First Confession after First Communion--confused

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

Operalan

Guest
I am stumped on this one as I’ve never heard of it occurring before. I hope someone can help me figure this one out.

A friend of mine, who I’ve been in touch with during her journey “Crossing the Tiber” in the past year, was received into the Church on Holy Saturday (Praise God). She received the Eucharist that night as well as Confirmation. However, I heard from her lat night (18 nights after Holy Saturday) that she had her first Sacrament of Reconciliation just yesterday. This startled me as I’ve never heard of receiving the Sacraments to have been in this order.

I gently inquired to find out more information—her response:

“Those who were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but not baptized Cathoic could not take part in the Sacrament until after Confirmation. There was much debate and confusion over this but that was the final call.”

She is an extraordinary Christian woman who I am so grateful has found Christ’s Church. She had been baptized as a child (is now probably in her early 60s) and was so moved by her Sacrament of Reconciliation yesterday. I’m just confused to the order of her reception of the Sacraments.

What am I missing?
 
Um… that’s not what I was told when I was going through RCIA.

Basically, if you’ve been baptized but have not received confirmation or communion you ARE eligible to go to Confession. There are provisions, of course. My First Confession took place a week or two before my Confirmation and First Communion.

I am rather shocked to hear they did not have her go to Confession prior to her reception into the Church!
 
The way we were taught in RCIA is that those who are not validly baptized don’t need confession but anyone who is baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy spirit in any church has to go to confession first. I had my first confession before confirmation as did all the others involved in our RCIA program this year.

The only reason she should have had it later is if she was being baptized AT the vigil.
 
Operalan said:
I gently inquired to find out more information—her response:

“Those who were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but not baptized Cathoic could not take part in the Sacrament until after Confirmation. There was much debate and confusion over this but that was the final call.”

What am I missing?
Click to expand...
You’re not missing anything. That explanation is demonstrably incorrect, and whoever made that “final call” just plain screwed up.

Baptism makes one eligible to receive the other Sacraments. As these other posters have testified to, standard procedure is for candidates (already baptized) to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation before they receive Confirmation and the Eucharist.

I hope your friend’s bishop fixes the way they do things at your friend’s parish.

Anyway, obviously none of that is her fault. God bless her, and it’s good to have her as part of the Church! 🙂
 
Operalan said:
I am stumped on this one as I’ve never heard of it occurring before. I hope someone can help me figure this one out.

A friend of mine, who I’ve been in touch with during her journey “Crossing the Tiber” in the past year, was received into the Church on Holy Saturday (Praise God). She received the Eucharist that night as well as Confirmation. However, I heard from her lat night (18 nights after Holy Saturday) that she had her first Sacrament of Reconciliation just yesterday. This startled me as I’ve never heard of receiving the Sacraments to have been in this order.

I gently inquired to find out more information—her response:

“Those who were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but not baptized Cathoic could not take part in the Sacrament until after Confirmation. There was much debate and confusion over this but that was the final call.”

She is an extraordinary Christian woman who I am so grateful has found Christ’s Church. She had been baptized as a child (is now probably in her early 60s) and was so moved by her Sacrament of Reconciliation yesterday. I’m just confused to the order of her reception of the Sacraments.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...
This is not right. If she was not validly baptized anywhere else, then she would have received all three sacraments of initiation (Baptism, Confirmation, and First Communion, in that order) on the same day/night, and would not have needed to confess sins committed prior to her baptism. However, if she was already baptized and simply received Confirmation and Holy Communion upon being received into the Catholic Church, then she would have been required to have her first confession beforehand.

I don’t know whether there was just a miscommunication to your friend, or an honest mix-up on the part of whoever was running the RCIA program, or a deliberate violation of the Church’s rules and beliefs concerning the sacraments.
 
That just goes to show that there are people leading the RCIA in parishes who shouldn’t be there at all. Why aren’t they given formation before being let loose on an unsuspecting group of converts? Is it any wonder people are confused?!?
 
I was required to do a Confession a few days before my Confirmation. That seemed to be the standard procedure in this diocese.
 
I went through RCIA and was received into the church 1 year ago and this is what I was told. Candidates that were baptised in trinitarian form, which is: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit HAD to prove their baptism. If they could not produce a valid record or have someone come to the priest that was present at their baptism to verify it it was done in that particular form then those candidates were to be baptised at the Easter Vigil right before receiving Fist Holy Communion and Confirmation. Which if that was the case they did not need to make their First Reconcillation until after East Vigil because their baptism gave them what you call a clean slate to go on. Those candidates that had their baptismal records and were baptised in trinitarian form, they must have gone to reconcilliation prior to Easter Vigil. It all depended on where they were baptised, what form they used during the baptism and if the candidate could prove it or not.
Hope this helped!
 
Thank you all for your replies. Your understanding is the same as mine—this shocked me when I heard her report last night. I am absolutely assuming that she was baptized in an acceptable manner a LONG time ago—perhaps something is unclear in her explanation and she was indeed baptized at the Easter Vigil (which would be news to me). As she was very active previously in a Baptist Church and has been so involved with Church work for a very long time, I have of course assumed that her Baptism dates back some time. I am still checking more into the details–but her original report troubled me.
 
MarisaJean said:
I went through RCIA and was received into the church 1 year ago and this is what I was told. Candidates that were baptised in trinitarian form, which is: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit HAD to prove their baptism. If they could not produce a valid record or have someone come to the priest that was present at their baptism to verify it it was done in that particular form then those candidates were to be baptised at the Easter Vigil right before receiving Fist Holy Communion and Confirmation. Which if that was the case they did not need to make their First Reconcillation until after East Vigil because their baptism gave them what you call a clean slate to go on. Those candidates that had their baptismal records and were baptised in trinitarian form, they must have gone to reconcilliation prior to Easter Vigil. It all depended on where they were baptised, what form they used during the baptism and if the candidate could prove it or not.
Hope this helped!
Click to expand...
One should not be baptized at the Vigil unless there is a certainty that they have not been previously baptized. Those whose baptismal status is uncertain should be conditionally baptized and then go to confession sometime before the Vigil.
 
I went through the RCIA program and was a validly baptised Methodist.
I had my first Confession (I got a Certificate of Reconciliation) on Saturday, April 18, 1992.
I was formally accepted into the Catholic Church on Sunday, April 19, 1992.
I was confirmed October 24, 1992.
 
As others have said, this was incorrect. I was baptized as an adult before joining the Church. I had my first Confession before being confirmed and having first Communion.

The parish needs to fix this ASAP, think of all the people that are being confirmed and receiving communion without being reconciled first…through no fault of their own of course, but still should not be happening.
 
Operalan said:
Thank you all for your replies. Your understanding is the same as mine—this shocked me when I heard her report last night. I am absolutely assuming that she was baptized in an acceptable manner a LONG time ago—perhaps something is unclear in her explanation and she was indeed baptized at the Easter Vigil (which would be news to me). As she was very active previously in a Baptist Church and has been so involved with Church work for a very long time, I have of course assumed that her Baptism dates back some time. I am still checking more into the details–but her original report troubled me.
Click to expand...
Whether or not she received Reconciliation first, the sacraments of Confirmation and Eucharst were valid if not licit. Now that she has in fact received Reconciliation, any issue surrounding receiving the other sacraments while *possibly *not in a state of grace are resolved.

If you are member of this parish and have the ability to straighten out the problem with the pastor, then do so. But, if not I suggest you drop it. There really isn’t any reason for you to investigate further if you are not able to facilitate change at the parish.
 
…and i thought anyone could turn up at confession whether they are off the street or not. They wouldn’t be turned away.
 
englishredrose said:
…and i thought anyone could turn up at confession whether they are off the street or not. They wouldn’t be turned away.
Click to expand...
The priest is not going to turn anyone away from the confessional. However, if the priest realizes that the individual is not a Catholic then the priest notifies the person that he cannot grant absolution. If the individual going to confession is not a Catholic the sacrament is not valid.
 
Cristiano said:
The priest is not going to turn anyone away from the confessional. However, if the priest realizes that the individual is not a Catholic then the priest notifies the person that he cannot grant absolution. If the individual going to confession is not a Catholic the sacrament is not valid.
Click to expand...
Does this mean the priest can tell other people what the non-Catholic just confessed?
 
Cristiano said:
The priest is not going to turn anyone away from the confessional. However, if the priest realizes that the individual is not a Catholic then the priest notifies the person that he cannot grant absolution. If the individual going to confession is not a Catholic the sacrament is not valid.
Click to expand...
This has always confused me. Candidates go to Confession before they are received into the Church, when they are not officially Catholic yet.
 
anp1215 said:
This has always confused me. Candidates go to Confession before they are received into the Church, when they are not officially Catholic yet.
Click to expand...
They are “officially” Catholic when they are baptized. Baptism brings us into the Church.
 
My understanding is that once catechumens have been through the Rite of Election, they are eligible to make a confession, at least in this diocese.

Also Baptized non-Catholics can do so under some circumstances, for instance imminent danger of death.

As a practical matter, when I was still an Episcopalian, I was never denied Absolution by a Catholic priest, and I never misled my confessor about my status.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top