Confirmation by Priests

[Andreas_Hofer]

Priests have the faculty to confirm, as you note, by the RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults).No special permissions, delegations, etc., are needed. This is liturgical law.

Importantly, when receiving converts, this faculty also imposes a duty. This typically comes up when children below the area’s standard age for Confirmation are received into the Church - wouldn’t it be nice to let them wait and go through the process with their age cohorts? No. The priest must confirm them.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

JL: I would say not even a priest in good standing can confirm WITHOUT permission from the bishop. In my parish the priest has permission to confirm, already baptized adults, who come into the Church holy Saturday through RCIA. I think he must get that permission every year, not sure though. The priest cannot and does not comfirm children who are to be confirmed in the parish. The bishop cames to the parish every year to confirm young people.

But the problem comes up with the differences between Eastern and Western Churches.

The ordinary minister of Confirmation in the West is the bishop but the East it is the priest.

So when we try to make theological rules out of tradition we run into issues. The same goes with marriage and baptism. In the West a deacon can witness a marriage and can baptize, in the East he can not. In the West a deacon can give a blessing like a priest does, in the East he can not.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Priests have the faculty to confirm, as you note, by the RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults).No special permissions, delegations, etc., are needed. This is liturgical law.

Also in cases of necessity. My infant son was baptized and confirmed by a prest in the hospital before he went in for his surgery.

 

[runningdude]

Brother Marduk,
…Within that tradition, the bishop is the high priest and bishops alone possess the fulness of Holy Orders. Presbyters, on the other hand, partake/share in the ministry of the high priest,… while certain other priestly powers are acquired by priests only through being explicitly joined with the bishop’s ministry (e.g., a bishop might only united his most learned or trusted priests with himself in absolving the sins of his flock)…

Thank-you for your insight yet again. Please now allow me now ask a follow up question, again kind of technical, and strictly for curiousity’s sake :

When the priest performs a confirmation WITH proper faculties, is the priest conferring the sacrament with the permission granted to him, or is the bishop performing the sacrament from afar? I.E. Is the priest acting as a “sacramental agent” if you will, dispensing graces from bishop NOT present at the ceremony?

Again, this is just based on curious stemming from a minor argument on another thread . No actual souls in peril in my hypothetical situation :extrahappy:

 

[runningdude]

Your qualifier about full knowledge of all those (i.e., the only two) involved rules out any possibility of supplied jurisdiction.

Precisely! Well spotted . No supplied jurisdiction, no nothing. Just a lone wolf of a priest.

Yes, it would likely be valid but illicit…but why are you asking this? Is this just mental gymnastics?

Exactly, mental gymnastics. I’m trying to understand the exact nature of the sacrament, and what graces each of the Holy Orders confers. Based on my reading of the thread for the record, it seems that my lone wolf priest would not be able to confer a valid confirmation under my scenario at all.

 

[runningdude]

Brother Marduk,
…Within that tradition, the bishop is the high priest and bishops alone possess the fulness of Holy Orders. Presbyters, on the other hand, partake/share in the ministry of the high priest,… while certain other priestly powers are acquired by priests only through being explicitly joined with the bishop’s ministry (e.g., a bishop might only united his most learned or trusted priests with himself in absolving the sins of his flock)…

Thank-you for your insight yet again. Please now allow me now ask a follow up question, again kind of technical, and strictly for curiousity’s sake :

When the priest performs a confirmation WITH proper faculties, is the priest conferring the sacrament with the permission granted to him, or is the bishop performing the sacrament from afar? I.E. Is the priest acting as a “sacramental agent” if you will, dispensing graces from bishop NOT present at the ceremony?

Again, this is just based on curious stemming from a minor argument on another thread . No actual souls in peril in my hypothetical situation :extrahappy:

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Thank-you for your insight yet again. Please now allow me now ask a follow up question, again kind of technical, and strictly for curiousity’s sake :

When the priest performs a confirmation WITH proper faculties, is the priest conferring the sacrament with the permission granted to him, or is the bishop performing the sacrament from afar? I.E. Is the priest acting as a “sacramental agent” if you will, dispensing graces from bishop NOT present at the ceremony?

Again, this is just based on curious stemming from a minor argument on another thread . No actual souls in peril in my hypothetical situation :extrahappy:

The priest is acting himself - the bishop is not performing some sort of shadow act through a body he snatched. At the same time, under that Latin understanding of the power of orders, the priest himself is acting, but with a power that has been delegated to him, not one he possesses properly in the same sense as does a bishop.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Priests have the faculty to confirm, as you note, by the RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults).No special permissions, delegations, etc., are needed. This is liturgical law.

You have a slight advantage over me. I do not have a copy of the Rite. I know that Canon 883 2° allows a priest to confirm an adult he’s baptised. That would fit in with what happens at the Paschal Vigil. Although it’s in the common law and you say it’s in the liturgical Rite itself I’ve noticed it is often mentioned in priests’ pagella of faculties.

 

[ConstantineTG]

In my parish the priest has permission to confirm, already baptized adults, who come into the Church holy Saturday through RCIA. I think he must get that permission every year, not sure though.

He doesn’t have to. Canon 883 states that:

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;

3/ as regards those who are in danger of death, the pastor or indeed any presbyter.

 

[Vince1022]

Importantly, when receiving converts, this faculty also imposes a duty. This typically comes up when children below the area’s standard age for Confirmation are received into the Church - wouldn’t it be nice to let them wait and go through the process with their age cohorts? No. The priest must confirm them.

No, this isn’t what the RCIA teaches. If a child is below the age of reason, i.e. 7 years of age, the child is baptized according to the Rite of Baptism (for infants). The child would then complete their initiation (Confirmation and Eucharist) with other Catholic children who were baptized as infants (or prior to the age of 7).

It has nothing to do with “the area’s standard age for Confirmation.”

 

[Vince1022]

The ordinary minister of Confirmation in the West is the bishop but the East it is the priest.

In the West, when dealing with the specific issue of adults (RCIA) the ordinary minister of confirmation is the priest.

So when we try to make theological rules out of tradition we run into issues. The same goes with marriage and baptism. In the West a deacon can witness a marriage and can baptize, in the East he can not.

Just to note…not only deacons but also lay people may perform these ministries.

 

[Vince1022]

Exactly, mental gymnastics. I’m trying to understand the exact nature of the sacrament, and what graces each of the Holy Orders confers. Based on my reading of the thread for the record, it seems that my lone wolf priest would not be able to confer a valid confirmation under my scenario at all.

It’s actually not mental gymnastics.

The Catholic Church has many norms as does any institution. But, of course, God acts apart from human norms, so many of the Church’s norms have, appropriately and understandably, exceptions that recognize God is not bound by norms of the Church.

that’s all, no real mental gymnastics.

 

[StrawberryJam]

No, this isn’t what the RCIA teaches. If a child is below the age of reason, i.e. 7 years of age, the child is baptized according to the Rite of Baptism (for infants). The child would then complete their initiation (Confirmation and Eucharist) with other Catholic children who were baptized as infants (or prior to the age of 7).

It has nothing to do with “the area’s standard age for Confirmation.”

Reconcilliation formerly known as Confession is skipped now?

 

[Spirithound]

Reconcilliation formerly known as Confession is skipped now?

No, a child would still be catechized and make a confession at the appropriate time. But it’s not a sacrament of initiation, so it may just get glossed over here…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

In the West, when dealing with the specific issue of adults (RCIA) the ordinary minister of confirmation is the priest.

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

Just to note…not only deacons but also lay people may perform these ministries.

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.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

No, this isn’t what the RCIA teaches. If a child is below the age of reason, i.e. 7 years of age, the child is baptized according to the Rite of Baptism (for infants). The child would then complete their initiation (Confirmation and Eucharist) with other Catholic children who were baptized as infants (or prior to the age of 7).

It has nothing to do with “the area’s standard age for Confirmation.”

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.

 

[runningdude]

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.

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 )

 

[StrawberryJam]

No, a child would still be catechized and make a confession at the appropriate time. But it’s not a sacrament of initiation, so it may just get glossed over here…

They get baptised properly, they are initiated correct?

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?
Or do the steps sort of skip around here and there before Confirmation?

The Eastern Orthodox make this so much easier. This is one part of the Catholic faith I find troublesome after my research of how it has been done over the years.
But, if I were to approach it clinically I would say it is better business to space it out this way from a financial point of view.

 

[Spirithound]

They get baptised properly, they are initiated correct?

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?
Or do the steps sort of skip around here and there before Confirmation?

The Eastern Orthodox make this so much easier. This is one part of the Catholic faith I find troublesome after my research of how it has been done over the years.
But, if I were to approach it clinically I would say it is better business to space it out this way from a financial point of view.

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.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

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 )

Here the practical answer is clear although the theory is murkier. With the reception of baptized adult converts the standard practice is, to my knowledge, that they confess and receive absolution very soon before being received into the Church so as not to receive Confirmation and Eucharist unworthily - but that sacramental reconciliation is not seen as a formal enrolment in the Catholic Church.

The theory is murkier because of the common norm that the sacraments - other than baptism and marriage - are reserved for Catholics. So one would say that, taking that theory simplistically, one who is not yet Catholic should not be able to confess and receive absolution, while on the other hand, one oughtn’t to be approaching any sacraments without ever having received absolution for post-baptismal sin.

My 5-second shoot from the hip response is that while the common wisdom is to think of the sacraments as for Catholics, the truth is that, in an absolute sense, they are for the baptized. A baptized non-Catholic is ontologically capable of receiving absolution, this is just normally withheld because if one has no intention of becoming/being/remaining Catholic, then one does not have a firm purpose of amending one’s life and thus not the proper disposition to receive the sacrament. On the other hand, if one does have a firm resolve to put off one’s old beliefs/practices and become Catholic as soon as allowed, one is properly disposed, and rightly receives the sacrament without being Catholic. Then, with one’s soul cleansed one is properly disposed to receive the sacraments that complete one’s initiation into the Church. IIRC, the preconciliar rite for the reconcilation of heretics envisioned confession and reception occurring virtually back to back (as in, close to: walk out of the confessional, go to the front of the church and make your profession of faith). I guess the key distinction in all of that is that the sacrament of penance forgives, but it doesn’t initiate as do Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist.