MERGED: Confirmation before First Communion?/Restoration of Order

[lovemyjob]

I would be interested to know how they are educating parents in the dioceses practicing restored order.

In theory, people think parents will stop sending kids to Religious Ed after 2nd grade once they’ve been Confirmed.

I think 1) we should give the Holy Spirit more credit than that, and 2) if parents are being well educated about the change, perhaps they will keep the kids in Rel Ed.

So, I’m in favor if parents are being well instructed. (and the kids, too, of course)

 

[babochka]

Most of Europe follows the traditional order…Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist. Why is it that the Americans keep getting it wrong?

Specifically, which countries in Europe follow the traditional order?

This article is about a diocese in Italy that had planned to raise its Confirmation age from 12 to 18, but was asked to put it on hold by the Vatican. It also mentions that the model of Confirmation at age 17 or 18 is practiced in numerous places in Switzerland.
praytellblog.com/index.php/2011/05/17/south-tyrol-vatican-expresses-reservations-about-confirming-at-age-18/

This article tells the story of a Bishop in England who restored the order of the Sacraments in his diocese, moving Confirmation to the time of First Communion. The comments show confusion, concern and anger toward the Bishop for messing with “tradition”.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/01/26/archbishop-puts-confirmation-before-communion/

I have German relatives who were Confirmed at age 14, years after their First Communions.

Pope John Paul II, in Poland, was Baptized in 1920 and Confirmed in 1938. I don’t know what the current practice in Poland is, and this was in the the time of Communism, but it is an indicator of the Polish practice.

This is from an Irish website, discussing the appropriate age of Confirmation:

For Irish Catholics, First Communion is a major ceremony that takes place in second class, when communicants are usually aged between seven and eight, and Confirmation takes place in sixth class, when pupils are aged around thirteen.

This same article mentions that most French receive Confirmation at 16 years of age.

I know a man from Slovaia, born in the time of Communism when the Greek-Catholics were not allowed to practice their faith. For this reason, he was baptized in a Roman Church, received his first Communion around age 8, then Confirmed around age 12. He says that this continues to be the practice among Roman Catholics is his country.

This is a survey of several European countries, but by no means represents a comprehensive list. In which countries of Europe is it common to have Confirmation precede First Communion?

Keep in mind, as an Eastern Catholic, I am not arguing against Confirmation being received before Communion. I strongly agree, for a variety of reasons, that the Confirmation age should be lowered. I am just really wondering about your statement that most of Europe follows the traditional order.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Is it true that no one in a state of mortal sin should receive Confirmation?

If that is true then infants and any child up to the age of reason could certainly receive Confirmation since they would not be in a state of mortal sin.

After a child has reached the age of reason then that child would have to go to confession if they had committed a mortal sin–that would put them in a state of grace–then they could receive Confirmation.

What I’m saying is that not being in a state of mortal sin is REQUIRED for anyone to receive the sacrament of Confirmation.

Is this correct?

 

[Joe_5859]

Is it true that no one in a state of mortal sin should receive Confirmation?

If that is true then infants and any child up to the age of reason could certainly receive Confirmation since they would not be in a state of mortal sin.

After a child has reached the age of reason then that child would have to go to confession if they had committed a mortal sin–that would put them in a state of grace–then they could receive Confirmation.

What I’m saying is that not being in a state of mortal sin is REQUIRED for anyone to receive the sacrament of Confirmation.

Is this correct?

Not being in a state of mortal sin is necessary for receiving any sacrament – except for Baptism, Reconciliation, and Anointing of the Sick, because receiving those sacraments forgives those sins.

So, yes, kids need to go to Confession before Confirmation (and 1st Communion).

 

[Vico]

Is it true that no one in a state of mortal sin should receive Confirmation?

If that is true then infants and any child up to the age of reason could certainly receive Confirmation since they would not be in a state of mortal sin.

After a child has reached the age of reason then that child would have to go to confession if they had committed a mortal sin–that would put them in a state of grace–then they could receive Confirmation.

What I’m saying is that not being in a state of mortal sin is REQUIRED for anyone to receive the sacrament of Confirmation.

Is this correct?

A baptized Catholic can receive Confirmation, Holy Orders, and Matrimony validly in the state of mortal sin, but the grace is not received, only the state of being confirmed, having orders, or being married. Once the state is holy again, the sacramental graces are received.

 

[pollynova]

I live in the Fargo diocese too.

I think I was like 10 or 11 when this started happening. Before the change, you went to CCD classes starting in kindergarten through 8th grade. (If you didn’t attend a catholic school that is.) Then in 9th grade, you did confirmation classes until you were confirmed. (Which happened like every 2 years I think.)

But then when the Bishop came do to Confirmation, EVERYONE down to like second grade got confirmed. Well, except my brother and me because we were confirmed when we were born. A lot of parents stopped sending their kids to CCD classes because they figured they were already confirmed, so what was the point?

7 years old may be when “reason” kicks in, but I don’t think kids that age quite understand what exactly is happening at confirmation. (Most adults don’t either for that matter)

 

[Vico]

I live in the Fargo diocese too.

I think I was like 10 or 11 when this started happening. Before the change, you went to CCD classes starting in kindergarten through 8th grade. (If you didn’t attend a catholic school that is.) Then in 9th grade, you did confirmation classes until you were confirmed. (Which happened like every 2 years I think.)

But then when the Bishop came do to Confirmation, EVERYONE down to like second grade got confirmed. Well, except my brother and me because we were confirmed when we were born. A lot of parents stopped sending their kids to CCD classes because they figured they were already confirmed, so what was the point?

7 years old may be when “reason” kicks in, but I don’t think kids that age quite understand what exactly is happening at confirmation. (Most adults don’t either for that matter)

The point is that the sacrament brings the strengthening grace of the Holy Spirit, for those properly disposed, which helps the children through their development from an earlier age. The have completed their Christian initiation once they receive Holy Baptism, Holy Confirmation/Chrismation and Holy Communion.

 

[mayogirl25]

Here is n article from Archbishop Aquila while he was Bishop of the Diocese of Fargo (where I live).

ncregister.com/daily-news/bishop-aquila-confirmation-should-be-received-before-first-communion

What are your thoughts on it? I am in favor of doing Confirmation before First Communion.

My son age 35 is currently taking RCIA and he will receive both First Communion and Confirmation at the same time in April. To me both sacraments are so similar it is a matter of what is convenient for the priest/bishop at the time. What does it matter what order a person receives these most blessed gifts as long as they do.

 

[UncleBill]

It is about time that the Latin Church adopts the practice of the Eastern Catholic Churches and give all 3 sacraments of initiation at once…soon after birth.

It always bothered me that the Latin Church would receive a newly baptized baby by excommunicate them until the age of “reason”.

Baptize, Confirm and give them the Eucharist! Why deprive them the Grace?

 

[SonCatcher]

I think the EASTERN churches have the right idea. Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist all at one time. Why did the Western church get away from this? I’m told that this was done in the whole church many centuries ago.

I agree with you, Uncle Bill. Here is the reason for the shift, as best as I understand it:

In the ancient Church, the sacraments of initiation were administered by the bishop. The reason for this was to emphasize the individual believer’s connection to the bishop. The sacraments of initiation were likewise conferred at the same time to emphasize the unity of the sacraments.

As the Church grew, the number of bishops essentially stayed the same (within a region) while the number of presbyters (priests) grew to minister to the regular needs of Catholics.

In the East, all priests were given regular authority to confer all the sacraments of initiation. Unfortunately, they lost the connection of these sacraments to the bishop as a consequence.

In the West, all priests could baptize but the other sacraments were still reserved to the bishop, emphasizing that unity, unless the bishop has given specific permission to a priest otherwise (in practice, such permission is only given for adult converts). Normally, the bishop would travel from parish to parish to confirm and communicate those who had been baptized since his last visit. As dioceses grew, the time between episcopal visits stretched into years, leading to the now standard practice of using the “age of reason” or “sufficient catechesis” as an additional prerequisite.

 

[liturgyluver]

My son age 35 is currently taking RCIA and he will receive both First Communion and Confirmation at the same time in April. To me both sacraments are so similar it is a matter of what is convenient for the priest/bishop at the time. What does it matter what order a person receives these most blessed gifts as long as they do.

There is nothing “similar” about confirmation and the Holy Eucharist, but that is not really the point. It was only at the beginning of the twentieth century that the Catholic church began admitting people to receive the Eucharist prior to confirmation. Almost all the other denominations maintained the practice from the ancient church that once admitted to confirmation, candidates could then receive communion.

 

[Vico]

There is nothing “similar” about confirmation and the Holy Eucharist, but that is not really the point. It was only at the beginning of the twentieth century that the Catholic church began admitting people to receive the Eucharist prior to confirmation. Almost all the other denominations maintained the practice from the ancient church that once admitted to confirmation, candidates could then receive communion.

Historically, the Latin Church has normally given Eucharist prior to Confirmation:

1. From apostolic times until about the fifth century, for the Latin Church, the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation were given in one continuous rite of initiation, which culminated in a Christian’s admission to the Eucharist. This is still a norm in eastern churches, including eastern Catholic ritual churches.
2. In the Middle Ages (5th-13th centuries) Baptism and First Eucharist were administered together at infancy, with a later Confirmation by the bishop in very early childhood.
3. During the thirteenth to sixteenth century, infant Baptism was the norm but Confirmation was celebrated at the age of discretion (seven), with First Eucharist between the ages of ten and fourteen.
4. By the sixteenth century until the nineteenth century infant baptism was the norm, Confirmation was between seven and fifteen years, followed by First Eucharist.
5. In modern times infant baptism, First Eucharist at the age of discretion, and Confirmation between seven and eighteen became common.

 

[liturgyluver]

Historically, the Latin Church has normally given Eucharist prior to Confirmation:

1. From apostolic times until about the fifth century, for the Latin Church, the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation were given in one continuous rite of initiation, which culminated in a Christian’s admission to the Eucharist. This is still a norm in eastern churches, including eastern Catholic ritual churches.
2. In the Middle Ages (5th-13th centuries) Baptism and First Eucharist were administered together at infancy, with a later Confirmation by the bishop in very early childhood.
3. During the thirteenth to sixteenth century, infant Baptism was the norm but Confirmation was celebrated at the age of discretion (seven), with First Eucharist between the ages of ten and fourteen.
4. By the sixteenth century until the nineteenth century infant baptism was the norm, Confirmation was between seven and fifteen years, followed by First Eucharist.
5. In modern times infant baptism, First Eucharist at the age of discretion, and Confirmation between seven and eighteen became common.

It’s slightly more complicated than that since before the 12th century there was no unity across the rites used in the western church, and even more acutely no common understanding of what confirmation represented. Fisher’s classic study of Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieveal West makes the point that if a distict liturgical tradition did not know of rites equivalent to those episcopal acts it is impossible to talk about a separation of confirmation from baptism. Or put another way Roman confirmation would be seen as an addition to existing rites only when the Roman Rite itself was adopted universally , which of course happened quite late.

The traditional Roman position for episcopal handlaying with prayer and anointing ocurred between baptism and first communion. These rites eventually became an addition to the rites of Christian initiation elsewhere. Confirmation therefore emerged as a distinct rite separate from baptism, BUT importantly was not immediatly accepted by the clery and faithful throughout Europe, since there are repeated attempts on the parts of the Bishops to impress upon people the necessity of confirmation, and it became known as the neglected sacrament.

As you say the early church documents show that until medieaval times all newly baptised Christians completed their baptism by the immediate reception of first communion. It was later that this changed from what the earlier churches of both east and west kept together in a unitive and distinctive rite into four separate and distinct sacraments. Thie eventually meant that baptism became a rite administered to infants as a precautionary step and with no necessary relationship to the public life of the church. This is one of the reasons why it was criticised by the protestant reformers, and why it was reformed again at the Catholic reformation validating the sacramental sequence of baptism, confirmation and then first communion. The church was consistent, even as late in 1932, the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments decreeing that children should not come to first communion until they had received confirmation.

 

[Brendan]

Not being in a state of mortal sin is necessary for receiving any sacrament – except for Baptism, Reconciliation, and Anointing of the Sick, because receiving those sacraments forgives those sins.

So, yes, kids need to go to Confession before Confirmation (and 1st Communion).

One point of clarification. The presence of mortal sin on the recipient does not invalidate the Sacrament. You statement could be construed to imply that it did.

A person in mortal sin would still receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. The indelible mark would still be placed on their soul.

But since their soul is dead, the Grace of the Sacrament would not be received at that time. The Grace of the Sacrament would be restored, along with the health of the soul, int he Sacrament of Reconcilliation.

So if the person received Confirmation while in mortal sin, the Confirmation is still valid ( the person would not need to be reconfirmed). The would not receive that Grace of the Sacrament. But upon a valid confession and absolution, the Grace of Confirmation would then be present.

The same is true for Marriage. The while Marriage should not be attempted while in mortal sin, the presence of mortal sin on one or both parties does not render the Sacrament invalid. Likewise for Holy Orders etc…

 

[Joe_5859]

One point of clarification. The presence of mortal sin on the recipient does not invalidate the Sacrament. You statement could be construed to imply that it did.

A person in mortal sin would still receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. The indelible mark would still be placed on their soul.

But since their soul is dead, the Grace of the Sacrament would not be received at that time. The Grace of the Sacrament would be restored, along with the health of the soul, int he Sacrament of Reconcilliation.

So if the person received Confirmation while in mortal sin, the Confirmation is still valid ( the person would not need to be reconfirmed). The would not receive that Grace of the Sacrament. But upon a valid confession and absolution, the Grace of Confirmation would then be present.

The same is true for Marriage. The while Marriage should not be attempted while in mortal sin, the presence of mortal sin on one or both parties does not render the Sacrament invalid. Likewise for Holy Orders etc…

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Sophronius]

Hey Ya’ll,

I was wondering how many diocese in the United States (And which ones) have restored the order and sequence of the Sacraments of Initiation for Children? Thanks!

Baptism → Confirmation → Communion

 

[1ke]

The ones I know about in the US:

Phoenix, AZ
Portland, ME
Gaylord, MI
Marquette, MI
Saginaw, MI
Great Falls-Billings, MT
Fargo, ND
Greensburg, PA.
Tyler, TX
Spokane, WA

San Jose, CA allows individual parishes to seek permission from the Bishop to use restored order in their parish. Same in diocese of Rochester, NY.

 

[Sophronius]

Awesome. Does anyone have any advice if I were to write the local bishop about restoring this order? What would be the best approach?

 

[Cider]

Hey Ya’ll,

I was wondering how many diocese in the United States (And which ones) have restored the order and sequence of the Sacraments of Initiation for Children? Thanks!

Baptism → Confirmation → Communion

Just the order or the and the timing. I don’t know of any Roman rite that have gone back to the original order AND timing.

 

[tafan]

Just the order or the and the timing. I don’t know of any Roman rite that have gone back to the original order AND timing.

The term “restoration” means to put it back the way it was originally, normal, or unimpaired. So I do not think restoration, with regards to timing, would be the correct terminology. St Pius X, in his encyclical QUAM SINGULARI ( papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10quam.htm ), is very clear that in establishing the age of reason at 7 to be the correct age for first communion was itself a restoration.

After describing the ancient Church practice of very early reception of communion in the encyclical, he refers to the definition by the Council of Trent and the misapplication of it:

The Council of Trent, in no way condemning the ancient practice of administering the Eucharist to children before they had attained the use of reason, confirmed the Decree of the Lateran Council and declared anathema those who held otherwise: “If anyone denies that each and all Christians of both sexes are bound, when they have attained the years of discretion, to receive Communion every year at least at Easter, in accordance with the precept of Holy Mother Church, let him be anathema.”

…
However, in the precise determination of “the age of reason or discretion” not a few errors and deplorable abuses have crept in during the course of time. There were some who maintained that one age of discretion must be assigned to reception of the Sacrament of Penance and another to the Holy Eucharist. They held that for Confession the age of discretion is reached when one can distinguish right from wrong, hence can commit sin; for Holy Eucharist, however, a greater age is required in which a full knowledge of matters of faith and a better preparation of the soul can be had. As a consequence, owing to various local customs and opinions, the age determined for the reception of First Communion was placed at ten years or twelve, and in places fourteen years or even more were required; and until that age children and youth were prohibited from Eucharistic Communion

So let us not think that the restoration of the order of the sacraments of initiation has anything to do with the timing of first communion. It was never a problem in the past.

The sacraments should be restored. Our parish did it for a while, until the Bishop standardized the age of 8th grade a couple of years ago. I was quite disappointed. When our parish started confirming kids in the second grade, it caused a little uproar. Even devout and knowledgable Catholics did not recogonize it as a good thing. Quite disappointing, as my immediate reaction when it was implemented was to compliment the pastor (who expected me to complain, as he had been hearing so many other complaints).

We need to have faith in the efficacy of the sacraments. Everytime I see or hear about a teenager who has lost the faith, I wonder if several more years of being strengthened by the Holy Spirit with the graces of confirmation could have prevented it.