Diocese to restore order to Sacraments

  • Thread starter Thread starter ziapueblo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

In the early centuries men were generally ordained, and couples were generally married, much younger than people today. No one is pushing to restore those age frames.

Pastoral practices should respond to contemporary needs. If that was their ancient custom, that custom was ended. 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.
 
The problem is that holding off until 20 perpetuates the erroneous idea that confirmation is somehow a sacrament of “adult faith” or somehow the person confirming their belief. It takes it out of the natural sacramental order even further.
 
If I had my way, we would fully initiate infants. It makes no sense to me to call something a sacrament of initiation then not give it to someone for 15 or more years. Children need grace as they’re growing up. And on a purely practical level I would like to get away from the idea that confirmation is a graduation ceremony and no further faith formation is needed.
 
Confirmation is not a prize you get for knowing doctrine.

We need to get away from the idea of the Sacrament as a “graduation” of sorts.
Restored order will help with that and I am all for it.
 
The order is being restored to what it was 100 years ago, when Pius X moved communion, but not confirmation, to a younger age. I do not know anyone who would overturn the young age for communion, so moving confirmation to a younger age seems like the obvious choice. (Do you think we should delay communion until after confirmation? To age 20?)

There is a coherence to the restored order that is lacking in more recent practice. Sharing in the Eucharist is the logical culmination, theologically and pastorally. Confirmation after communion has been anticlimactic. There is more needed to restore respect for this often neglected sacrament, but proper order is a good first step.
 
commenter said:
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.
Click to expand...
Which shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of what the sacrament of Confirmation is.

Confirmation has nothing to do with our choices and everything to do with what God bestows on us and why. We use sacred Chrism in Confirmation because we are anointed by the Holy Spirit for a purpose; to carry the gospel message into the world.
 
To me, if we believe that the sacrament of Confirmation actually does something—that it actually confers grace that strengthens us to be able to live out our faith and share it with others—it makes sense to administer it as soon as possible.

We baptize babies because we want them to have that grace as soon as possible, but then we hold onto Confirmation as a carrot by which to shuffle kids through religious education.

It’s not an easy shift to make, though, in many places, so I completely understand why many bishops haven’t gone this route. It’s not the hill some would choose to die on. And changing the order really can lead to a drop in attendance for religious ed / faith formation / CCD / whatever-you-call-it. So that is a legitimate concern with regards to moving Confirmation to a younger age.

I think it’s worth pursuing a cultural shift to make it happen. But I defer to what my bishop wants to do.
 
So this is Confirmation? (Serious question) 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).

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.
 
Last edited:
So the Grace of Baptism doesn’t suffice to persevere in the Faith? I don’t undestand clearly what the purpouse of Confirmation is…
 
Last edited:
AlbMagno said:
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).
Click to expand...
There is no need to wait until we are a teenager to begin evangelizing. Especially these days, kids are assaulted on many fronts with regards to their faith from very early on.
 
AlbMagno said:
If people doesn’t currently continue having formation after Confirmation, (in my opinion) we should strenghten our post-confirmation catechesis, not move Confirmation.
Click to expand...
I agree, catechesis needs to be strong and continue through adulthood. But, it was until fairly recently that confirmation was moved after communion in the west. Up until the first millennium in the west baptism, confirmation and communion was all done in one liturgical event at infancy. After this, because in the west the ordinary minister of confirmation is the bishop and the diocese grew which made travel more difficult, confirmation and Eucharist were delayed some. Maybe two years.

ZP
 
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace. For ‘by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Hence they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed.’”

ZP
 
JulianN said:
The problem is that holding off until 20 perpetuates the erroneous idea that confirmation is somehow a sacrament of “adult faith” or somehow the person confirming their belief. It takes it out of the natural sacramental order even further.
Click to expand...
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.
 
commenter said:
Um…“ Natural sacramental order”?
Click to expand...
Well, yes. It’s not what I want – it’s the actual order of the sacraments in the Church. Confirmation is the sealing of the person with the Holy Spirit. It is the second of the sacraments of initiation, followed by Communion.

It’s not a sacrament that is about some kind of adult affirmation of belief, so I’m not sure why waiting until 20 is beneficial.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
In the early centuries men were generally ordained, and couples were generally married, much younger than people today. No one is pushing to restore those age frames.
Click to expand...
I personally think this is one of those areas where the Church ought to be “counter-cultural”.
(Yeah, I know it’s one of those annoying buzz words.)

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.

As others have said, confirmation and communion are both necessary to become responsible Christian adults.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top