First Communion before Sacrament of Reconciliation?

[Isidro]

Good afternoon,

Someone I know who’s going through RCIA has been told by their Church that, due to pandemic circumstances and timing issues, they will be being confirmed, then receiving first holy communion, and then have their first confession heard when able. I was under the impression this is never done this way. Can a parish decide to confer the sacraments in this way due to practical reasons?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I don’t think it’s a good idea. I also can’t understand how a diocese can have priests available for Mass and Holy Communion but not for confession. Many dioceses either had confession available to some degree all through the shutdown, or re-started confessions a week or two before re-starting Masses.

 

[Canvas]

Why aren’t the Bishops and Pastors who are needed to Confirm people hearing Confessions prior to Confirming them?

 

[dochawk]

they will be being confirmed, then receiving first holy communion, and then have their first confession heard when able

That is the traditional order the Sacraments . . .

several hundred years ago, in separate events, confirmation and communion were removed from being administered at the same time as baptism. Neither was moved for theological reasons. Rather, Confirmation was for a disciplinary reason (reinforcing the bishop’s pastoral role), while the Eucharist was the practical consequences of another disciplinary decision [withholding the cup {infants were only given the Cup due to digestion}])

Except as direct consequence of latinization, I don’t believe that any church other than the RCC, whether Catholic or Orthodox, deviates from this order.

Baptism, Confirmation/Chrysmation, and the Eucharist are the sacraments of. initiation.

 

[JulianN]

Were they previously baptized?

 

[Anesti33]

Perhaps it is a little subversive, but there is no ceremony or pomp and circumstance to having a “first” Confession, so all the person needs to do is get in line at the regularly scheduled time and make their Confession.

It is probably unavoidable to be up-front about: “Bless me, Father, I have sinned: this is my first confession” and hopefully will not be kicked out. Or they could always go to another priest, another parish.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

they will be being confirmed, then receiving first holy communion, and then have their first confession heard when able.

Technically if that person is to be baptized before all of this and this will happen at the same time, said person does not need to go to Confession thanks to Baptism. If Baptism is skipped then that might be different issue.

That is the traditional order the Sacraments . . .

It is usually done this way if Baptism immediately precedes this. Out of interest, if in the East someone gets baptized in emergency situation and then later they need to be Confirmed (but substantial amount of time has passed between those events), would they need to go to Confession first?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Except as direct consequence of latinization, I don’t believe that any church other than the RCC, whether Catholic or Orthodox, deviates from this order.

Presumably, Catholic and Orthodox churches other than RCC are going to have occasional cases of a person wanting to join the church who previously received Trinitarian baptism in a Protestant church, and did not receive any Catholic sacraments yet. In other words, some time, most likely years, passed between the person’s baptism and their reception of the other sacraments of initiation, and this would not be due to Latinization.

As the other person asked, how do the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches handle this situation? I would presume the ECC do not re-baptize the person, just as the Western Church does not.

 

[dochawk]

Out of interest, if in the East someone gets baptized in emergency situation and then later they need to be Confirmed (but substantial amount of time has passed between those events), would they need to go to Confession first?

I really don’t know.

I know it wasn’t a requirement when my daughters who were confirmed in my BC church after Roman baptism.

As the other person asked, how do the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches handle this situation? I would presume the ECC do not re-baptize the person, just as the Western Church does not.

No, no rebaptism.

In our parish, Father works with them a while.

For my children, there was no specific preparation, but they were also active in the ECF classes we expect all children to attend.

I’d hazard a guess that since any case of baptism without the others is some kind of irregularity, that there is no provision to require a “later” sacrament as a condition of completing the sacraments of initiation, but that’s just a guess. I suppose even expecting a rule in place for such things is a Western way of looking at it . . .

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I think the main worry is that if you’re receiving Holy Eucharist at some later time than Baptism, and you’re past the age of reason, you might be out of a state of grace when you receive Jesus.

If you’ve just been baptized, no problem.
If you’re under the age of reason (which I believe is age 7 or so), no problem because you aren’t capable of committing mortal sin yet.
In all other cases, we would expect the person to confess and be absolved first before receiving Jesus.

 

[fredystairs]

I think the scenario would depend upon whether the person had been validly baptized before entering RCIA. The person has been validly baptized, they’re not sure they’ve been validly baptized, or they have not been validly baptized. I am assuming that all of the sacraments are done within a short period of time at the Mass when the person enters the Church.

1. The person has been validly baptized. Here I assuming that the person was baptized some time ago, perhaps years or even when they were a child. In this case, I would think that they should go to confession first. This is to help them be free of any mortal sins they may have committed. To take another sacrament while in the state of mortal sin would be a sacrilege and the graces that pertain to the other sacrament would not be given to the person until they had confessed and had the mortal sin removed.
2. If the person is unsure whether they had been validly baptized, then they should be baptized (conditionally) AND make a first confession. (I know of one case where this happened.) If the person has NOT been previously baptized, then the conditional baptism will remedy that. If they HAVE been baptized, then the first confession will take care of all of their sins since they were baptized. Then the order of the other two sacraments does not much matter.
3. The person has not been validly baptized: if the person will be baptized at the time they will enter the Church, then the order of the following sacraments is not so important. This is because the sacrament of baptism forgives Original Sin and any personal sins that the person has committed. If this is done during the Mass, then the person will be sin free and can receive the other sacraments. In fact, if the baptism is done during the Mass when they enter the Church, then First confession can be delayed for weeks afterwards, since they will not have had time to commit any personal sins.

I offer the below from the Code of Canon Law (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM):

Can. 914 It is primarily the duty of parents and those who take the place of parents, as well as the duty of pastors, to take care that children who have reached the use of reason are prepared properly and, after they have made sacramental confession, are refreshed with this divine food as soon as possible.

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

While neither of these specifically states that adults should confess unless they have “grave sin”, for someone who is coming into the Church, I think it would be prudent to confess before hand, especially if this was done years ago or as an infant.

continued

 

[fredystairs]

This from the CCC shows that baptism remits all sin (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3N.HTM):

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.65 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

Please note that I am not a canon lawyer. If someone has more information than I do, I would gladly defer to them.

Pax

 

[TomH1]

It all depends.

If what you write is exactly what is happening the person is already baptised. Therefore, this person may need to go to confession before receiving communion. If the person has committed mortal sins which have not been previously confessed and absolved they need to go to confession prior to receiving communion. If they do not they will commit a mortal sin by receiving communion when not in a state of grace.

Should the person in question have no mortal sins that are not absolved the person is in a state of grace and can receive communion.

If the scenario is a little different from what you describe and the person will also be baptised that presents no problem. The person’s baptism will absolve that person of all their sins. They can then be confirmed and receive communion.

If what you describe is accurate I am confused as to why the Church would give this incorrect and misleading information which has consequences for the state of that person’s soul. I do not see why a priest cannot hear that person’s confession. If they are concerned about spreading severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) I think the bishop confirming people who he must touch is higher risk than confession which requires no physical contact.