Confirmation by Priests

[Vince1022]

Reconcilliation formerly known as Confession is skipped now?

Seriously?

No, of course not.

Why do you ask?

 

[Vince1022]

No he is not, he is doing so by delegated authority given by Canon Law.

No, in the case of the RCIA, the priest (pastor) is the ordinary minister.

 

[Vince1022]

A lay person may witness a marriage only under certain circumstances with a bishops approval and lay people may only baptize in the case of emergency like possible death. Neither of these make them ordinary ministers.

Yes, neither are ordinary ministers. I never said such. But both deacons and laity may administer these sacraments under circumstances approved by the Bishop (and not only in danger of death).

Yes, the acts are sacraments, but the people are ministers.

 

[Vince1022]

I was referring to children above the age of reason. These are required to be confirmed upon their reception, and frequently raises the question of delaying so that 8-year-old Jimmy can wait to be confirmed with the rest of his classmates in 9th/10th grade. You are correct that “infants” (those below the age of reason) need not be confirmed. To flesh out the picture completely, a baptized infant may be received into the Church simply by having his name enrolled in the parish baptismal registry, but some formal act of enrolment must occur. There have been cases where parents converted and simply assumed this counted for their young children, too, only to find at first communion time that the canonists were requiring little Sally to be confirmed as well because she had not yet been received into the Church.

Thanks, I didn’t know you were referring to children above the age of reason. Appreciate the clarification.

 

[Vince1022]

Not to argue, but to learn, wouldn’t a baptized child over the age of reason receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation become, well, reconciled and hence enrolled in the Church? Or is confirmation necessary to establish a sacramental record (as obviously confession ain’t recorded by the parish secretary )

A baptized child over the age of reason is enrolled in the Church by either:

1. baptism, if the child is under the age of 7 at the time, or
2. eucharist and confrimation, celebrated at the appropriate time, if their baptism occurred prior to the age of 7.

 

[Vince1022]

But before they can partake of the Holy Eucharist they must Reconcile themselves via the means of what was formerly known as confession, so they can partake worthily? Correct?

Not if they are Eastern Catholics.

And not if they are adults being initiated into the Roman Catholic Church via the RCIA.

 

[Vince1022]

If a child of the age of reason is being baptized at that Mass, then they can receive the Holy Eucharist at that Mass because baptism removes all sin.

Not only CAN they, but by the RCIA they are obligated to. As are all “adults” being initiated (i.e.baptism, confirmation, eucharist) via the RCIA, in the Roman Rite.

 

[ConstantineTG]

A lay person may witness a marriage only under certain circumstances with a bishops approval and lay people may only baptize in the case of emergency like possible death. Neither of these make them ordinary ministers.

Also just to get a bit technical, these are not ministries, they are Sacraments.

Just to be clear here for the rest of our viewers

A lay person baptizing under normal circumstances do so validly but illicitly. Since this breaks Canon Law, I believe it is a sin (disobedience to the Church)

A lay person cannot witness a marriage in the Roman Rite without authorization from the Bishop. There is no licit or illicit, its outright invalid if they are not authorized by the Bishop. Its rare that this may happen but it is indeed possible as there is a provision in Canon Law for it.

 

[Spirithound]

So one would say that, taking that theory simplistically, one who is not yet Catholic should not be able to confess and receive absolution…

My 5-second shoot from the hip response…

Woah! That took you 5 seconds?

That is an interesting theory, and it does speak to the fact that simple “reception into the Church” does not make an indelible mark on the soul, like baptism and confirmation do.

I wanted to bring up perhaps another interesting thing: a friend who was recently baptized into the Church as an adult said that somewhere along the RCIA process, but before baptism, she became eligible for a Catholic funeral.

 

[Phemie]

Woah! That took you 5 seconds?

That is an interesting theory, and it does speak to the fact that simple “reception into the Church” does not make an indelible mark on the soul, like baptism and confirmation do.

I wanted to bring up perhaps another interesting thing: a friend who was recently baptized into the Church as an adult said that somewhere along the RCIA process, but before baptism, she became eligible for a Catholic funeral.

Yes, once she went through **Rite of Acceptance into the Order of Catechumens **and became a catechumen.

 

[AJV]

IHere’s one possibility, adapted from a theoretical case my pastor came up with: A boat full of one hundred people (including 1 priest) get stuck on an island, and are there for many years (like 30 years), and have no chance of getting rescued. They have no contact with the outside world, and the one priest is getting old. He could licitly ordain a man deacon, and then priest. By the way, he could also confirm.

With respect to your pastor, ordinations by priests was merely a canonical theory that was advanced at a certain period, and that also fit comfortably with a certain Thomistic understanding of the Sacraments. The Church has not pronounced on the question, but as it stands now, in emergency or non emergency situations, ordinations by priests are regarded as invalid, and the theory is increasingly tenuous to hold given the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on the Episcopacy.

A search of the forum will turn up past threads on the issue - I think JustLurking had started one.

 

[Vince1022]

Just to be clear here for the rest of our viewers

A lay person baptizing under normal circumstances do so validly but illicitly. Since this breaks Canon Law, I believe it is a sin (disobedience to the Church)

A lay person cannot witness a marriage in the Roman Rite without authorization from the Bishop. There is no licit or illicit, its outright invalid if they are not authorized by the Bishop. Its rare that this may happen but it is indeed possible as there is a provision in Canon Law for it.

It would be illicit, but not invalid, as the ministers of the Sacrament of marriage are the couple, not the witness.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It would be illicit, but not invalid, as the ministers of the Sacrament of marriage are the couple, not the witness.

No. Without a proper witness it would be an invalid marriage. If two Catholics get married before a judge, the judge obviously is a lay person. That is invalid.

 

[Vince1022]

Woah! That took you 5 seconds?

That is an interesting theory, and it does speak to the fact that simple “reception into the Church” does not make an indelible mark on the soul, like baptism and confirmation do.

I wanted to bring up perhaps another interesting thing: a friend who was recently baptized into the Church as an adult said that somewhere along the RCIA process, but before baptism, she became eligible for a Catholic funeral.

Yes, that’s correct. Catechumens, in the Roman Rite, enjoy the privilege of Christian burial.

 

[Vince1022]

No. Without a proper witness it would be an invalid marriage. If two Catholics get married before a judge, the judge obviously is a lay person. That is invalid.

Yes, this would be due to Catholics not following canonical form. You are right, in that case the marriage would be invalid.

But if two non-Catholics got married in that instance, it would be considered a valid marriage.