do the sacrements of the Church or Jesus.
Don’t know if my dad’s aunts ever had a sweet 16 party,but if any of them did,it was strictly at home with family and invited guests
and if the church was invovled,it was because great grandma invited the parish priest and sisters to the party.
Don’t even know if German girls have such a party anyway.

Holly Dolly,

No it isn’t. There are no Hispanics in my area There are only spoiled little Germanic girls.

 

[rwoehmke]

Nevertheless, from the canons of the Council at Trent (and from the whole tradition of the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches), it does seem very clear that baptism is the gate to the full sacramental life, and nothing more is needed for any of the sacraments.

I think that beyond Baptism being first there is no “doctrine” or “dogma” that lays out any order of reception except perhaps once the age of reason arrives, penance is usually prescribed before receiving a sacrament of the living. The Bishops and papacy are within their authority to otherwise move the order any way they see fit just as they do in making changes in how the sacraments themselves are administered.

 

[aristotle]

I think that beyond Baptism being first there is no “doctrine” or “dogma” that lays out any order of reception except perhaps once the age of reason arrives, penance is usually prescribed before receiving a sacrament of the living. The Bishops and papacy are within their authority to otherwise move the order any way they see fit just as they do in making changes in how the sacraments themselves are administered.

I agree completely.

 

[RichT]

The Diocese of Phoenix has restored the order. My nine year old daughter was confirmed a couple of weeks ago and then received First Communion afterwards at the same mass.