Help! Confirmation Class full of unvbelievers!

[1ke]

I appreciate your point of view but you are missing the point that for any sacrament to be valid and licit, it must be entered into williingly.

For licety when the person is over the age of reasons, yes, but no, not for validity.

Have you ever taught a confirmation class?

Yes. I am the CRE.

Inevitably, you are confronted with at least some students who will tell you that the only reason they are being confirmed is that they are being coerced by their parents.

Actually, no, that is not “inevitable”. However, it is the parents’ responsibility to present their children for Confirmation, so the parent is fulfilling their obligation in that regard.

It is imperative that you make them understand that entering into the sacrament under this situation would render it invalid and illicit.

This is false.

They need to understand that they need to do this for themselves. Once you explain to them and their parents that the student is engaging in this as an adult decision (which is afterall the reason that this sacrament is delayed until the age of reason), then it can become a productive discussion.

The age of reason is 7. It is not an “adult decision”. The sacrament is delayed until the age of discretion in the West, not in the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. Just as with Baptism, it can be and is administered to infants.

In the West, unfortuanately with the reversing of the order of the sacraments of initiation (Eucharist preceding Confirmation and Confirmation delayed well beyond the age of reason) it has come to this: a completely inaccurate understanding of what Confirmation is and what it does. I can only pray that more bishops restore the order. It’s happening, but not nearly quickly enough.

§2. For liceity, outside the danger of death, the person with the use of reason must be instructed, disposed, and able to renew the baptismal promises.

For licety, not for validity. And, if a person presents themselves to the bishop and says the Creed, they are disposed and able.

As well as catechism paragraph 1319: A candidate for Confirmation who has attained the age of reason must profess the faith, be in the state of grace, have the intention of receiving the sacrament, and be prepared to assume the role of disciple and witness to Christ, both within the ecclesial community and in temporal affairs.

All of which (except perhaps state of grace) is achieved when they present themselves to the bishop. If they are not in a state of grace, confirmation is still valid but the graces are not efficacious until they go to confession and are once again in a state of grace.

And, again, all go to licety and NOT validity.

I will say more prayers for restored order in hopes that it stops this nonsense about Confirmation being a choice to be Catholic. When we once again confirm 7 year olds as the norm hopefully restored order will bring restored understanding.

Frankly, I do not think that confirmandii have any inclination at all to treat Confirmation as some sort of “choice” they can make or not make until some teacher plants the idea in their heads by telling them something like confirmation being a choice to be Catholic or a choice to be a member of the Church. Both false ideas. Of course, once planted impressionable youth will grab on to these ideas.

I cannot stomach this conversation any longer.

 

[brb3]

The Catholic Encyclopedia is NOT a document of the Church and has absolutely no authority.

You are so far off base.

everyone uses Cath Encyclo … its right here on CAF

How could it not be authoritarian, and be off-base material ? What I posted was right off the their site … and all is well supported by scripture and ECF writings.

The CCC flows from Trent, ECF’s, scripture, and tradition … all attested to, referenced in the C. Encyclo.

 

[karaleigh]

I have a confirmation class and many of them doubt the existence of God and don’t see the necessity of believing in God. What can I say to a group of 14 and 15 year olds that may help them understand why believing in God is necessary? They also doubt the existence of an afterlife.

Thanks and God Bless

Again, I want to say the Catholic Church used music to create a foundation of belief in the All Mighty God. This link On the manufacture and dating of the Pistoia choirbooks …“By examining the political and social environment in which they were created, this article places the manuscripts in a specific historical context and uses paleographical and historical evidence to date them between 1108 and as early as 1116.”
The next link is perhaps why this article is important. *

Quoting Wikipedia…“As a means of recording the passage of time, the 12th century is the period from 1101 to 1200 in accordance with the Julian calendar in the Christian/Common Era…The first ever known use and implementation of gunpowder weapons such as bombs, rockets, and cannons were first recorded in the Song Dynasty.”

The choirbooks link and periodic link proves music was used to gather the masses and create a belief in God. Try Superbook Radio. If interested this is my link to my blog I do for religious studies at OU. Maybe this or any other article might help if you ever need a prompt to get a paper going. :shamrock2:*

 

[brb3]

When we once again confirm 7 year olds as the norm hopefully restored order will bring restored understanding.

So, Who decided to set the NORM to the late age we now use ?
Trent researched this and said to use Age 7. Why was it changed ‘willy-nilly’ ?

One would think on something as critical as a Sacrament, those who make the rules would find agreement and stick with it !!! But, I told you the early Church traditions on Confirmation were diverse, and made consensus problematic. Nevertheless, God always finds a way to Confirm his elect, even if we can’t agree on the rules.

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c
I appreciate your point of view but you are missing the point that for any sacrament to be valid and licit, it must be entered into williingly.

Point taken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Inevitably, you are confronted with at least some students who will tell you that the only reason they are being confirmed is that they are being coerced by their parents.

So, you are right. Its not inevitable even though it has happened every year in my experience, and yes, at the minimum, he parent is presenting their child for confimation. That is not insignificant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
It is imperative that you make them understand that entering into the sacrament under this situation would render it invalid and illicit.

Okay, I will rightly concede to you that it would be valid but illicit. But shouldn’t the goal be to be both valid and licit…

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
They need to understand that they need to do this for themselves. Once you explain to them and their parents that the student is engaging in this as an adult decision (which is afterall the reason that this sacrament is delayed until the age of reason), then it can become a productive discussion.

you are obviously passionate about this point. But there are obvious tradeoffs.
1 Can someone really take advantage of the 7 gifts of the holy sprirt at such an early age.
2. is it wise to complete the sacraments of initiation before the candidate can make an adult choice

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
§2. For liceity, outside the danger of death, the person with the use of reason must be instructed, disposed, and able to renew the baptismal promises.

Isn’t the goal to be lawful, not just valid. And just presenting themselves doesn’t satisfy the law that they are properly instructed which implies they understand what it means to be confirmed and they accept the associated obligations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
As well as catechism paragraph 1319: A candidate for Confirmation who has attained the age of reason must profess the faith, be in the state of grace, have the intention of receiving the sacrament, and be prepared to assume the role of disciple and witness to Christ, both within the ecclesial community and in temporal affairs.

The goal should be to be both licit and valid, should it not? And just presenting themselves to the bishop does not insure that they are ready to assume he role of disciple and witness to Christ.

I will say more prayers for restored order in hopes that it stops this nonsense about Confirmation being a choice to be Catholic. When we once again confirm 7 year olds as the norm hopefully restored order will bring restored understanding.

Frankly, I do not think that confirmandii have any inclination at all to treat Confirmation as some sort of “choice” they can make or not make until some teacher plants the idea in their heads by telling them something like confirmation being a choice to be Catholic or a choice to be a member of the Church. Both false ideas. Of course, once planted impressionable youth will grab on to these ideas.

Your point that confirmation isn’t really a choice to be a Catholic is correct. But frankly, you shouldn’t be so dismisive of the need to get the comformandi to embrace the faith of their own volition. If we simply confirm them mechanically by presenting them to the bishop at an early age before they understand what they are obligated to do as practicing Catholics, then the likelihood that they will completely abandon the faith later is much higher. Our goal is to help them get to heaven, is it not.

I cannot stomach this conversation any longer.

Why? You have a lot to offered to the discussion, but you can’t be impatient with those of good will who see things differently. Try explaining why you see it the way you do and what is your authority. If you do that, you could help a lot of people, including myself. You drove me to look up the canons, the catholic encyclopedia view of confirmation and the catechism. And yet, I can not confirm your points. So more discussion is necessary.

 

[1ke]

OK Paul,

From the CCC:

1285 Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together constitute the “sacraments of Christian initiation,” whose unity must be safeguarded. It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace.

Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace. The reason Confirmation began to be separated from baptism is because in the West the bishop continued to reserve it to himself as opposed to baptism which was delegated to the priests. Therefore, priests would baptize, and as the bishop made his rounds through the diocese (which could take years pre-automobile era) then he would personally confirm all those not yet confirmed in one large batch.

In this day and age, with all the temptation, confusion, and opportunties for young people to be led astray WHY ON EARTH would we withhold necessary graces from them especially beyond the age of reason and into their late teens? They need this grace. They need it badly. It troubles me greatly that it, along with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, is withheld from them for so long.

Read the effects of the Sacrament. Again, why would you want to withhold this 7-9 years beyond the age of discretion, especially in a day and time when the bishop’s travel is not the least impeded?

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3S.HTM

Not a single grace of this sacrament requires one be “an adult”. This sacrament is not about “choosing” anything. It is about receiving. Receiving additional gifts of the Holy Spirit, additional grace, to strengthen the Catholic Christian in discipleship:

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.

Read the section on the MInister of Confirmation in the CCC and you will once again see this has more to do with the Bishop retaining to himself the confirming of his subjects than anything else. That is the ONLY reason Latin Rite Catholics do not receive Baptism and Confirmation together.

As you can see, Eucharist is the final sacrament of intiation:

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.

We give this sacrament to 7 year olds, yet withhold Confirmation in this country until much later.

I highly recommend reading this link:

ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/ordsacinit.htm

 

[1ke]

So, Who decided to set the NORM to the late age we now use ?

Canon law allows the Bishop’s conference to establish a different age. In the US, the Bishop’s conference leaves it to each bishop to determine the age in his diocese.

This is entirely within the Bishop’s authority as bishop.

 

[paul_c]

OK Paul,

From the CCC:

1285 Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together constitute the “sacraments of Christian initiation,” whose unity must be safeguarded. It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace.

Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace. The reason Confirmation began to be separated from baptism is because in the West the bishop continued to reserve it to himself as opposed to baptism which was delegated to the priests. Therefore, priests would baptize, and as the bishop made his rounds through the diocese (which could take years pre-automobile era) then he would personally confirm all those not yet confirmed in one large batch.

In this day and age, with all the temptation, confusion, and opportunties for young people to be led astray WHY ON EARTH would we withhold necessary graces from them especially beyond the age of reason and into their late teens? They need this grace. They need it badly. It troubles me greatly that it, along with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, is withheld from them for so long.

Read the effects of the Sacrament. Again, why would you want to withhold this 7-9 years beyond the age of discretion, especially in a day and time when the bishop’s travel is not the least impeded?

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3S.HTM

Not a single grace of this sacrament requires one be “an adult”. This sacrament is not about “choosing” anything. It is about receiving. Receiving additional gifts of the Holy Spirit, additional grace, to strengthen the Catholic Christian in discipleship:

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.

Read the section on the MInister of Confirmation in the CCC and you will once again see this has more to do with the Bishop retaining to himself the confirming of his subjects than anything else. That is the ONLY reason Latin Rite Catholics do not receive Baptism and Confirmation together.

As you can see, Eucharist is the final sacrament of intiation:

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.

We give this sacrament to 7 year olds, yet withhold Confirmation in this country until much later.

I highly recommend reading this link:

ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/ordsacinit.htm

Honestly, this was very enlightening. Thank you. I’ve been teaching confirmation classes for 6 years and this was the first time I ever came across this line of thought. I will discuss it with our DRE tomorrow…

 

[JimG]

I received the Sacrament of Confirmation in the 4th Grade. After V-II I believe that the age for reception was moved up into the teens. I doubt that was a good idea. The graces of Confirmation are needed sooner rather than later.

In the Eastern churches, aren’t the sacraments of initiation given all together, even for infants? Baptism, followed immediately by Confirmation and Eucharist.

Expecting teenagers to make an “adult decision” about such a matter is a flight of fancy, especially if they have had no catechesis at home, and been indoctrinated into the religion of secularism in their schools.

 

[brb3]

I received the Sacrament of Confirmation in the 4th Grade. After V-II I believe that the age for reception was moved up into the teens. I doubt that was a good idea. The graces of Confirmation are needed sooner rather than later.

In the Eastern churches, aren’t the sacraments of initiation given all together, even for infants? Baptism, followed immediately by Confirmation and Eucharist.

Yes … 4th grade at the latest, around 5th grade kids start to doubt … and by 7th grade its out-of-control time for most.

We need to go back to Trent’s decision … age 7. Our LIBERAL Catholic Bishops goofed up … and should ‘confess’ thereof and return to the prior standard …as 1ke believes too

 

[Filii_Dei]

Yes … 4th grade at the latest, around 5th grade kids start to doubt … and by 7th grade its out-of-control time for most.

We need to go back to Trent’s decision … age 7. Our LIBERAL Catholic Bishops goofed up … and should ‘confess’ thereof and return to the prior standard …as 1ke believes too

So all Catholic bishops are “liberal” now, isn’t it?

 

[1ke]

Our LIBERAL Catholic Bishops goofed up … and should ‘confess’ thereof and return to the prior standard …as 1ke believes too

I do NOT believe what you have written there. Do not lump me in with your attack on bishops.

The Bishops have legitimate authority to determine the age of confirmation in their diocese. I pray for the return of the restored order. But, I do NOT disparage my bishop who currently sets the age at 16.

 

[Gorgias]

everyone uses Cath Encyclo … its right here on CAF

How could it not be authoritarian, and be off-base material ? What I posted was right off the their site … and all is well supported by scripture and ECF writings.

How? Because it dates from 1907. That means that it doesn’t take into account the 1917 Code of Canon Law, let alone the 1983 CIC! Also, it doesn’t have the opportunity to be harmonized with the CCC.

Therefore, it’s of historical interest, to answer questions like “how did the Church profess her beliefs at the end of the 19th century?” or “how was the wording of Church teachings modified in the course of the 20th century?”. But, if you want a definitive exposition of Church teachings, as it’s currently being expressed, you need to look elsewhere.

Note, also, that it isn’t a publication of the Catholic Church. While it might be granted an imprimatur or nihil obstat, that doesn’t imply that it’s an official Church teaching…

 

[brb3]

Do not lump me in with your attack on bishops.

I pray for the return of the restored order. But, I do NOT disparage my bishop who currently sets the age at 16.

Sorry … I meant only the last part [age 7 for Confirmation] … as what we Both agreed with.

Although, I’ve subsequently learned you favored [in 2009] giving both Confirmation & Eucharist to Cradle Catholic Infants, at their Baptism.

And, while you may not disparage your Bishop … you ‘pray’ for him to return to the order of the ancient past.

 

[paul_c]

Sorry … I meant only the last part [age 7 for Confirmation] … as what we Both agreed with.

Although, I’ve subsequently learned you favored [in 2009] giving both Confirmation & Eucharist to Cradle Catholic Infants, at their Baptism.

And, while you may not disparage your Bishop … you ‘pray’ for him to return to the order of the ancient past.

I had this discussion with my DRE tonight. Her view is that the reason for the later age is pastoral. And when I countered as 1Ke did, that its good to get grace as soon as possible, my DRE’s response was that grace follows nature. I.e., if you are not predisposed to the graces , they won’t do you any good. Her strong position is that we need later confirmations because most students need more time to be properly prepared because they aren’t properly catechized in the home. For what its worth, my DRE is very well respected nationally - she has a national weekly radio show.

So obviously we have two sides of this with very strong opinions and Canon law gives the flexibility to either side to meet the pastoral needs of the community.

 

[1ke]

Although, I’ve subsequently learned you favored [in 2009] giving both Confirmation & Eucharist to Cradle Catholic Infants, at their Baptism.

yes, I still do favor the Eastern Catholic tradition. But, as that is not the tradition in the West, it will remain exactly what it is, my private preference. It will not ever be the norm in the West.

Therefore, restored order is what I pray for.

 

[1ke]

if you are not predisposed to the graces , they won’t do you any good.

Which contradicts the Catechism AND the entire Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church.

Her strong position is that we need later confirmations because most students need more time to be properly prepared

Which again contradicts several Church documents.

I hope at least this has given you some food for thought on what and how you present Confirmation to your students.

 

[endoentropism]

What if you believe in the philosophy of the Church and you believe it is a good institution to help people lead a good life, but you do not feel a personal connection to a God (even if you do not deny the possibility God could exist)?

This is a problem that troubles me, because I can interpret God-as-metaphor, and I can read the Bible through the lens of metaphor (that is, not a literalist interpretation), but I do not feel or know God in any meaningful sense. He may exist or he may not, but I do not know and (at this point) cannot know, and without seeming immodest, I am too familiar with science and history to ever be tricked into believing in him because some fundamental questions have not yet been definitely answered by science. What’s more, even if science could answer the fundamental questions of existence, I do not believe it is a substitute for the philosophy of religion.

So where does that leave me?

 

[brb3]

What if you believe in the philosophy of the Church and you believe it is a good institution to help people lead a good life, but you do not feel a personal connection to a God (even if you do not deny the possibility God could exist)?

This is a problem that troubles me, …He may exist or he may not, but I do not know and (at this point) cannot know, and without seeming immodest, I am too familiar with science and history to ever be tricked into believing in him because some fundamental questions have not yet been definitely answered by science.

So where does that leave me?

Exercise BOTH faith & reason. God gave us both. Church teachings require Faith, but they are also reasonable, …when we examine church history and learn the basis for most of Church dogma. When we conclude that Christianity is reasonable … we must approach God via Faith in Christ, doing what Christ asks of us. Peter’s first Sermon @ Pentecost … Acts:Chp. 2, gives the basic steps to our entry into God’s Family. When we exercise our faith in Christ, seek renewal of heart via water Baptism … then, for an adult like you, Confirmation via annointing of Holy Spirit should follow.

It is impossible for someone to really know Father God, apart from the Enlightenment a Baptized Christian receives when Confirmed by Christ. Confirmation AWAKENS us to God. It can be like a light switch coming on … BAM ! Or, in others its a less dramatic realization … that steadily grows into a fuller understanding that the Holy Spirit of the Father & Son has taken up residence within us. The Holy Spirit gives the Christian the PERSONAL CONNECTION / RELATIONSHIP to God … that we all need to feel at peace, with God and man. Its just as Christ taught … and as the Apostles in scripture affirmed in their writings.

When confirmed, the AWESOME agape love of Christ is granted/gifted to us by grace. We feel completely forgiven and clean … for first time in our lives. We experience the FRIENDSHIP of God to us, his FORGIVENESS of our errs, and his wonderful ABIDING spiritual presence. It is truely a supernatural reality to the Christian … its the PEARL OF GREAT PRICE [spoken of by Christ in scripture]. This is the ENLIGHTENMENT, THE SEALING of the Christian …which we receive when we are ANNOINTED by hands/oil, and the Holy Spirit is invoked via Liturgy. God’s Holy Spirit is the most precious gift we could every discover in this life … and we are determined, never to offend God, and lose God’s gift of himself to us.

Sadly, some Christians will later offend God … and even fall back into secular living looking for love/fun in all the wrong places, and grieve the H.S. But, when we realize we have done so … we determine to be fully restored into God’s family, via Sacraments of Confession and the Eucharist. And, God always welcomes us back … with open arms, via his grace thru Christ.

If you seek God with your whole heart … God will reveal himself to you and allow you that ‘personal connection’ Enlightenment, via the Sacraments [Baptism, Confession, Confirmation, and Eucharist].

 

[endoentropism]

Why was my post removed?