May Parents Reject "Restored Order?" Children's Liturgy of the Word?

[Brendan]

In the Latin Church the Sacraments are NOT a package deal. After a child has been prepared by the parents to receive a Sacrament, they may request that that Sacrament be celebrated.

Yes, BUT…

If the local Ordinary has instituted a “restored order” that is, he requires the Sacrament of Confirmation to be administered before the reception of First Holy Communion, the faithful are oblidged to comply.

This is not the case for the OP ( where one parish has the Sacraments in the traditional order, and another one does not).

One thing for First Holy Communion though, per Canon Law, the child’s pastor must determine if they are sufficently disposed to be admited to the Sacrament.

Can. 914 It is primarily the duty of parents and of those who take their place, as it is the duty of the parish priest, to ensure that children who have reached the use of reason are properly prepared and, having made their sacramental confession, are nourished by this divine food as soon as possible.** It is also the duty of the parish priest to see that children who have not reached the use of reason, or whom he has judged to be insufficiently disposed, do not come to holy communion**.

 

[frommi]

Yes, BUT…

If the local Ordinary has instituted a “restored order” that is, he requires the Sacrament of Confirmation to be administered before the reception of First Holy Communion, the faithful are oblidged to comply.

This is not the case for the OP ( where one parish has the Sacraments in the traditional order, and another one does not).

One thing for First Holy Communion though, per Canon Law, the child’s pastor must determine if they are sufficently disposed to be admited to the Sacrament.

also worth mentioning is the “age of reason”…if someone is around 7 years old and has not been baptized, they are to receive all three sacraments of initiation at one service (usually an Easter Vigil).

 

[John_Lilburne]

Thank you for the replies so far. And while I agree that the bishop and pastor decide on what is offered, and can say a child is not ready, my real question is about the rights of parents. Can they say “I only want my child to now receive First Confession/Communion now and not Confirmation yet?” Can the priest say “Unless you do them all at the same time, you can’t do any [in his parish]?” What are the parents’ specific rights in this situation? Thank you if anyone knows.

It seems to me that the parents have a responsibility to follow the Church’s authorities in this. If the child has been baptised, I am not aware of any Church document that gives them a right to delay the sacraments.

The Code of Canon Law seems to emphasise the duty of parents, rather than rights. From canon 914:
“It is primarily the duty of parents and of those who take their place, as it is the duty of the parish priest, to ensure that children who have reached the use of reason are properly prepared and, having made their sacramental confession, are nourished by this divine food as soon as possible. …”
(The Code of Canon Law: New revised English Translation, HarperCollins Liturgical, 1997, ISBN 000599375X.)

Another example: “Can. 1366 Parents, and those taking the place of parents, who hand over their children to be baptised or brought up in a non-catholic religion, are to be punished with a censure or other just penalty.”

The church recognises that parents have considerable power over their children. But it does not encourage them to use this power against legitimate church authority.

On the order of the sacraments, the church’s teaching is at present quite complicated. As Pope Benedict wrote in the 2007 Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html
“**The order of the sacraments of initiation **18. In this regard, attention needs to be paid to the order of the sacraments of initiation. Different traditions exist within the Church. There is a clear variation between, on the one hand, the ecclesial customs of the East (50) and the practice of the West regarding the initiation of adults, (51) and, on the other hand, the procedure adopted for children. (52) Yet these variations are not properly of the dogmatic order, but are pastoral in character. Concretely, it needs to be seen which practice better enables the faithful to put the sacrament of the Eucharist at the centre, as the goal of the whole process of initiation. In close collaboration with the competent offices of the Roman Curia, Bishops’ Conferences should examine the effectiveness of current approaches to Christian initiation, so that the faithful can be helped both to mature through the formation received in our communities and to give their lives an authentically eucharistic direction, so that they can offer a reason for the hope within them in a way suited to our times (cf. 1 Pet 3:15).
Footnotes:
(50) Cf. Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, can. 710.
(51) Cf. Rite of the Christian Initiation of Adults, General Introduction, 34-36.
(52) Cf. Rite of Baptism for Children, Introduction, 18-19.”

Pope Benedict seems to see it as a question for Conferences of Bishops, rather than individual parents.

For children who are not baptised, the book “Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults” has a section CHRISTIAN INITIATION OF CHILDREN WHO HAVE REACHED CATECHETICAL AGE. This includes:
“244. … 2. It is to be hoped that the children will also receive as much help and example as possible from the parents, whose permission is required for the children to be initiated and to live the Christian life. The period of initiation will also provide a good opportunity for the family to have contact with priests and catechists.”
(From the RCIA introductions for England and Wales: catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Resources/Rites/RiteRitual.html#RCIA . The USA edition has different paragraph numbers.)

Here the three sacraments of initiation are received in the one ceremony.

 

[maryjk]

The Sacrament of Confirmation took on a very distinct Protestant tone when the age was moved to the midteen years - it mirrored the notion of “accepting the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior” - (“are you saved?”).

**I live in a diocese that has restored the original order of the sacraments and I couldn’t be happier. **

Now, instead of waiting for the children to “make their decision” at such an awkward stage in their lives – the teen years – children are being prepared for Confirmation and First Communion at the same time. They are excited about the Sacraments!

In this day and age, our young people need as much armour as they can get - even at a young age.

I think the fruits of this change will be incredible.

Let’s pray fervently that they continue to receive religious instruction, both from their parents, from their parish and even by self-motivation. God won’t abandon them and we have to make sure that we don’t either.

I pray that my diocese changes to the restored order.

BlestOne:

I stressed to my kids that it was a very important decision to be confirmed meant that they had made the decision to follow the teachings of the church in all respects and that they were now morally responsible for that decision.

This almost sounds like a “I choose Jesus.” An are you saved question. If yes, you can be confirmed. If you are not sure, you don’t receive the graces of the Sacrament. Right when they need it most.

Our parish has CCD until Confirmation. There are no classes after that. How else should the children see it, other than a graduation? If we confirmed in second grade, right along with Penance and First Eucharist, and still had classes, it would show that Confirmation is not graduation. Yes, we would lose some children because their parents think that once they are confirmed they are done. But we lose them anyway. Those are the same kids that no one sees after Confirmation.

And don’t even start me on the “Volunteer” service hours that are required. :dts:

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Yes, BUT…

If the local Ordinary has instituted a “restored order” that is, he requires the Sacrament of Confirmation to be administered before the reception of First Holy Communion, the faithful are oblidged to comply.

This is not the case for the OP ( where one parish has the Sacraments in the traditional order, and another one does not).

One thing for First Holy Communion though, per Canon Law, the child’s pastor must determine if they are sufficently disposed to be admited to the Sacrament.

If a Bishop decreed that this is the order of the Sacraments in his diocese, and all parishes are to comply. But this is not the case at hand. That is correct it is a decision between the parents and pastor, and if necessary the Bishop.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

also worth mentioning is the “age of reason”…if someone is around 7 years old and has not been baptized, they are to receive all three sacraments of initiation at one service (usually an Easter Vigil).

That just clouds the issue because “around Seven” is somewhat loose. A 6 yr old might have the understanding of an 8 yr old or a 9 yr old could have the understanding of a 6 yr old. So biological age is not the exact measure required. But a parent could challenge a pastor refusing to admit a 7 1/2 or 8 yr old into a childs version of RCIA. If the parent could show that the child is capable of acquiring the necessary level of understanding.

 

[otjm]

Perhaps the most important question in this thread isn’t being asked: why is it that the parents want to delay Confirmation?

 

[puzzleannie]

“Restored Order” has been used to mean the combining of the Sacraments of Penance/First Eucharist with Confirmation, administered all at the same time. It wasn’t that long ago that a number of years elapsed between Confession/“First Communion” and Confirmation. Some parishes in my diocese still use that timing, and others have switched to administering these Sacraments at the same time. ?

even if the order of the sacraments of initiation is “restored” there still should be some separation, and also some separation between first penance and first communion, so that it is made clear in their preparation that these are separate sacraments. The only time the sacraments of initiation should be celebrated together is RCIA.

The parents have a choice within the parameters set by the bishop, who set his guidelines within canon law, by establishing particular law of the diocese. For instance if the age for first communion is 7 or older, and the parents feel their child would benefit from an additional year of preparation and receive at age 8, that would be fine. If the bishop says Confirmation in 4th grade, first communion in 5th, than this is the way it will be, unless the child is older than that when they receive the sacraments. In any case, first confession must preceed either of these sacraments, and if the parish does not prepare the child it is the parents’ responsibility.

CLOW does not have anything to do with sacramental prep, and it is entirely the parents’ judgement if their child will benefit from it. Once the child has made first communion, or is in the middle grades, they should be attending Mass in church, not leaving for CLOW, hearing the regular readings and homily.

 

[puzzleannie]

I My sister’s kids on the other hand had their first communion and confirmation at the same time. Now she doesn’t send them anywhere for ccd or religion classes, and she pretty much sees it as her job being over and done with as far as formation. They were confirmed at an early age, and basically won’t get those formation classes like I did in my early years. I fear that they do not and will not know their catholic faith because of this.
!

the problem here is not the age set by the diocese for reception of the sacraments, but the parents’ failure to catechize, which is gravely wrong at any age. We made a solemn promise at our children’s baptisms to educate them in the faith, and if we fail we will have to answer for our failure.

 

[puzzleannie]

I agree with the poster that said that some parents tend to see confirmation as their child’s education to be over. My own sister has stopped faithfully attending mass since her kids were confirmed. I think it is sad. I really prefer the standard confirmation in 8th or 9th grade because they go to PSR a little longer and they have more of a chance to make the decision for themselves. !

strictly speaking this thread is about the order of the sacraments of initiation, not the age for the sacraments. and to this poster and a previous poster, it is for the bishop to set the age for confirmation, not the parents, and not the child. Every year confirmation is delayed means fewer youth will receive the benefit of the sacrament, because they dropout of RE just as frequently before as after. To my mind delay to the later teen years can amount to denial of the sacrament.

 

[hopefull]

Among the reasons mentioned to me by parents wishing to at least separate the sacraments of Eucharist and Confirmation are 1) so that the children can better concentrate on the learning for each 2) to keep them involved in learning about their faith for a longer period of time 3) for two celebratory events instead of treating it as a one-timer 4) that Religious Education is so watered down anyway that it needs more preparatory time 5) family participation in attendance, being involved, without having the whole sponsor thing as well 6) it’s what they did and they thought it worked fine 7) that the pastor or catechists are interfering by not respecting the parents’ opinions and treating the process like a factory line 8) combining takes away from the specialness of each event 9) confirmation a few years later creates the opportunity to reinforce the catechesis of the First Communion at a higher maturity level 10) that some would like it to be not in a whole class, but a family communion when the child receives for the first time…these were some of the comments I heard. I’m sure there were others I’ve forgotten.

 

[puzzleannie]

Confirmation isn’t graduation!
It’s Confirming the choice to be an adult in the Faith and Confriming your adherence to the teachings/traditions/practices of the Church and the Faith. That in and of itself means that you are now REQUIRED to attend Mass faithfully, and to defend, and accept, any and all teachings of the Church with fervor.

.

actually while this choice on the part of the candidate is devoutly to be wished, the actual theology of the sacrament is that it is the Bishop who confirms the individual’s baptism, not the individual who confirms his own faith. Once a baptized Catholic reaches the age of reason he is required to attend Mass faithfully and to accept and defend the teachings of the Catholic faith. Once he has made first communion he is further required to receive communion during the Easter season and to confess his grave sins at least once a year.

 

[diannebe]

I appreciated your question Hopefull.

I didn’t realize when I posted my own question about older children being baptized that there even WAS a restored order controversy. In our parish babies were baptized, grade schoolers received first communion, and teenagers were confirmed. The thing that made confirmation extra special was that the bishop did the honors. I thought that’s just how it was. When it was suggested that older children being baptized would receive all the first sacraments together it didn’t seem right because I’d never heard of it done that way before. (I am admittingly naive in this regard)

Your question has brought light to the issues at hand, and opened my eyes to a whole other perspective.

Thank You!!

 

[frommi]

the problem here is not the age set by the diocese for reception of the sacraments, but the parents’ failure to catechize, which is gravely wrong at any age. We made a solemn promise at our children’s baptisms to educate them in the faith, and if we fail we will have to answer for our failure.

Confirmation does not require that anyone be appropriately catechized…that’s just not accurate.

 

[Servulus]

Confirmation does not require that anyone be appropriately catechized…that’s just not accurate.

From the Code of Canon Law (emphasis added):

“Can. 890 The faithful are bound to receive this sacrament at the proper time. Parents and pastors of souls, especially parish priests, are to see that the faithful are properly instructed to receive the sacrament and come to it at the opportune time.”

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Confirmation does not require that anyone be appropriately catechized…that’s just not accurate.

From the Code of Canon Law (emphasis added):

“Can. 890 The faithful are bound to receive this sacrament at the proper time. Parents and pastors of souls, especially parish priests, are to see that the faithful are properly instructed to receive the sacrament and come to it at the opportune time.”

Not to be nitpicky but this is a Canon Law requirement for Confirmation not really a requirement of the Sacrament.

This is shown with the canon that precedes this one.

Can. 889 §1 Every baptised person who is not confirmed, and only such a person, is capable of receiving confirmation.

§2 Apart from the danger of death, to receive confirmation lawfully a person who has the use of reason must be suitably instructed, properly disposed and able to renew the baptismal promises.

If instruction was an integral part then there could be no way that this Sacrament could be done in the “danger of death”.

Instruction is a disciplinary matter in this.

 

[farmbabe1]

With regard to parental rights, keep in mind that parents are the primary instructors for their children’s faith. So of course, they have the “right” to make the choice of Restored Order or not, if that choice is available in your diocese.

That being said, I’m just curious why a parent would want to delay in any way having their child receive the full strengthening of the Holy Spirit through Confirmation? Doesn’t matter at what age that happens, it’s a beautiful, grace-filled gift from our Lord at any age! Keep in mind that we need the fullness of the Spirit before we are able to fully receive the Lord’s body, blood, soul and divinity. Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith, not Confirmation. In Restored Order, delaying Confirmation also means delaying Eucharist. Why do that to your child?

As far as decreased faithfulness to catechetical instruction after Confirmation, that’s a matter of decision-making, IMO. We choose to make that a priority in our lives and our children’s lives, or we choose not to. It’s as simple as that.

 

[Servulus]

Not to be nitpicky but this is a Canon Law requirement for Confirmation not really a requirement of the Sacrament.

I’m afraid I don’t understand the distinction you’re making. Where, aside from Canon Law, would we find the “requirement(s) of the Sacrament?”

This is shown with the canon that precedes this one.

Can. 889 §1 Every baptised person who is not confirmed, and only such a person, is capable of receiving confirmation.

§2 Apart from the danger of death, to receive confirmation lawfully a person who has the use of reason must be suitably instructed, properly disposed and able to renew the baptismal promises.

If instruction was an integral part then there could be no way that this Sacrament could be done in the “danger of death”.

I believe what’s being discussed here is the ordinary course of Sacramental preparation and reception. As it is with Baptism, “danger of death” is the exception rather than the rule. According to §2 above, the requirement for suitable instruction for Confirmation is binding **except **in cases of “danger of death”.

 

[pprimeau1976]

I feel that Confirmation should wait until the child/young adult expresses their desire to be confirmed. It should not be forced upon them.
As for “Restored Order”, this would work for older children, but I don’t like it for younger. OF course, the Easter Orthodox churches do this…so… I dunno…

Yes, it is the parents’ choice. I have never heard otherwise.

AMEN!!!

I had this discussion with someone else - Della, I think. In church documents they never (or rarely - I never looked at every document) say that a teaching applies to Catholics - they say that the teaching applies to THE FAITHFUL.

The problem is not that there are Catholics who do not believe. The problem is that there are Catholics that were pressured into making their confirmation. IMO, Confirmation should be a personal decision, like marriage. And we all know what happens to people that get married but really joined under false pretenses. I would just save it for the Easter vigil and have the confirmation classes be for people of all ages - from 13 to 130.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’m afraid I don’t understand the distinction you’re making. Where, aside from Canon Law, would we find the “requirement(s) of the Sacrament?”

The instruction part is a disciplinary matter. It is not part of the Theology of the Sacrament.

For more proof of this all we need to do is look to the Byzantine Catholic Churches. Not only is the “restored order” there, as it has always been, all the Sacraments of Initiation are performed at the sametime. So infants are Baptized, Chrismated (Confirmed), and given First Eucharist.

It seems that some practices, like the order, the ages, and the instruction requirements have seeped into what people think make up the Sacraments and that is just not true. Canon Law can and does change.