Must your Confirmation Saint and Sponsor be the same gender as you?

[ProVobis]

Regarding parents being sponsors, this does violate canon law:

Can. 874 §1 To be admitted to undertake the office of sponsor, a person must:
​

FWIW, the Latin is:

§ 1. Ut quis ad munus patrini suscipiendum admittatur, oportet:

So according to the Law Dictionary of Latin terms, “must” seems to be correct here. I’ve seen “oportet” translated to be “it should be” or “it’s desirable” or “it ought to be.” Modal verbs can get very troublesome in the English. (For example, do we really mean “can do something” when we say it?)​

 

[babochka]

Age of confirmation is not that important,you can never be too old to recieve it, you can be too young,though.imho. people in my area get it around 11. Some even later.

If you get worried, read only the ccc.

Really, you can’t be too young, either. Babies in danger of death should be confirmed, according to canon law.

I have a cradle catholic friend in her 30s who was just confirmed this year. She “missed” the opportunity as a teenager and later came to realize the importance of the sacrament, so she approached her priest about it.

 

[ProVobis]

Really, you can’t be too young, either. Babies in danger of death should be confirmed, according to canon law.

I can’t find this. All I’ve found is Canon 889: “§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.”

The key Latin word in this case is requiritur, better translated IMO to “it is required.”

Or are you referrring to perhaps this one?

Can. 891 The sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred on the faithful at about the age of discretion, unless the Episcopal Conference has decided on a different age, or there is a danger of death or, in the judgment of the minister, a grave reason suggests otherwise.

 

[Jack007]

Really, you can’t be too young, either. Babies in danger of death should be confirmed, according to canon law.

I have a cradle catholic friend in her 30s who was just confirmed this year. She “missed” the opportunity as a teenager and later came to realize the importance of the sacrament, so she approached her priest about it.

i see that i was wrong

 

[Jack007]

Canon 889: “§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.”

Can. 891 The sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred on the faithful at about the age of discretion, unless the Episcopal Conference has decided on a different age, or there is a danger of death or, in the judgment of the minister, a grave reason suggests otherwise.

 

[Phemie]

The Rite of Baptism for Infants calls for it too. It says that a child being baptized in danger of dying should also be confirmed. I don’t see it done around here, although many babies are baptized in the hospital and the oil stock the priest carries has all three oils in it.

 

[ProVobis]

Jack007:
Right, but I don’t see any Latin saying it “should” be, only an implication that it MAY be.

 

[ProVobis]

.

Right, but I don’t see any Latin saying it “should” be, only an implication that it MAY be.

 

[ProVobis]

The Rite of Baptism for Infants calls for it too. It says that a child being baptized in danger of dying should also be confirmed. I don’t see it done around here,

Right. I don’t see it either. I myself was in “danger of dying” when I was around 11 months old, or so my mother told me later, but I doubt if anyone thought to have me confirmed at that time. My brother contacted pneumonia at a young age and had a doctor make a house call. Should we have contacted a priest, or bishop, to administer confirmation?

 

[Jack007]

Right, but I don’t see any Latin saying it “should” be, only an implication that it MAY be.

i didnt say “should”. i just quoted. so, if the latin says ‘may’, i ,to, say ‘may’.

 

[Phemie]

Right. I don’t see it either. I myself was in “danger of dying” when I was around 11 months old, or so my mother told me later, but I doubt if anyone thought to have me confirmed at that time. My brother contacted pneumonia at a young age and had a doctor make a house call. Should we have contacted a priest, or bishop?

Actually, if he was in danger of dying, a priest. Canon 883 gives any priest the faculty to confirm anyone in danger of dying, regardless of their age.

 

[Jack007]

Right. I don’t see it either. I myself was in “danger of dying” when I was around 11 months old, or so my mother told me later, but I doubt if anyone thought to have me confirmed at that time. My brother contacted pneumonia at a young age and had a doctor make a house call. Should we have contacted a priest, or bishop, to administer confirmation?

you could have, but it is more important to receive the last rites, so you should have.

 

[ProVobis]

you could have, but it is more important to receive the last rites, so you should have.

Good point about the last rites, though “danger of death” is always left to someone’s interpretation. How real is it, for example? Is it a matter of seconds, an hour, several days, or whether you’re in a war zone (I suppose) is another consideration. Or will a simple shot of penicillin remedy the situation?

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Interesting to talk about “last rites” in terms of an infant. You’re supposed to be over the age of reason to receive Anointing of the Sick (with a few exceptions). And I don’t know that there’s an exception at all for receiving the Eucharist (viaticum) before the age of reason. So it would actually make more sense to make sure the infant is baptized and confirmed.

 

[ProVobis]

So it would actually make more sense to make sure the infant is baptized and confirmed.

I strongly agree with the baptism, but what would be the theological reason for the confirmation? I asked this once of someone with a masters in theology, who couldn’t tell me.

 

[Phemie]

I strongly agree with the baptism, but what would be the theological reason for the confirmation? I asked this once of someone with a masters in theology, who couldn’t tell me.

It would be for the extra graces and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. My understanding of Extreme Unction is that one doesn’t benefit from it unless one is old enough to understand it. Such is not the case with Baptism and Confirmation.

 

[Phemie]

Interesting to talk about “last rites” in terms of an infant. You’re supposed to be over the age of reason to receive Anointing of the Sick (with a few exceptions). And I don’t know that there’s an exception at all for receiving the Eucharist (viaticum) before the age of reason. So it would actually make more sense to make sure the infant is baptized and confirmed.

As far as the Latin Rite goes, Canon Law says this about Viaticum for canonical infants:
Can. 913 §1. The administration of the Most Holy Eucharist to children requires that they have sufficient knowledge and careful preparation so that they understand the mystery of Christ according to their capacity and are able to receive the body of Christ with faith and devotion. **
§2. The Most Holy Eucharist, however, can be administered to children in danger of death if they can distinguish the body of Christ from ordinary food and receive communion reverently.**
A former pastor told me he gave Communion to a very sick 4 year old boy who begged to receive Jesus while he was in his hospital bed. He’d been asking for a long time and since he was dying my pastor felt that he shouldn’t die without having that desire satisfied. He met the requirements of 913.2

 

[ProVobis]

It would be for the extra graces and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. My understanding of Extreme Unction is that one doesn’t benefit from it unless one is old enough to understand it. Such is not the case with Baptism and Confirmation.

Okay for EU but Canon 889.2 for Confirmation, REQUIRES/DEMANDS (or however one wishes to translate the Latin requiritur) one to be suitably instructed, properly disposed, and able to renew the baptismal promises, apart from the danger of death, which, as I understand it, must be real danger or terminal. It is not necessary for any danger of death to exist for Baptism.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

…apart from the danger of death…

If you’re talking about Last Rites (you brought it up above) then we ARE talking about someone in danger of death and it is appropriate/licit/whatever term you want to use to confirm someone younger than the age of reason.

As for the reason you would confirm an infant in danger of death, it’s the same reason you would confirm anyone. The Catechism explains:

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.89 For “by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Hence they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed.”90

Why wouldn’t you want to give someone the grace of the sacrament before their death?

 

[ProVobis]

If you’re talking about Last Rites (you brought it up above) then we ARE talking about someone in danger of death and it is appropriate/licit/whatever term you want to use to confirm someone younger than the age of reason.

Actually I just said it was a good point that the other poster made in referencing that the Last Rites were more important. I can understand why those of the age of reason who can sin would benefit more from them. I’m not going to dispute those who claim Last Rites or Extreme Unction (under SP allowance) are not to be administered to those under the age of reason. Not until we open a thread on it anyway.

Why wouldn’t you want to give someone the grace of the sacrament before their death?

I would, if I had the power and permission.