Diocese to restore order to Sacraments

[Usige]

AlbMagno:

If so, why wouldn’t the Holy Spirit grant these Graces in Baptism? If He doesn’t, then wouldn’t it be more convenient to grant all the “Evangelization equipment” when the chrisian is more mature? (A teenager).

Baptism and Confirmation serve two separate purposes. In baptism we are reborn into eternal life. it is in baptism that Adam and Eve’s turning away from God is reversed and we return to God’s embrace.

Confirmation on the other hand strengthens us to live in the presently fallen world. While the anointing confirms us in our role as apostles, it also provides us with the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Now think about what those gifts are.

How much better do you think young people would understand their religious formation with the gift of Understanding that is meant to help us view the mysteries of the faith in the light of Christ, just as the men on the road to Emmaus had their minds opened? How do you think it would help to have the gifts of Wisdom and Counsel to make correct judgments when facing peer pressure that says right is wrong, good is bad, et cetera? What about the fear of the lord and fortitude while kids are being maligned for their faith and lured to turn away from it?

Today, kids need Confirmation more as society tries to twist their minds at an earlier and earlier age. Waiting until they are 15, 18, 20 is just leaving them on a battlefield without the very gifts God offers so freely.

Why aren’t the gifts conferred in a single sacrament? You’ll have to ask the big guy when you get to Heaven. It might also be why they used to be conferred together instead on the current practice of separating them by decades.

I think we are looking at the wrong solution for the right problem. If people doesn’t currently continue having formation after Confirmation, (in my opinion) we should strenghten our post-confirmation catechesis, not move Confirmation.

While I agree that we should strengthen opportunities for post-confirmation catechesis, that really has no bearing on the age of reception. In fact, holding confirmation up as some type of coming of age ceremony that is “earned” after enough study has the opposite effect. Kids are conditioned to think of confirmation as something that indicates that they have “graduated” from their formation when in fact it is Confirmation (and the gifts of the Holy Spirit) that makes formation so much more fruitful.

 

[Usige]

I think our culture perpetuates childhood far too long. Not the innocence and imagination of childhood. But the lack of independence and responsibility characteristic of very young children.

I’d love to see the Church leading the culture in turning that around by telling young people (and I mean as young as 7 years old ) that they not in training to be the “Church of the Future”, but that they should already be acting as responsible members of the Body of Christ.

I couldn’t agree more. We continue to push people to take responsibility at older and older ages to the point that people simply think that responsibility starts in their late 20s.

I think of the numerous Saints that were martyred when they were between 8 and 17 and wonder if they would have kept their faith if they were not granted the graces from the sacrament of Confirmation. For instance St Maria Goretti was confirmed when she was 6 or 7. I wonder how much more difficult her ordeal would have been without the gifts she received during Confirmation.

 

[otjm]

Given that all too many Catholic youth do not receive confirmation now, moving it further down the road in time is not going to be a plus.

there is another issue, and that is that confirmation, particularly when held for later in high school, has had an unintended and not publicly spoken consequence, and that is that it signals the end of “having to study anything”. Not official comment from anyone, but clearly a result if one works with those in their 20’s and 30’s.

 

[dochawk]

So this is Confirmation? (Serious question) If so, why wouldn’t the Holy Spirit grant these Graces in Baptism?

As someone recently put it (was it the priest at by grandson’s baptism and chrismation?), Baptism is grace for your benefit, and confirmation (chrysmation) bestows grace for you to act on others . . .

As far as the “traditional” order and the reason for the separation in the west, confirmation was moved as a disciplinary issue for the purpose of reinforcing the perception of the bishops pastoral role (as opposed to administrative), and the Cup was withheld, also as a disciplinary action, to flush out the albigensian heretics. Deferral of Communion was a collateral consequence of the withheld cup, as infants were communed with the Blood alone for the simple reason that they weren’t ready for solid food.

All of the explanations about readiness, age of reason, and so forth were backfitted to explain already existing praxis.

hawk

 

[dochawk]

That is not when the changes were made. Both were about 700 years ago.

 

[dochawk]

A change in church law about 700 years ago created a loophole.

The priest was required to observe the exchange in vows, and couples would rush into the rectory, rouse the priest, and exchange vows before he came to his senses.

This was a change to deal with a prior abuse–without the priest required (even though it was the norm at the time), couples disappeared, amp back , and disputed whether they had exchanged vows.

The loophole was closed about 30 years ago, with the priest being required to request the vows.

So, yes, the church can go hundreds of years with defective discipline . . .

 

[Mintaka]

It is not mentioned much in modern books, but the old teaching was that, along with other gifts, Confirmation provided more protection against demons.

And kids who are seven years old are responsible for their own actions and sins.

 

[JMMJ]

And kids who are seven years old are responsible for their own actions and sins

Maybe that is the teaching that should be changed.

 

[tafan2]

Why? 10 chars

 

[JMMJ]

It is quite debatable whether or not the age of 7 is the age of reason. In fact, most people outside of the church would say 7 year olds are still innocent babies. I tend to agree.

 

[JMMJ]

At 7, in my opinion, they are still babies. This would it impact their ability to sin.

 

[JMMJ]

I just apply my opinion to those people who I do know.

 

[babochka]

It is quite debatable whether or not the age of 7 is the age of reason. In fact, most people outside of the church would say 7 year olds are still innocent babies. I tend to agree.

The church teaches that by the age of seven, in most cases, children have begun to have the ability to be responsible for their actions. I don’t believe that a seven-year-old old has culpability for mortal sin, but an average seven-year old is certainly capable of sin.

 

[Joe_5859]

It is quite debatable whether or not the age of 7 is the age of reason. In fact, most people outside of the church would say 7 year olds are still innocent babies. I tend to agree.

For me, viewing age 7 as the age of reason always resonated with me. Second grade (age 7) is when I feel like my real memories began. Everything before that was more of a blur with just a few bits and pieces that almost feel like someone else.

Also, for my parish’s faith formation, there is a noticeable decrease in behavioral issues for the kids once they hit 2nd grade.

Not that kids aren’t still relatively innocent at that age. They are. But I do think that there are some mental changes that occur around that age that make it more possible for children to reason through things, recognize right from wrong, and exert more control over their behavior.

 

[ziapueblo]

From the Institute of Catholic Culture:

ZP

 

[tafan2]

That is not when the changes were made. Both were about 700 years ago.

dochawk, which exact changes are you referring to? It seems you are referring to moving confirmation and first communion to an older age relative to when baptism was administered. If so, that is not the entire issue here. Certainly administering confirmation at a much older age (eg early to late teens) is the issue, but the other issue is simply the proper order of the sacraments.

 

[tafan2]

Um…“ Natural sacramental order”?
Every thing seems natural if that’s what you want.
A few people expressed good ideas, and disagreed with me, but so far no poster has tried to refute my post. I’m not sure you are wrong, but you are welcome to refute, if you want.

I will try. Lets start with your problem with the proper order. Instead of referring to the natural order, lets just refer to the Catechism:

1322 The holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation. Those who have been raised to the dignity of the royal priesthood by Baptism and configured more deeply to Christ by Confirmation participate with the whole community in the Lord’s own sacrifice by means of the Eucharist.

The word restore tends to have a positive sound or spin to it, but we have to ask if young people now are going to be living in that same culture as Christians 15 centuries ago.

Lets get this straight, it is not 15 centuries ago, the order was reversed (likely inadvertently) in many places after 1910 when first communion was moved to the age of reason. But not everywhere in the west, it actually became common in some Latin American countries to go back to confirming infants. I used to teach confirmation classes to middle schoolers and had more than one instance of an immigrant from Mexico who was confirmed as an infant.
At any rate, we are not talking about going back to an ancient custom (although doing it that way would be fine by me).

My suggestion would be to hold Confirmation until about 20. By that time a person would be making their own, personal response. It could be similar to RCIA, the more doctrinal based programs.

But why cannot a child of the age of 7 make his/her own, personal response? Again, the catechism:

1307 For centuries, Latin custom has indicated “the age of discretion” as the reference point for receiving Confirmation. But in danger of death children should be confirmed even if they have not yet attained the age of discretion.125

1308 Although Confirmation is sometimes called the “sacrament of Christian maturity,” we must not confuse adult faith with the adult age of natural growth, nor forget that the baptismal grace is a grace of free, unmerited election and does not need “ratification” to become effective. St. Thomas reminds us of this:

Age of body does not determine age of soul. Even in childhood man can attain spiritual maturity: as the book of Wisdom says: "For old age is not honored for length of time, or measured by number of years. "Many children, through the strength of the Holy Spirit they have received, have bravely fought for Christ even to the shedding of their blood.

 

[commenter]

I concede the point

 

[dochawk]

dochawk, which exact changes are you referring to? It seems you are referring to moving confirmation and first communion to an older age relative to when baptism was administered

I’m referring to the separate disciplinary (not doctrinal) rules of reserving confirmation to the bishop to reinforce the perception of him in a pastoral role, and the the withholding the cup to flush out the heretics.

Give or take the same time period, the marriage loophole opened.

700 years seems to be the typical reaction time for the RCC

All the explanations about age of reason, comprehension, and such for the Eucharist and Confirmation are back-fitted to praxis, not the actual reasons.

 

[PeterT]

I used to teach confirmation classes to middle schoolers and had more than one instance of an immigrant from Mexico who was confirmed as an infant.

I have a friend who was born and raised in the Philippines and he received all three sacraments of initiation (Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Communion) as an infant too.