Is this person Catholic?

[thephilosopher6]

Sorry if this is in the wrong area, I didn’t know where to put this.

So, on Sunday I was talking with a kid who goes to my parish. He’s 14 and a convert to the faith. He walks to the church by himself as he only lives a few houses away from the parish. Which I thought was awesome. He is a really nice and intelligent kid. Anyway, I asked if he was received on Easter vigil. He said he was actually received a few months before. He said he went through private instructions and then the priest let him participate in confession and communion (he was previously baptized Methodist). He said he hasn’t been confirmed yet but that he will when classes start up again in the fall. I said “Oh, that’s an odd way to be received. Most people who are baptized are given the Eucharist and confirmed.” So, is he fully Catholic? He does participate in the Eucharist every Sunday, I see him. He is a really nice kid and seems very sincere.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

It is entirely possible. The Rite of Christian Initiation of Children (RCIC) isn’t all that common around here, but I believe it does allow for those roughly 7-14 (ish) to enter the Church with confirmation as an option at the pastor’s discretion.

 

[thephilosopher6]

It is entirely possible. The Rite of Christian Initiation of Children (RCIC) isn’t all that common around here, but I believe it does allow for those roughly 7-14 (ish) to enter the Church with confirmation as an option at the pastor’s discretion.

Yeah, I looked it up and found that it also could be different in certain areas.

 

[Neofight]

Sorry if this is in the wrong area, I didn’t know where to put this.

So, on Sunday I was talking with a kid who goes to my parish. He’s 14 and a convert to the faith. He walks to the church by himself as he only lives a few houses away from the parish. Which I thought was awesome. He is a really nice and intelligent kid. Anyway, I asked if he was received on Easter vigil. He said he was actually received a few months before. He said he went through private instructions and then the priest let him participate in confession and communion (he was previously baptized Methodist). He said he hasn’t been confirmed yet but that he will when classes start up again in the fall. I said “Oh, that’s an odd way to be received. Most people who are baptized are given the Eucharist and confirmed.” So, is he fully Catholic? He does participate in the Eucharist every Sunday, I see him. He is a really nice kid and seems very sincere.

It’s not an odd way at all, just a different way.

I was self-catechized, and attended RCIA classes from the Start of Advent until the Saturday before Lent, when I was brought into full communion with the Church (about 3 and a half months)…and the following September I was a member (and have been for 5 years) of the RCIA Team.

I have provided private instruction for 3 others who entered the Church within a few months, without formal RCIA. The Pastor will make that decision.

And, as a side note, it is not proper to call those coming from another Trinitarian Christian faith traditions “converts”. Conversion is the act of turning away from sin, and toward God. So, all baptized into the Christian faith under the Trinitarian formula turned from sin and towards God at their baptism…even those who call themselves “cradle Catholics”.

What is proper to say, in the case of these brothers and sisters from other faiths, is that the have entered into full communion with the catholic Church, not that they are “converts”.

Peace and all good!

 

[mommy_k]

The priest may be having him attend confirmation prep and religious education with the other students who are his age-

 

[ChurchSoldier]

What a nice story.

I too had a couple / three months of private instruction prior to entering.

 

[1ke]

So, is he fully Catholic?

I don’t understand why you would think otherwise.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Ok, so I guess he is Catholic. My understanding was that full communion was acheived when someone took all three sacraments (or two) of Christian initiation at once (like Easter vigil). But I guess my understanding was erred and there are other ways. (I also knew that non-confirmed baptized Catholics were still considered Catholics I just thought that the non-baptized or those baptized out of the Church needed all sacraments of initiation. I was a non-confirmed baptized Catholic myself who was only just recently confirmed after coming back to the faith.)

Also, yes neo, thanks for the clarification.

 

[dans0622]

A person becomes Catholic through baptism (in the Catholic Church) or through reception into the Church (when baptism has been validly received in some other Church/ecclesial community). Reception into the Church is a strictly legal concern/action.

Confirmation sometimes happens just after the reception into the Church but these are two different actions with different results. They don’t necessarily have to happen in the context of one Mass.

In fact, as far as the Easter Vigil is concerned, the ritual states that “it is preferable that reception into full communion not take place at the Easter Vigil…” (n. 33 of Appendix III (the USA’s particular statutes on “RCIA”)).

Nevertheless, this does happen with regularity and that’s ok “for pastoral reasons.”

Dan

 

[otjm]

As an aside, bishops confirm people. Because of the introduction of the RCIA process, and the number of people being baptized on Holy Saturday Night, the bishop is allowed to delegate Confirmation to the priest; but this is the only time a priest can confirm. So, because the young man did not enter on Holy Saturday night, he has to wait for a group confirmation with the bishop at a different time.

And while at least some Eastern Churches may confirm at the time of infant baptism, in the Roman rite somewhere back in the mists of history, the two were separated.

Last I heard, there were some on-going discussions of moving Confirmation around; but to no definitive decision.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

As an aside, bishops confirm people. Because of the introduction of the RCIA process, and the number of people being baptized on Holy Saturday Night, the bishop is allowed to delegate Confirmation to the priest; but this is the only time a priest can confirm. So, because the young man did not enter on Holy Saturday night, he has to wait for a group confirmation with the bishop at a different time.

And while at least some Eastern Churches may confirm at the time of infant baptism, in the Roman rite somewhere back in the mists of history, the two were separated.

Last I heard, there were some on-going discussions of moving Confirmation around; but to no definitive decision.

Actually this is not quite correct, OTJM
*
Can. 882 The ordinary minister of confirmation is a bishop; a presbyter provided with this faculty in virtue of universal law or the special grant of the competent authority also confers this sacrament validly.

Can. 883 The following possess the faculty of administering confirmation by the law itself:

1/ within the boundaries of their jurisdiction, those who are equivalent in law to a diocesan bishop;

2/ as regards the person in question, the presbyter who by virtue of office or mandate of the diocesan bishop baptizes one who is no longer an infant or admits one already baptized into the full communion of the Catholic Church;

3/** as regards those who are in danger of death, the pastor or indeed any presbyter**.

Can. 884 §1. The diocesan bishop is to administer confirmation personally or is to take care that another bishop administers it. If necessity requires it, he can grant the faculty to one or more specific presbyters, who are to administer this sacrament.

§2. For a grave cause the bishop and even the presbyter endowed with the faculty of confirming in virtue of the law or the special grant of the competent authority can in single cases also associate presbyters with themselves to administer the sacrament.

Can. 885 §1. The diocesan bishop is obliged to take care that the sacrament of confirmation is conferred on subjects who properly and reasonably seek it.

§2. A presbyter who possesses this faculty must use it for the sake of those in whose favor the faculty was granted.

Can. 886 §1. A bishop in his diocese legitimately administers the sacrament of confirmation even to faithful who are not his subjects, unless their own ordinary expressly prohibits it.

§2. To administer confirmation licitly in another diocese, a bishop needs at least the reasonably presumed permission of the diocesan bishop unless it concerns his own subjects.

Can. 887 A presbyter who possesses the faculty of administering confirmation also confers this sacrament licitly on externs in the territory assigned to him unless their proper ordinary prohibits it; he cannot confer it validly on anyone in another territory, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 883, n. 3.*

 

[AXO]

the bishop is allowed to delegate Confirmation to the priest

Not true either in the case of the RCIA. There is no delegation; the *prænotanda *(n. 46) of the Ritual establish that, in the absence of the Bishop (absente Episcopo), the presbyter shall confirm the baptised.

 

[paperwight66]

Our parish priest has confirmed all the First Communion children for several years now, the only condition that affected the prep course being that it had to be around Pentecost.

From next year, however, the Sacraments are being separated again i.e. First Communion being some years before Confirmation, back to where it was before in this diocese.

 

[otjm]

Actually this is not quite correct, OTJM
*
Can. 882 The ordinary minister of confirmation is a bishop; a presbyter provided with this faculty in virtue of universal law or the special grant of the competent authority also confers this sacrament validly.*

Can. 883 The following possess the faculty of administering confirmation by the law itself:

1/ within the boundaries of their jurisdiction, those who are equivalent in law to a diocesan bishop;

2/ as regards the person in question, the presbyter who by virtue of office or mandate of the diocesan bishop baptizes one who is no longer an infant or admits one already baptized into the full communion of the Catholic Church;

3/** as regards those who are in danger of death, the pastor or indeed any presbyter**.

Can. 884 §1. The diocesan bishop is to administer confirmation personally or is to take care that another bishop administers it. If necessity requires it, he can grant the faculty to one or more specific presbyters, who are to administer this sacrament.

§2. For a grave cause the bishop and even the presbyter endowed with the faculty of confirming in virtue of the law or the special grant of the competent authority can in single cases also associate presbyters with themselves to administer the sacrament.

Can. 885 §1. The diocesan bishop is obliged to take care that the sacrament of confirmation is conferred on subjects who properly and reasonably seek it.

§2. A presbyter who possesses this faculty must use it for the sake of those in whose favor the faculty was granted.

Can. 886 §1. A bishop in his diocese legitimately administers the sacrament of confirmation even to faithful who are not his subjects, unless their own ordinary expressly prohibits it.

§2. To administer confirmation licitly in another diocese, a bishop needs at least the reasonably presumed permission of the diocesan bishop unless it concerns his own subjects.

Can. 887 A presbyter who possesses the faculty of administering confirmation also confers this sacrament licitly on externs in the territory assigned to him unless their proper ordinary prohibits it; he cannot confer it validly on anyone in another territory, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 883, n. 3.

Thanks.

I forgot the rule: close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.