Confirmation in the Chaldean Church?

[erinmitbaren]

All of the Chaldeans i know were confirmed when they were infants, right after baptism. From what i’ve learned in the Latin rite, we see confirmation as the beginning of “spiritual adulthood” and more of a conscious decision to continue living your faith as you get older. I was confirmed in 5th grade and i have a lot of friends who were confirmed in 8th grade or later. How does confirmation differ for Chaldean Catholics? Is it still viewed as an entrance into spiritual adulthood, etc. like in the Latin rite?

 

[Formosus]

The view that confirmation is an entrance into spiritual adulthood is a fairly modern idea and not based in the early Tradition of the Church.

Confirmation (or Chrismation as we in the East call it), is the completion of Baptism. In the east, one receives Baptism, Chrismation and Eucharist one right after another. It, along with Baptism, bring a person into the membership of the Church.

In my personal opinion, if any sacrament is an entrance into spiritual adulthood, it may be confession since that is when an individual can take responsibility for sins they commit.

 

[Philotheatoo]

It is a gift of the Holy Spirit, a Sacrament, in which we receive grace. It does complete Baptism and, fortunately, it is given to us at a time in our lives when we can fully understand the gift we are given and what we are expected to do with it.

 

[albarker1]

I don’t understand what a sacrament is…I know I have unmerited grace through Christ and I have received and operated in the Holy Spirit’s gifts given to me, but I have never heard the term sacrament in relation to grace or gifts? Can you explain it for me please?

 

[Philotheatoo]

In order to come into full communion with the Catholic Church you receive the Sacraments, usually in the order, of Baptism, Reconciliation, Eucharist, Confirmation and, after those the possibility of: Marriage, Holy Orders, Anointing of the Sick.

Each of these sacraments you receive is the receipt of God’s Grace, given to you through the Church. (Marriage is actually given through your spouse). You would never want to stand in receipt of a Sacrament unless you are in a state of grace because God’s Grace will be bestowed unto you upon receipt of the sacrament.

There are many ways to receive God’s grace however; the Sacraments are always a garauntee of receiving it! I hope I did not confuse you. I am sure there are others here at CAF who can do better than I just did.

 

[Hesychios]

The view that confirmation is an entrance into spiritual adulthood is a fairly modern idea and not based in the early Tradition of the Church.

Confirmation (or Chrismation as we in the East call it), is the completion of Baptism. In the east, one receives Baptism, Chrismation and Eucharist one right after another. It, along with Baptism, bring a person into the membership of the Church.

In my personal opinion, if any sacrament is an entrance into spiritual adulthood, it may be confession since that is when an individual can take responsibility for sins they commit.

Excellent post.

 

[mardukm]

It would be interesting to trace the development of the Sacrament of Confirmation among the Westerns. To Orientals and Easterns, this Sacrament is simply the gift of the Holy Spirit Himself, as reflected in Scripture, irrespective of “maturity” or “adulthood.”

Maybe there was a time when it was difficult generally for Latins to obtain the chrism, and had to delay confirmation. The exceptional situation then became the norm?

Or maybe since the Scripture records that the Sacrament was first given to adults, this interpretation gained ground in the Latin Church?

Or maybe because of the Arian heresy, when many fell from the true Faith, and the heresy persisted in the West among the Goths longer than in the East, it became a canonical policy to hold off the Sacrament until adulthood?

Or maybe because of the nuances between “valid” and “licit,” it again became canonically proper to wait until “the age of reason” to give the gift of the Holy Spirit?

Whatever the reason, it would make an interesting study.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

Personally, I’m not really sure of the history of “Confirmation” in the Chaldean Church, IOW, if it was always done along with baptism or if the practice is a restoration of Tradition), so I hesitate to comment here. What I would welcome is (name removed by moderator)ut from one our Chaldean members. (Anthony, are you listening? )

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

It would be interesting to trace the development of the Sacrament of Confirmation among the Westerns. To Orientals and Easterns, this Sacrament is simply the gift of the Holy Spirit Himself, as reflected in Scripture, irrespective of “maturity” or “adulthood.”

Maybe there was a time when it was difficult generally for Latins to obtain the chrism, and had to delay confirmation. The exceptional situation then became the norm?

Or maybe since the Scripture records that the Sacrament was first given to adults, this interpretation gained ground in the Latin Church?

Or maybe because of the Arian heresy, when many fell from the true Faith, and the heresy persisted in the West among the Goths longer than in the East, it became a canonical policy to hold off the Sacrament until adulthood?

Or maybe because of the nuances between “valid” and “licit,” it again became canonically proper to wait until “the age of reason” to give the gift of the Holy Spirit?

Whatever the reason, it would make an interesting study.

Blessings,
Marduk

To my knowledge, the common reason for the delay of Confirmation was because of the growth of the dioceses. Eventually at some point it became impossible for the bishop to be able to Chrismate every child/convert. Unlike in the East, however, they did not grant the faculty to priests who used the Holy Chrism blessed by the bishop. They still maintained it was the bishop’s right alone to Confirm.

This eventually led to various parishes waiting longer and longer to have children/converts Confirmed. This then led to a theological quandary. Confirmation was viewed as a Sacrament of initiation. But here you have initiates who were waiting sometimes years before they could receive the Sacrament. Furthermore, what of those who died before being Chrismated and admitted to the Eucharist? What of their fate?

It was then said that those awaiting the Sacrament dwelt in their Baptismal Grace, and this was completed and perfected when they received Confirmation, and nourished by the Eucharist. However, those who died without these two latter (especially the Eucharist) were not considered outside of salvation.

Eventually this all also led to the practice of First Communion before Confirmation, to deal with the apparent issue. However this causes issues of its own, for that would mean admitting someone to the Altar who has not been sealed by the Grace of the Holy Spirit.

In the end, however, there is still the tension of Confirmation in the West being considered a Sacrament of Initiation, but it being delayed.

 

[Vico]

To my knowledge, the common reason for the delay of Confirmation was because of the growth of the dioceses. Eventually at some point it became impossible for the bishop to be able to Chrismate every child/convert. Unlike in the East, however, they did not grant the faculty to priests who used the Holy Chrism blessed by the bishop. They still maintained it was the bishop’s right alone to Confirm.

This eventually led to various parishes waiting longer and longer to have children/converts Confirmed. This then led to a theological quandary. Confirmation was viewed as a Sacrament of initiation. But here you have initiates who were waiting sometimes years before they could receive the Sacrament. Furthermore, what of those who died before being Chrismated and admitted to the Eucharist? What of their fate?

It was then said that those awaiting the Sacrament dwelt in their Baptismal Grace, and this was completed and perfected when they received Confirmation, and nourished by the Eucharist. However, those who died without these two latter (especially the Eucharist) were not considered outside of salvation.

Eventually this all also led to the practice of First Communion before Confirmation, to deal with the apparent issue. However this causes issues of its own, for that would mean admitting someone to the Altar who has not been sealed by the Grace of the Holy Spirit.

In the end, however, there is still the tension of Confirmation in the West being considered a Sacrament of Initiation, but it being delayed.

I want to add to yours, that the bishop and the deacon were the original two orders. The priest was added later as a representative of the bishop.

 

[chaldobyzantine]

From personal knowledge/experience, the administration of the Sacrament of Holy Christmation/Confirmation is no different from those of the Byzantine or Maronite churches. It is indeed done immediately after Baptism, and according to the old people in my family, its always been like that without delay

We do differ from the Byzantine and Oriental traditions with the First Communion “tradition” which is an obvious latinization that is not going to leave anytime soon due to the parties being too fun… or a hesitation to have First Reconciliation instead as some Byzantine churches do.

I do not know if the Latin church has the first confession the same as the Chaldean Church, being a day or two before the First Communion. I would like to know more about the Latin practice towards that if anyone would like to share.

God Bless

 

[Vico]

From personal knowledge/experience, the administration of the Sacrament of Holy Christmation/Confirmation is no different from those of the Byzantine or Maronite churches. It is indeed done immediately after Baptism, and according to the old people in my family, its always been like that without delay

We do differ from the Byzantine and Oriental traditions with the First Communion “tradition” which is an obvious latinization that is not going to leave anytime soon due to the parties being too fun… or a hesitation to have First Reconciliation instead as some Byzantine churches do.

I do not know if the Latin church has the first confession the same as the Chaldean Church, being a day or two before the First Communion. I would like to know more about the Latin practice towards that if anyone would like to share.

God Bless

From the Vatican (1977):

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_19770331_penance-communion_en.html

Restored Order (2005):
ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/ordsacinit.htm

 

[erinmitbaren]

From personal knowledge/experience, the administration of the Sacrament of Holy Christmation/Confirmation is no different from those of the Byzantine or Maronite churches. It is indeed done immediately after Baptism, and according to the old people in my family, its always been like that without delay

We do differ from the Byzantine and Oriental traditions with the First Communion “tradition” which is an obvious latinization that is not going to leave anytime soon due to the parties being too fun… or a hesitation to have First Reconciliation instead as some Byzantine churches do.

I do not know if the Latin church has the first confession the same as the Chaldean Church, being a day or two before the First Communion. I would like to know more about the Latin practice towards that if anyone would like to share.

God Bless

I think i had my first confession a few months before First Communion. I was in 2nd grade, and i definitely remember going to confession before receiving the Eucharist.

What is the Chaldean practice of First Communion traditions?

 

[twf]

It would be interesting to trace the development of the Sacrament of Confirmation among the Westerns. To Orientals and Easterns, this Sacrament is simply the gift of the Holy Spirit Himself, as reflected in Scripture, irrespective of “maturity” or “adulthood.”

Maybe there was a time when it was difficult generally for Latins to obtain the chrism, and had to delay confirmation. The exceptional situation then became the norm?

Or maybe since the Scripture records that the Sacrament was first given to adults, this interpretation gained ground in the Latin Church?

Or maybe because of the Arian heresy, when many fell from the true Faith, and the heresy persisted in the West among the Goths longer than in the East, it became a canonical policy to hold off the Sacrament until adulthood?

Or maybe because of the nuances between “valid” and “licit,” it again became canonically proper to wait until “the age of reason” to give the gift of the Holy Spirit?

Whatever the reason, it would make an interesting study.

Blessings,
Marduk

There may be some merit to any one of these theories…but I think Vico has raised a good point. In the Latin tradition, the bishop is the ordinary minister of confirmation, not the presbyter. It is an extraordinary situation for a presbyter to confirm in stead of the local bishop. It simply isn’t practical for a bishop to be present for every baptism. Interestingly, adult converts are baptized and confirmed during the same ceremony, as in the East, and not necessarily by the bishop - but as the vast majority of Catholics are “born into” the Church, this is an extraordinary situation.

 

[dcointin]

From the Vatican (1977):

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_19770331_penance-communion_en.html

Restored Order (2005):
ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/ordsacinit.htm

This applies only to the Latin Catholic Church, correct?

 

[Vico]

This applies only to the Latin Catholic Church, correct?

Yes, it is for the Latin Church, but some of the historical information is more general. The eastern Churches have sometimes changed from their ancient practices, but the norm is to give the Holy Baptism, Holy Chrismation, and Holy Eucharist at the same time, as I have seen Christian initiations at my parish, both adult and infant.

 

[Aramis]

There may be some merit to any one of these theories…but I think Vico has raised a good point. In the Latin tradition, the bishop is the ordinary minister of confirmation, not the presbyter. It is an extraordinary situation for a presbyter to confirm in stead of the local bishop. It simply isn’t practical for a bishop to be present for every baptism. Interestingly, adult converts are baptized and confirmed during the same ceremony, as in the East, and not necessarily by the bishop - but as the vast majority of Catholics are “born into” the Church, this is an extraordinary situation.

Latin pastors may only confirm either on the easter vigil, or with explicit permission of the bishop-ordinary. Auxiliary bishops may confirm freely; it’s not a jurisdictional issue as an function of the episcopacy that may be filled in extremis by the pastor. Other priests require delegation from the bishop, as well, even for the Easter vigil. Persons in immediate danger of death may be confirmed by any priest… including during last rites.