If one was Confirmed in a state of Mortal Sin do they need to be Confirmed again?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
James_Miller said:
No the confirmation was valid but this needs to be confessed. I don’t understand why someone would not prepare for confirmation spiritually and be prepared.
Click to expand...
Because the children’s parents, religious instructors, and priest completely neglect this aspect. I was confirmed when I was 10. There was no mention of going to Confession during out “retreat” at the church the day before our confirmation. We were told Confirmation was us making the choice to be Catholic rather than our parents.:rolleyes: All I needed to do to be prepared for Confirmation was pass the test in school that was simply listing stuff (“What are the gifts of the Holy Spirit?” “List the 3 Theological Virtues”) and defining stuff (“What is the staff the Bishop holds called?” What is the name for the little hat he wears?" What is the name for the big hat with tail called?") (Myself, and the extremely protestant girl in my class were the only ones to get 100%), complete 10 hours of service, and construct a nice big flashy poster to decorate the church that depicts how you feel the Holy Spirit is best displayed.

My confirmation preparation was a joke.

Because I was confirmed in the state of mortal sin, I asked a priest from the FSSP about this. In simple terms, one validly receives the sacrament; however, the graces received do not take effect until one returns to the state of grace. The same is true for couples who are married without being in the state of grace.
 
The idea is still going around that Confirmation is “Your choosing Catholicism”, which amounts to a Catholicized Protestant altar call (Do you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, therefore you are saved). It is a total Pelagian understanding of Confirmation, and this error creeps into other sacraments in various ways.

Confirmation is first and foremost, an act of GOD in the individual Christian’s soul. Yes, we cooperate by our own free will, but there is an increase in sanctifying grace because of the pure mercy and love from God. When we overemphasize a Christian’s free will as the primary purpose of (and, implicitly, the cause of) the sacrament, we start down the road of the denial of grace and original sin. This is very dangerous as it clouds the fact that Grace is the only means of our reaching Heaven. Even our good works are initiated, sustained, and perfected by Grace, so when we reach Heaven we will have nothing to boast of.

As Scott Hahn says, “There is one thing that I contributed to the recipe for this thing we call salvation: my sins.” Everything else is grace - we need only respond, but even that response is a Grace.
 
Sorry I did not reply to the second question asked. In our Eastern Churches confirmation is given immediately after baptism. This is followed by Holy Communion. A person would not be in mortal sin as he/she was just baptised. No confession is necessary for Holy Communion as the person was just baptised a few minutes before.
 
Little_One0307 said:
Yes David you are correct. We cannot receive any of the Sacraments in a state of non-grace.
Click to expand...
Please see the link to the Jimmy Akin article above to answer this question. David is wrong. It is too narrow an interpretation of that passage. We have a moral obligation to be in a state of grace, but it does not affect validity.

It’s much like taking communion in a state of mortal sin. A catechism would say we must be in a state of grace to receive communion. But that doesn’t mean that someone who receives communion in sin doesn’t receive communion. They do. It’s just not fruitful, and in fact, it is a sacrilege. We have a moral obligation to avoid this. THAT is why David’s parish had confession so close to confirmation. He is making big assumptions on things and the result is helping no one.

I am making a big deal of this because there are those out there who have very weak consciences, and they would be scandalized by the ramifications of this (innocently) wrong idea. They’d be constantly worried that their baptism, confirmation, ordination, or marriage would be invalid.

This is serious stuff and should not be meddled with by laymen who have no specialized training in Canon Law or moral theology. Being an RCIA instructor does not give you the authority to come on these boards and start twisting Catholic theology.
 
DavidFilmer said:
Understood. But the question regards the sacramental validity of the recipient (one of the five criteria for any valid Sacrament). If the recipient is not valid, the Sacrament is not valid (and makes no mark on the soul whatsoever).

The OP asked if a person who was in a state of mortal sin was a valid recipient in the first place. I quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says such a person is not a valid recipient, and thus the Sacrament of Confirmation could not possibly be bestowed upon such a person.

puzzleAnnie claimed that the Sacrament was valid, but the Grace was deferred until such time as the recipient had received absolution. While there may be some merit to this regarding Matrimony, I do not believe this is consistent with Church teaching regarding Confirmation (and the Catechism seems to agree with me).

I believe that a candidate for Confirmation who is in a state of mortal sin cannot actually receive the Sacrament. I believe that CCC 1310 confirms my belief. The phrase “must be in a state of Grace” does not allow much room for alternate interpretation.
Click to expand...
The “must” there is rather of the moral imperative sense not in the validity sense.

It would be valid --and the person would receive the seal…the character …but the effects of confirmation will wait for the person to confess the mortal sin and be absolved (and confess of course receiving in such a state)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top