NH Diocese Latest to Restore Order of Sacraments

[Wesrock]

I lived in that diocese up to a couple years ago. Interesting. I agree, though as I’m an unscholarly lay person, I understand it’s up to the Bishop’s discretion as how to best meet the diocese’s spiritual needs.

 

[Wesrock]

Original order is Baptism, Confirmation (or Chrysmation), and Eucharist, in one ritual, by the Bishop. In the east that order was retained. “It became impossible for bishops, who were now also involved in governing, to preside at every Baptism. The bishops of the East solved the problem by delegating the Sacraments of Initiation to the presbyter, reserving for themselves only the blessing of the oil used in the rite.”

loyolapress.com/our-catholic-faith/sacraments/confirmation/history-and-development-of-sacrament-of-confirmation

It seems Confirmation was delayed in order to accomodate having the Sacrament performed by the Bishop. But I and most Catholics I know were still confirmed at 16 by a priest, not a bishop, so that justification seemed moot…

 

[twf]

It seems Confirmation was delayed in order to accomodate having the Sacrament performed by the Bishop. But I and most Catholics I know were still confirmed at 16 by a priest, not a bishop, so that justification seemed moot…

Really? Most bishops travel from parish to parish confirming youth…as far as I know. Maybe your diocese / archdiocese was simply so large that this wasn’t possible? If there are aux. bishops, they will confirm as well.
I’m a convert and was confirmed when I was received into the Church. I was blessed. I was living in a relatively small diocese (geographically vast, but with a Catholic population of under 100 000), in a small town…and the bishop made a special trip to our town to receive / confirm me. I was the only convert in our town that year.

 

[Vico]

It seems Confirmation was delayed in order to accomodate having the Sacrament performed by the Bishop. But I and most Catholics I know were still confirmed at 16 by a priest, not a bishop, so that justification seemed moot…

The Latin canon law was revised for certain circumstances to allow the priest to confirm.

Catechism
1313 In the Latin Rite, the ordinary minister of Confirmation is the bishop.130 Although the bishop may for grave reasons concede to priests the faculty of administering Confirmation,131 it is appropriate from the very meaning of the sacrament that he should confer it himself, mindful that the celebration of Confirmation has been temporally separated from Baptism for this reason. Bishops are the successors of the apostles. They have received the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders. the administration of this sacrament by them demonstrates clearly that its effect is to unite those who receive it more closely to the Church, to her apostolic origins, and to her mission of bearing witness to Christ.

130 Cf. CIC, Can. 882.
131 Cf. CIC, Can. 884 # 2.

 

[commenter]

The Latin canon law was revised for certain circumstances to allow the priest to confirm.

Catechism
1313 In the Latin Rite, the ordinary minister of Confirmation is the bishop.130 Although the bishop may for grave reasons concede to priests the faculty of administering Confirmation,131 it is appropriate from the very meaning of the sacrament that he should confer it himself, mindful that the celebration of Confirmation has been temporally separated from Baptism for this reason. Bishops are the successors of the apostles. They have received the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders. the administration of this sacrament by them demonstrates clearly that its effect is to unite those who receive it more closely to the Church, to her apostolic origins, and to her mission of bearing witness to Christ.

130 Cf. CIC, Can. 882.
131 Cf. CIC, Can. 884 # 2.

Bold added. It should be emphasized that there are many parts of the world where the bishop physically cannot get to every parish easily, due to transportation difficulties and isolation. But the bishop ought to confirm almost all the time in places where transportation is good.

This is more important now than ever. When I was growing up in the 1950s we were very much aware that we were part of a diocese, under the overall direction of a bishop. Today that is much less the case. When the bishop comes to a parish for confirmation, that is the one of the rare reminders to the youth, and to all the people of their relationship to the diocese.

Usually after the confirmation, the bishop is present at a reception, then meets privately with the parish staff, at their office. Since we now have only a few for confirmation each year, our parish usually combines with the neighboring parish, and there is one ceremony at alternating parishes.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Artificially delaying the sacraments of initiation, in defiance of ancient tradition and sound theology, does nothing to address the root of the problem. By your reasoning, we might as well delay first Communion to age 15 and confirmation to age 18…

We need to find other ways to keep people engaged. Perhaps we could institute some sort of “coming of age” rite for older / teen kids, such as a public profession of faith, without messing with the proper order of the sacraments. Confirmation / Christmation is not such a rite, though that’s how a lot of people treat it. This century old novelty needs to go…its just bad sacramental theology.

By your reasoning, the practice of frequent Confession also “defies ancient tradition,” but I don’t recall anyone complaining about that. Just as doctrine “develops,” I don’t understand why sacramental theology and praxis can’t validly “develop.” Sacraments aren’t museum pieces requiring conservation and “restoration,” they are encounters with the living God.

 

[tafan]

Nobody has criticized this cleric. Be clear.

It’s just a disaster for Religious Education. I think nearly every CAF member truly believes that people are not well catechized. What plan is in place to replace those years of teaching for our youth? That is what I am interested in. And how are they going to get the parents on board? Most kids don’t drive.
But…it will take time for that to become apparent.
peace.

I believe the Diocese of Phoenix went to the restored order in 2005, that is 12 years ago. Have you done any research into your claims that religious education will die. You make this claim based on zero experience with early age confirmation. Do some research and see if you are correct.

 

[tafan]

Also, Archbishop Aquila moved to restore the order of the sacraments in Denver in 2015, a full 13 years after he did so in Fargo, North Dakota. I suppose he had some experience with the impact on religious education.

 

[Vico]

Bold added. It should be emphasized that there are many parts of the world where the bishop physically cannot get to every parish easily, due to transportation difficulties and isolation. But the bishop ought to confirm almost all the time in places where transportation is good.

This is more important now than ever. When I was growing up in the 1950s we were very much aware that we were part of a diocese, under the overall direction of a bishop. Today that is much less the case. When the bishop comes to a parish for confirmation, that is the one of the rare reminders to the youth, and to all the people of their relationship to the diocese.

Usually after the confirmation, the bishop is present at a reception, then meets privately with the parish staff, at their office. Since we now have only a few for confirmation each year, our parish usually combines with the neighboring parish, and there is one ceremony at alternating parishes.

It really shows the difference in sacramental discipline between the Latin Church sui iuris where the bishop is the normal minister of Confirmation and the eastern Catholic churches sui iuris where the priest is the normal minister for Chrysmation (using the Holy Myron from the Eparch).

 

[Wesrock]

A tangent, but it seems Confirmation should not be conferred at Easter for adult converts, but at a later time with the Bishop.

 

[twf]

By your reasoning, the practice of frequent Confession also “defies ancient tradition,” but I don’t recall anyone complaining about that. Just as doctrine “develops,” I don’t understand why sacramental theology and praxis can’t validly “develop.” Sacraments aren’t museum pieces requiring conservation and “restoration,” they are encounters with the living God.

I haven’t seen a single theological argument in favor of the current “normal” practice. Not one…not even an attempt. All the arguments are matters of education or pragmatism / logistics. So development of doctrine has nothing to do with this.
On the other hand, there are many theological arguments advanced in favor of frequent confession.

 

[tafan]

I didn’t go through the entire thread, so I don’t know if somebody has already answered this on here. If Confirmation originally came earlier, when and why did they change it earlier?

Here is the history in the US (I cannot speak for other countries for sure).

I don’t think this has fully been answered. In the Latin Church, the age of first communion was around the age of 12 until 1920. Before that time, the sacraments were normally received in the normal order: baptism, confirmation, first communion. Not always, as Bishops would travel to confirm children and sometimes they would not make it to a parish more than every few years (my hometown parish was founded in 1902 and the first bishop to arrive to confirm was in 1908, and the second time was 1917, travel was not easy).

Then Pope St Pius X moved the age of first communion to the age of reason in 1910. He did nothing about the age of the first confirmation, since that required the Bishop and there were often travel issues. So the sacraments were out of order, but not normally be a great deal. Until the 70s, most people were confirmed by the time they were 9 or 10 years old. However, it slowly was moved to later and later, and took on whole new meaning: a rite of passage to being an adult Christian. Then, and now, it became seen as being a means of keeping kids enrolled in CCD programs. Eventually we have reached the absurdity of it being 14-18 years of age. And it is an absurdity.

The 1917 canon law and the 1983 canon law have used the age of reason as the norm in the west. The 1983 canon law permits the conference of bishops to select a different age. In the US, the conference of bishops have passed this on the local ordinary. Hence, each diocese is the same.

 

[Vico]

Here is the history in the US (I cannot speak for other countries for sure).

I don’t think this has fully been answered. In the Latin Church, the age of first communion was around the age of 12 until 1920. Before that time, the sacraments were normally received in the normal order: baptism, confirmation, first communion. Not always, as Bishops would travel to confirm children and sometimes they would not make it to a parish more than every few years (my hometown parish was founded in 1902 and the first bishop to arrive to confirm was in 1908, and the second time was 1917, travel was not easy).

Then Pope St Pius X moved the age of first communion to the age of reason in 1910. He did nothing about the age of the first confirmation, since that required the Bishop and there were often travel issues. So the sacraments were out of order, but not normally be a great deal. Until the 70s, most people were confirmed by the time they were 9 or 10 years old. However, it slowly was moved to later and later, and took on whole new meaning: a rite of passage to being an adult Christian. Then, and now, it became seen as being a means of keeping kids enrolled in CCD programs. Eventually we have reached the absurdity of it being 14-18 years of age. And it is an absurdity.

The 1917 canon law and the 1983 canon law have used the age of reason as the norm in the west. The 1983 canon law permits the conference of bishops to select a different age. In the US, the conference of bishops have passed this on the local ordinary. Hence, each diocese is the same.

The order of Christian Initiation.

1. From apostolic times until about the fifth century the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation were given in one continuous rite of initiation, which culminated in a Christian’s admission to the Eucharist.
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.
6. The restored order for children is similar to that of the sixteenth century, but early, and for adults, RCIA, is like apostolic times, so it is not a full restoration to before the fifth century.
7. BCE
8. BE…C
9. B…C…E
10. B…CE
11. B…E…C
12. B…CE

americancatholicpress.org/Bishop_Aquila_Send_Forth_Your_Spirit.html

 

[commenter]

Until the 70s, most people were confirmed by the time they were 9 or 10 years old. However, it slowly was moved to later and later, and took on whole new meaning: a rite of passage to being an adult.

I am not sure this is unscriptural; not as a “rite of passage” but as timely preparation. The instances we have of people receiving the fullness of the Holy Spirit likely were young adults, or just becoming adults, at least spiritually.

The fact that some people misuse this as a “rite of passage” does not make it - becoming spiritually an adult - wrong. People misuse all the other sacraments at times. Do you think the people at Pentecost were all or mostly very young children?

 

[Padres1969]

I am not sure this is unscriptural; not as a “rite of passage” but as timely preparation. The instances we have of people receiving the fullness of the Holy Spirit likely were young adults, or just becoming adults, at least spiritually.

The fact that some people misuse this as a “rite of passage” does not make it - becoming spiritually an adult - wrong. People misuse all the other sacraments at times. Do you think the people at Pentecost were all or mostly very young children?

Maybe a good reason to initiate a non-sacramental right of passage type class/ceremony later in life during the teen years to take the place of that coming of age aspect that Confirmation has taken on? Someone earlier mentioned Bar/Bat Miztvah’s and I mentioned my own church’s similarly non-sacramental Rite 13 which both fulfill that role for the respective faiths. Would the RCC ever institute something like that even at the diocesan or parish level? I know it would be a new concept since so much of Catholic formation takes place around the sacraments, but if it were a place that the sacraments in modern day were falling short timing wise if nothing else

 

[commenter]

The order of Christian Initiation.

1. From apostolic times until about the fifth century the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation were given in one continuous rite of initiation, which culminated in a Christian’s admission to the Eucharist.
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.
6. The restored order for children is similar to that of the sixteenth century, but early, and for adults, RCIA, is like apostolic times, so it is not a full restoration to before the fifth century.
7. BCE
8. BE…C
9. B…C…E
10. B…CE
11. B…E…C
12. B…CE

americancatholicpress.org/Bishop_Aquila_Send_Forth_Your_Spirit.html

To your list, I would add another, earlier time period:

1. Bible itself - The fullness of the Spirit came to people when they were adults, or becoming adults, or young adults ready to take on their mission in life.

In the OT they did not have the sacramental framework yet, though the Spirit did come on adults. In the NT, it appears to have been, at least a couple times, Baptism…Eucharist…Confirmation, at 3 different times.

 

[tafan]

1. The restored order for children is similar to that of the sixteenth century, but early, and for adults, RCIA, is like apostolic times, so it is not a full restoration to before the fifth century.

This is not quite an accurate picture. The restored order, BCE, is the original order. Just the timing is different.

1. 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.

There is solid evidence, based on the writings of Church Fathers, that infant baptism was well established by the 2nd century. It is stated so by Ireneaus in his book Against Heresies, which is dated aroun 180AD (IIRC). It is likely well established by that time. There is every reason to believe that for infants, the baptisms were done by Bishops in the early church and followed by confirmation.

So lets not imply the order of the sacraments of initiation as being something that developed since the 16th century.

 

[Vico]

This is not quite an accurate picture. The restored order, BCE, is the original order. Just the timing is different.

There is solid evidence, based on the writings of Church Fathers, that infant baptism was well established by the 2nd century. It is stated so by Ireneaus in his book Against Heresies, which is dated aroun 180AD (IIRC). It is likely well established by that time. There is every reason to believe that for infants, the baptisms were done by Bishops in the early church and followed by confirmation.

So lets not imply the order of the sacraments of initiation as being something that developed since the 16th century.

Read 1).

 

[Padres1969]

This is not quite an accurate picture. **The restored order, BCE, is the original order. ** Just the timing is different.

There is solid evidence, based on the writings of Church Fathers, that infant baptism was well established by the 2nd century. It is stated so by Ireneaus in his book Against Heresies, which is dated aroun 180AD (IIRC). It is likely well established by that time. There is every reason to believe that for infants, the baptisms were done by Bishops in the early church and followed by confirmation.

So lets not imply the order of the sacraments of initiation as being something that developed since the 16th century.

It’s funny you should say that. Isn’t the “original order” biblically BEC? With the baptism of Jesus and presumably the apostles occurring in Matthew 3, then the Last Supper, and lastly Pentecost?

 

[tafan]

It’s funny you should say that. Isn’t the “original order” biblically BEC? With the baptism of Jesus and presumably the apostles occurring in Matthew 3, then the Last Supper, and lastly Pentecost?

My understanding is that John’s baptisms were not sacramental. . As for when Christ instituted confirmation, we don’t know that either.