P
Pattylt
Guest
Because they ARE at the age of choice. Baptism isn’t valid on someone after the age of reason if they choose NO. Think how you’d feel if some forced a religious procedure on you against your will!
- Status
D
DoubtingKT
Guest
Totally agree with you PattyIt
How about for infants? I am sure they feel too, are we not concerned about them feeling “forced”?
Then again, I know this sounds absurd… do bear with me!
On a side note, I am very thankful for this community and the Catholic Answers Forum so that I can tap on the wisdom of a faithful community for God and from God! Thank God and thank you to all!
How about for infants? I am sure they feel too, are we not concerned about them feeling “forced”?
Then again, I know this sounds absurd… do bear with me!
On a side note, I am very thankful for this community and the Catholic Answers Forum so that I can tap on the wisdom of a faithful community for God and from God! Thank God and thank you to all!
T
TK421
Guest
Confirmation doesn’t necessarily need to be at the age of reason though. It is likewise possible to be done in infancy, although this isn’t how it is done in most of the Church.
Last edited:
D
DoubtingKT
Guest
This is interesting! May I trouble you to share “sources” that cite this? So I can read about it too
Thank you!!!
Thank you!!!
P
Pattylt
Guest
I think you’re giving infants a bit more intelligence and self awareness that they really don’t have yet!
T
TK421
Guest
1288 "From that time on the apostles, in fulfillment of Christ’s will, imparted to the newly baptized by the laying on of hands the gift of the Spirit that completes the grace of Baptism. For this reason in the Letter to the Hebrews the doctrine concerning Baptism and the laying on of hands is listed among the first elements of Christian instruction. The imposition of hands is rightly recognized by the Catholic tradition as the origin of the sacrament of Confirmation, which in a certain way perpetuates the grace of Pentecost in the Church."99
1289 Very early, the better to signify the gift of the Holy Spirit, an anointing with perfumed oil ( chrism ) was added to the laying on of hands. This anointing highlights the name “Christian,” which means “anointed” and derives from that of Christ himself whom God "anointed with the Holy Spirit."100 This rite of anointing has continued ever since, in both East and West. For this reason the Eastern Churches call this sacrament Chrismation , anointing with chrism, or myron which means “chrism.” In the West, the term Confirmation suggests that this sacrament both confirms baptism and strengthens baptismal grace. *
Two traditions: East and West*
1290 In the first centuries Confirmation generally comprised one single celebration with Baptism, forming with it a “double sacrament,” according to the expression of St. Cyprian. Among other reasons, the multiplication of infant baptisms all through the year, the increase of rural parishes, and the growth of dioceses often prevented the bishop from being present at all baptismal celebrations. In the West the desire to reserve the completion of Baptism to the bishop caused the temporal separation of the two sacraments. The East has kept them united, so that Confirmation is conferred by the priest who baptizes. But he can do so only with the “myron” consecrated by a bishop.101
1291 A custom of the Roman Church facilitated the development of the Western practice: a double anointing with sacred chrism after Baptism. The first anointing of the neophyte on coming out of the baptismal bath was performed by the priest; it was completed by a second anointing on the forehead of the newly baptized by the bishop.102 The first anointing with sacred chrism, by the priest, has remained attached to the baptismal rite; it signifies the participation of the one baptized in the prophetic, priestly, and kingly offices of Christ. If Baptism is conferred on an adult, there is only one post-baptismal anointing, that of Confirmation.
1292 The practice of the Eastern Churches gives greater emphasis to the unity of Christian initiation. That of the Latin Church more clearly expresses the communion of the new Christian with the bishop as guarantor and servant of the unity, catholicity and apostolicity of his Church, and hence the connection with the apostolic origins of Christ’s Church.
CCC
1289 Very early, the better to signify the gift of the Holy Spirit, an anointing with perfumed oil ( chrism ) was added to the laying on of hands. This anointing highlights the name “Christian,” which means “anointed” and derives from that of Christ himself whom God "anointed with the Holy Spirit."100 This rite of anointing has continued ever since, in both East and West. For this reason the Eastern Churches call this sacrament Chrismation , anointing with chrism, or myron which means “chrism.” In the West, the term Confirmation suggests that this sacrament both confirms baptism and strengthens baptismal grace. *
Two traditions: East and West*
1290 In the first centuries Confirmation generally comprised one single celebration with Baptism, forming with it a “double sacrament,” according to the expression of St. Cyprian. Among other reasons, the multiplication of infant baptisms all through the year, the increase of rural parishes, and the growth of dioceses often prevented the bishop from being present at all baptismal celebrations. In the West the desire to reserve the completion of Baptism to the bishop caused the temporal separation of the two sacraments. The East has kept them united, so that Confirmation is conferred by the priest who baptizes. But he can do so only with the “myron” consecrated by a bishop.101
1291 A custom of the Roman Church facilitated the development of the Western practice: a double anointing with sacred chrism after Baptism. The first anointing of the neophyte on coming out of the baptismal bath was performed by the priest; it was completed by a second anointing on the forehead of the newly baptized by the bishop.102 The first anointing with sacred chrism, by the priest, has remained attached to the baptismal rite; it signifies the participation of the one baptized in the prophetic, priestly, and kingly offices of Christ. If Baptism is conferred on an adult, there is only one post-baptismal anointing, that of Confirmation.
1292 The practice of the Eastern Churches gives greater emphasis to the unity of Christian initiation. That of the Latin Church more clearly expresses the communion of the new Christian with the bishop as guarantor and servant of the unity, catholicity and apostolicity of his Church, and hence the connection with the apostolic origins of Christ’s Church.
CCC
Last edited:
D
DoubtingKT
Guest
OHH NO I max out my replies for the day as a new user… would love to continue the conversation if Catholic Answers Administrators can extend my replying limits! If not, I will eagerly wait until 22 hours later to share my doubts! Thank you everyone! and God bless you all! @Web_Admin
We never know do we?
Or even in retrospect, wouldnt the infant who grew up feel so?
On a theoretical basis, it is still a struggle for me… In adults, we focus so much on free will and not “forcing them”. But in infants, we focus so much on the free gift of God’s baptismal grace regardless of the infant’s free will because they lack reasoning and/or communication abilities. Do you see where I am coming from?
Thats why I suggested this in my ignorance (although I am not finding fault in God’s wisdom, but I am just being ignorant yet curious), so I suggested this:
We never know do we?
Or even in retrospect, wouldnt the infant who grew up feel so?
On a theoretical basis, it is still a struggle for me… In adults, we focus so much on free will and not “forcing them”. But in infants, we focus so much on the free gift of God’s baptismal grace regardless of the infant’s free will because they lack reasoning and/or communication abilities. Do you see where I am coming from?
Thats why I suggested this in my ignorance (although I am not finding fault in God’s wisdom, but I am just being ignorant yet curious), so I suggested this:
Last edited:
T
TK421
Guest
This is of course a possibility, but let’s take that thought to its logical conclusion: how are parents of any country regardless of faith or creed suppose to ever do anything? Everything they do affects their child and their child might end up not liking it at some point in the future.
A parent might go against the Church and not baptize their child, and then the child grows up and ends up resentful from it. Or, the parents baptize the child, and then child ends up resentful for it. It would be a catch 22.
Ultimately, the responsibility is on the parents.
Last edited:
V
VeryBlessed
Guest
My opinion here. The exact same baptismal promises that your godparents say for you at your infant baptism, are repeated exactly by you at your confirmation. So confirmation is the time where you get to affirm your baptismal promises for yourself. It completes your baptism. You are saying, in effect, the commitments that someone else spoke for me, I now speak for myself in the sight of God. And then you are sealed with the Holy Spirit. This is why confirmation is one of the three sacraments of initiation. Perhaps, in a way, your initiation into the church isn’t complete until you agree to your baptismal vows yourself in confirmation…
T
TK421
Guest
It can work that way, but it’s not an absolute necessity. A person in an Eastern tradition can receive baptism, confirmation, and holy communion as an infant.
V
Vico
Guest
Last edited:
J
John_Martin
Guest
No, not at all.
A baby, with its Whole Being, desires to live, instinctively.
So, LOVING parents ask that the baby be granted even more life, so this baby will never lack what it seeks, for its heart will always be restless, hungry for life, until it rests in its LORD.
John the Baptist, pre-birth, because of the light of the Holy Spirit with him in his soul, recognized without reasoning, the presence of his Savior. We, too, are given that same Holy Spirit when baptized as infants, and as we come to using our reason we find we already know and love our Jesus.
Later, as we give in to the sophistries of human ‘wisdom’, we need to begin the life-long conversion of returning to the reasoning understanding of Mary; “behold! I am the servant of the LORD;” and David: “do not take your Holy Spirit from me, but restore to me the joy of your salvation.”
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
We,re judged based on what we do with what we’re given in life, with more demanded of those given more. An infant is expected to begin to embrace and live out those baptismal vows at some point later in their lives.
J
JMMJ
Guest
Understood. It seems by making the decision for the infant (i.e. obligation), the parents are usurping the free will of the child to find their own spiritual path in life.
A
Angel_Bradford
Guest
In all honesty, how many decisions does an infant make?
It is the the responsibility of the Catholic parent(s) to raise the child in the Catholic faith. When the child is baptized, the parent(s) are asked three times, “what do you wish for this child?“ and the correct answer is “Baptism”.
At Confirmation, this child has the opportunity to reaffirm the promises made for him/her at Baptism and take responsibility for their faith.
It is the the responsibility of the Catholic parent(s) to raise the child in the Catholic faith. When the child is baptized, the parent(s) are asked three times, “what do you wish for this child?“ and the correct answer is “Baptism”.
At Confirmation, this child has the opportunity to reaffirm the promises made for him/her at Baptism and take responsibility for their faith.
Last edited:
C
CoffeeCatholic
Guest
To erase original sin, to be raised in the faith by parents and support of Godparents… and when they are older and can make decisions with free will they can affirm that Baptism through Confirmation and choosing their Confirmation sponsor.
F
fhansen
Guest
From the parent’s perspective they’re giving the child an advantage, which is what good parents do: introducing the child to the kingdom of God and later training them in God’s ways. The child can, and should, seek on their own later in life and unless they do their Baptism will have little meaning anyway. As with any gift, it can be rejected.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Umm… no. The baptized is not merely “passive”. In the case of an adult, the active desire to be baptized must be present.
And, as long as the pastor has a well-founded hope that the child will be raised in the faith, then he must baptize.
Close. Yes on “necessity”, but no on “negation of free will.” We would say that the parents are acting on the baby’s behalf, in recognition of what is best for the child. We might also say that we believe that, if the child were able to process the question “do you wish eternal life in heaven, the entry to which is through the sacrament of baptism in the Catholic Church?”, then the child would naturally respond “YES!”
The text doesn’t say this! It’s just “their faith”, by which we would understand that this includes the paralytic! After all, Jesus’ response is directed at the paralytic, not his friends!
Yes, with the caveat that, if they’re unable to affirm these, but if it’s known that they wish baptism (e.g., someone who has been in a terrible, life-threatening accident), then they may be baptized.
Actually, it’s more of a historical development.
So, it’s not “confirmation at the age of reason” for the express purpose of getting consent… it’s more like a historical development over time that has been retained.
There is also consent in the confirmation of a young adult… but that’s not the primary reason.
It’s weird that you made this claim, since you later quoted the CCC where it discusses this as a historical development!
Tell you what… if you can get an infant to tell you he feels ‘forced’ to be baptized, I’ll change my stance on this one!
Except that you get to do that every year, around Easter time, at Mass.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Do parents “usurp the free will of their child” when they do what’s best for them in other arenas of life – clothing, shelter, food, education?
- Status