Confirmation: Non-Believers who get it anyway

[dans0622]

Corki and smichhertz,

In addition to the common understanding of theologians that the adult recipient needs to have an intention to receive these Sacraments, the precursor to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith said this: “the intention or desire to receive baptism is a necessary requirement: if it is lacking, the baptismal character is not conferred on the adult. This does not apply to faith and penance, which are required if the adult is to receive the sacrament and its inherent fruits licitly: the intention is necessary for the validity of the sacrament, so that an adult baptized without faith and penance is baptized illicitly but validly; on the other hand, a person baptized without the will to receive the sacrament is neither licitly nor validly baptized” (The instruction *In foliis *of the Supr. S. Cong. of the Holy Office, 03-08-1860, emphasis added).

If such is the case with Baptism, a Sacrament that is necessary for salvation and for which the Church does not wish to put up unnecessary barriers to its valid reception (such is true for all the Sacraments but I would think it is most of all true for Baptism), how could it be any different for Confirmation?

And, if it’s invalid, there can be no seal and no grace.

Thanks for your time.
Dan

 

[ronin67]

True, but confirmation is different. Sacraments like confirmation and baptism don’t require intent from the person receiving it for it to be valid. These sacraments deliver a SEAL along with the grace.

For instance, I could drag someone kicking and screaming to the baptismal font and forcibly baptize them and it is still valid. However, since they had no intention of receiving the sacrament, they would simply receive the seal of the sacrament and not the grace.

But if anytime in the future, they had a conversion of heart and decided to live a Christian life, there would be no need for another baptism, and they would immediately receive the sacramental grace at that time.

So the grace of God saves, not baptism?

May God Bless.

Ed

 

[Corki]

Corki and smichhertz,

In addition to the common understanding of theologians that the adult recipient needs to have an intention to receive these Sacraments, the precursor to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith said this: “the intention or desire to receive baptism is a necessary requirement: if it is lacking, the baptismal character is not conferred on the adult. This does not apply to faith and penance, which are required if the adult is to receive the sacrament and its inherent fruits licitly: the intention is necessary for the validity of the sacrament, so that an adult baptized without faith and penance is baptized illicitly but validly; on the other hand, a person baptized without the will to receive the sacrament is neither licitly nor validly baptized” (The instruction *In foliis *of the Supr. S. Cong. of the Holy Office, 03-08-1860, emphasis added).

If such is the case with Baptism, a Sacrament that is necessary for salvation and for which the Church does not wish to put up unnecessary barriers to its valid reception (such is true for all the Sacraments but I would think it is most of all true for Baptism), how could it be any different for Confirmation?

And, if it’s invalid, there can be no seal and no grace.

Thanks for your time.
Dan

One of the main reasons it’s different is that what you posted is from 1860 but the Canon Law cite is from 1983. They are both in the category of “instruction” not revealed truth so the more recent instruction is the ruling document.

The second difference is that, in the cite you provide, you are speaking of an unbaptized person. The effects of the Sacrament of Confirmation are a completion of the effect begun with Baptism. An adult who doesn’t want to be Baptized is rejecting Christianity. An already Baptized person can’t reject his Christianity; it has already happened.

For a teenager, being Confirmed in the 2010s, affirmative intent is not required for validity.

 

[dans0622]

One of the main reasons it’s different is that what you posted is from 1860 but the Canon Law cite is from 1983. They are both in the category of “instruction” not revealed truth so the more recent instruction is the ruling document.

The second difference is that, in the cite you provide, you are speaking of an unbaptized person. The effects of the Sacrament of Confirmation are a completion of the effect begun with Baptism. An adult who doesn’t want to be Baptized is rejecting Christianity. An already Baptized person can’t reject his Christianity; it has already happened.

For a teenager, being Confirmed in the 2010s, affirmative intent is not required for validity.

Hello again,

The dates and the title “instruction” (the Code is not an instruction, by the way) don’t seem to matter and just because the Code happens to speak of certain requirements for lawful reception of a Sacrament does not mean there are no requirements for valid reception. The Holy Office/CDF deals with matters of faith and morals. Here, they have given clear insight into the mind of the Church and this is a matter of doctrine, with which the Code can be interpreted and applied.

As I said, the common opinion of theologians, canonists, etc., is that an intention (at least habitual) is necessary for an adult to validly receive a Sacrament. Ott, Cappello, Aquinas (regarding baptism), the Catholic Encyclopedia (often based on P. Pourrat), are some examples. If you can point to contrary opinions, I would be interested to read them.

I see no reason to think that just because a person is baptized he can never effectively reject any further Sacrament. Yes, he can’t deny the past but he is still free to determine his future.

Thanks again.
Dan

P.S. You can find one of Pourrat’s works here, if the link works. Just hit play and you can read the whole book. Pretty neat. archive.org/stream/theologysacramen00pouruoft#page/n0/mode/2up

 

[Corki]

If what you say is true, there would be a form for Conditional Confirmation offered to the faithful. Thousands of teens get Confirmed every year without any intent to willingly receive the Sacrament. In our area of the country, many have already apostocized and joined Protestant denominations but come back for Confirmation because it is what the family expects/demands. And yet, we never have a Conditional Confirmation when one of them returns to the Church. If the Sacrament is indeed invalid, what happens to those people?

 

[Bluegoat]

If what you say is true, there would be a form for Conditional Confirmation offered to the faithful. Thousands of teens get Confirmed every year without any intent to willingly receive the Sacrament. In our area of the country, many have already apostocized and joined Protestant denominations but come back for Confirmation because it is what the family expects/demands. And yet, we never have a Conditional Confirmation when one of them returns to the Church. If the Sacrament is indeed invalid, what happens to those people?

Perhaps there are any number of people out there who have been through the ceremony of Confirmation, but have not in fact been confirmed.

This does not seem impossible. It used to be that the reasons to declare that a marriage was invalid were very few, while now they are more open. Presumably the nature of marriage has not changed. In the past then, there were likely people who incorrectly believed their marriage to be valid based on what the CC taught them - in fact they may have really been in invalid marriages.

 

[Corki]

Perhaps there are any number of people out there who have been through the ceremony of Confirmation, but have not in fact been confirmed.

This does not seem impossible. It used to be that the reasons to declare that a marriage was invalid were very few, while now they are more open. Presumably the nature of marriage has not changed. In the past then, there were likely people who incorrectly believed their marriage to be valid based on what the CC taught them - in fact they may have really been in invalid marriages.

Sure but if they came to the Church for some other reason, they would find out their marriage was invalid and it could be convalidated. Same thing for Baptism. If it is deficient, for example not Trinitarian, a person can be Baptized validly or conditionally. But no such process or remedy exists for an invalid Confirmation.

 

[lion001]

Thank
Good

————————————
cheap authentic NBA Jerseys

new NHL jerseys authentic

 

[zab]

My daughter and at least one other young devout parishioner who attends daily Mass with their children and does a good job of bringing their children up in the Catholic Faith, have petitioned the pastor to let them have their children confirmed at ages 10 and 12 and he is in favor. They believe that their children need the graces of the sacrament long before they reach the teenage years.

 

[puzzleannie]

what do you mean by “non-believers.” any baptized person having reached the age the bishop calls them for confirmation is a candidate for that sacrament, and validly receives it when worthily disposed (including being in the state of santifying grace and asking for the sacrament) and properly prepared. The individual’s bishop decides what constitutes worthy disposition and preparation. Someone who receives outside the state of grace receives a valid sacrament, which depends on the celebrant’s actions, not the candidates, and the seal of confirmation, but has no access to its graces and actions until such time as he returns to the state of grace through sacramental confession. A baptized non-Catholic is candidate for confirmation through the preparation prescribed by the bishop.

to knowingly and intentionally go through the confirmation rite without that preparation and dispostion and outside the state of grace is a sacrilege, a sin that must be confessed but does not change the fact that a valid sacrament has been received. what you or I believe or opine is irrelevant.

If you are asking what happens in the practical way when a youth in confirmation preparation expresses doubt or dissent from Catholic teaching, rejection of the faith, and says he does not want to be confirmed, since he is an adult for the purposes of this sacrament having reached the age of reason, he cannot and should not receive it until such time as he does ask for it. He is a candidate for counselling from the pastor, with his parents, sponsors or catechists if that is helpful, but under no circumstances should there be any attempt to force him to receive, or to automatically confirm all youth in a given “class” without discerning their disposition for the sacrament. That is why a confirmation interview with the pastor or his delegate, letter to the bishop. or other such formalities are usually part of the prepration process.

 

[Corki]

My daughter and at least one other young devout parishioner who attends daily Mass with their children and does a good job of bringing their children up in the Catholic Faith, have petitioned the pastor to let them have their children confirmed at ages 10 and 12 and he is in favor. They believe that their children need the graces of the sacrament long before they reach the teenage years.

I’m with you on that one. We used to have that option but then we got a new Archbishop and he ended the authority of pastors to grant those exceptions. The only kids who can get confirmed before age 16 (Latin rite) are those coming into the Church and receiving all thier Sacraments at the same time.

 

[Bluegoat]

Sure but if they came to the Church for some other reason, they would find out their marriage was invalid and it could be convalidated. Same thing for Baptism. If it is deficient, for example not Trinitarian, a person can be Baptized validly or conditionally. But no such process or remedy exists for an invalid Confirmation.

Well, no they wouldn’t. I am not talking about non-Catholics or even fallen away Catholics returning. Roughly before Vat II - maybe someone else can date it more precisely - there were big changes to what were considered grounds for a decree of nullity. In fact before the changes, people were denied annulments by the CC for reasons that would be accepted today.

If you think the nature of marriage has not changed, then it suggests that in the past, people who thought they had valid marriages in fact did not.

If this is so, I can’t see why it is impossible to imagine that there could be people around who unknowingly had invalid confirmations but without the CC recognizing it.

 

[Corki]

Well, no they wouldn’t. I am not talking about non-Catholics or even fallen away Catholics returning. Roughly before Vat II - maybe someone else can date it more precisely - there were big changes to what were considered grounds for a decree of nullity. In fact before the changes, people were denied annulments by the CC for reasons that would be accepted today.

I wasn’t talking about non-Catholics or falen away Catholics either. If, for example, a couple came to the Church seeking to Baptize a child, the priest, in the course of the interview would find out if their marriage had been performed invalidly (outside the Church). He could then work to fix the invalidity through convalidation.

If you think the nature of marriage has not changed, then it suggests that in the past, people who thought they had valid marriages in fact did not.

If this is so, I can’t see why it is impossible to imagine that there could be people around who unknowingly had invalid confirmations but without the CC recognizing it

Unless a couple sought an annullment, the validity of thier marriage was irrelevant. The Church recognized a presumption of validity as long as the bond is intact. It is even possible to enjoy the graces of the Sacrament unless the marriage was attempted outside the Church.

There is not a parallel situation with Confirmation. As Puzzleannie just pointed out, only the minister’s actions validate the Sacrament.

So, let’s say a person who did not intend to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation did so because he felt “forced”. He later comes around and joins the seminary. This time of discontent will likely be covered in the discernment process. Since Confirmation is a pre-requisite for Ordination, does he need to be reconfirmed? No! In fact, he CAN’T be re-Confirmed.

 

[Bluegoat]

Unless a couple sought an annullment, the validity of thier marriage was irrelevant. The Church recognized a presumption of validity as long as the bond is intact. It is even possible to enjoy the graces of the Sacrament unless the marriage was attempted outside the Church.

There is not a parallel situation with Confirmation. As Puzzleannie just pointed out, only the minister’s actions validate the Sacrament.

Do you think the Church causes the marriage to be null or valid??? A presumption of validity does not mean a marriage is valid.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please stay on topic. Take any side issues to new or existing threads. Thank you all.

 

[dans0622]

If what you say is true, there would be a form for Conditional Confirmation offered to the faithful. Thousands of teens get Confirmed every year without any intent to willingly receive the Sacrament. In our area of the country, many have already apostocized and joined Protestant denominations but come back for Confirmation because it is what the family expects/demands. And yet, we never have a Conditional Confirmation when one of them returns to the Church. If the Sacrament is indeed invalid, what happens to those people?

Hello Corki,

There is a conditional form, just like for Baptism. You are right, though, it is seldom used. Certainly, the presumption of the Church is that if a person simply shows up to be confirmed, they had/have an intention to be confirmed, however weak and however motivated. Further, since Confirmation is not necessary for salvation or for the valid reception/administration of any other Sacrament, the issue of its validity is not as important as Baptism and Orders. Because of these two points, I suppose the issue of validity is not seen as an important one. At least, not important enough to warrant some sort of investigation.

On the contrary, I think it is worthwhile to examine people who have acted in the way you mention to try to determine whether or not they had at least a minimal intention to receive Confirmation. Sure, it’s not necessary for salvation but it still is a means of grace we should not ignore.

To bring this post solidly back on topic, I will conclude by saying “non-belief” is not an issue for validity unless it makes the person intend to not receive the Sacrament.

Thanks again for your time.
Dan