Pope praises order of Baptism, then Confirmation, then First Communion

[Corki]

I’ve seen a lot of conversations in which the switch is dated at 1911, but that’s really an oversimplification. Communion-before-confirmation began, as you said, in the late 19th century, and became nearly universal in the Latin Church around the time of Vatican II.

1849 to be more specific with a statement from the Council of Tours. For over a century, however, Confirmation came very soon after First Communion. I was Confirmed in the late 1960s and the age at that time was around 9 (3rd and 4th grade were confirmed together).

FWIW, we all kept going to Catechism class and did youth group well into high school. The earlier age did not result in an end of catechesis.

 

[Hesychios]

Wasn’t it common (although not universal) in the early centuries of the church to postpone baptism to adulthood, even for children born to Christian families? .

I think it was common in certain circles, to be sure, but it was never to be the norm and is not a genuine tradition. Delaying in the process of initiation in a pre-meditated way was (in a way, essentially) an abuse. What is that saying about “God is not mocked” ?

People should become Christians as soon as they become believers, and begin the process of salvation within the community. Postponing a Baptism deliberately (which would have included the Chrismation and immediate reception of the Eucharist afterward) in order to live a life of sinfulness a bit longer is a bit like gaming the system, wouldn’t you agree? To me it suggests (but does not prove) a lack of sincerity or respect.

Of course there will always be genuine cases of people waffling, genuinely not sure what to believe, and they might change their own minds more than once or not make up their own minds for years … and of course they would be baptized once they find themselves with a strong conviction, which could be late in life.

But this isn not the kind of thing the church can regulate. We still receive adult converts who have never been baptized and they might necessarily take a long time to decide. So the gamers are difficult to tell from the rest, and all conversions have to be taken at face value.

The bigger issue is the separation of the Confirmation [Chrismation] from the Baptism. It seems that the early practice was to give Baptism and Confirmation on the same day for all new members of the church, adult converts and the children alike, then proceed with lifelong reception of the Holy Eucharist (even from infancy). In this scenario the reception of Communion begins once the Christian has been confirmed, not before.

 

[Peter_J]

1849 to be more specific with a statement from the Council of Tours.

Nevertheless, the traditional order continued to be the norm for quite some time after that.

 

[Peter_J]

The bigger issue is the separation of the Confirmation [Chrismation] from the Baptism. It seems that the early practice was to give Baptism and Confirmation on the same day for all new members of the church, adult converts and the children alike, then proceed with lifelong reception of the Holy Eucharist (even from infancy). In this scenario the reception of Communion begins once the Christian has been confirmed, not before.

I’m a little rusty of some of the details here, but my understanding is that the practice of baptizing and confirming on two separate occasions (with the bishop confirming) goes *way *back in the West.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

I know of at least one case where the order of Baptism, First Communion, Confirmation, has created a confused situation.

I know it caused some confusion for me. Growing up Lutheran, I was always taught that one could not partake of Communion until after Confirmation. That is the way it was with myself, and my parents.

However when we switched parishes, my sister received instruction for First Communion, and then she was later Confirmed.

I know it confused me. Although I understand the rationale of giving our children full access to the Sacraments as young as possilbe (which I agree with!), I think that Confirmation should be moved back to a younger age, and not Communion before Confirmaiton.

My :twocents:, anyway.

 

[sasg]

I think it was common in certain circles, to be sure, but it was never to be the norm and is not a genuine tradition. Delaying in the process of initiation in a pre-meditated way was (in a way, essentially) an abuse. What is that saying about “God is not mocked” ?

People should become Christians as soon as they become believers, and begin the process of salvation within the community. Postponing a Baptism deliberately (which would have included the Chrismation and immediate reception of the Eucharist afterward) in order to live a life of sinfulness a bit longer is a bit like gaming the system, wouldn’t you agree? To me it suggests (but does not prove) a lack of sincerity or respect.

Of course there will always be genuine cases of people waffling, genuinely not sure what to believe, and they might change their own minds more than once or not make up their own minds for years … and of course they would be baptized once they find themselves with a strong conviction, which could be late in life.

But this isn not the kind of thing the church can regulate. We still receive adult converts who have never been baptized and they might necessarily take a long time to decide. So the gamers are difficult to tell from the rest, and all conversions have to be taken at face value.

The bigger issue is the separation of the Confirmation [Chrismation] from the Baptism. It seems that the early practice was to give Baptism and Confirmation on the same day for all new members of the church, adult converts and the children alike, then proceed with lifelong reception of the Holy Eucharist (even from infancy). In this scenario the reception of Communion begins once the Christian has been confirmed, not before.

I won’t argue the virtues of postponing baptism to adulthood, as I personally don’t support that position, but was only using it as an example of an ancient tradition that was changed for the benefit of the faithful (even though not universal, it was so common that at least in some places it could safely be called a small-T tradition). But I will say that I don’t think the primary reason for postponing baptism, at least in general, was to allow people to have more sins forgiven at baptism. I think we have to give St Ambrose (who wasn’t even baptised when he was elected bishop) et al the benefit of the doubt, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

But I digress – I was trying to make a larger point about changing ancient small-T traditions (or practices). Perhaps the Orthodox view is that none of the ancient traditions should be changed, or at least that the standard for changing an ancient practice should be so very high that there are very few cases when such a change would occur. And perhaps that is the proper disposition for Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, based on their unique history and experiences (I’m particularly mindful of the iconoclast heresy in this respect).

But is it not also possible to admit–even from an Orthodox perspective–the possibility that for the Latin church the legitimate standard may be lower? Many of our changes have been to counteract heresy or otherwise to develop the faith of of our people. Is it not possible that–after weighing all the facts–the bishops of the Latin church made a decision in good faith to change the order of the reception of the sacraments, because they genuinely believed this would help their people better appreciate the mysteries, become closer to God, become more attached to their church, and generally lead more people to salvation through Christ?

I am not taking a position on whether the Latin bishops were or are correct in their assessment, nor which order of the sacraments is proper; rather I am only making an argument that it may be appropriate to change the order if a genuine need or great benefit arises from it. This may not be the approach the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic traditions take, but do you disagree that it may be a completely valid approach for the Latin church–or any sui iuris church?

 

[RyanBlack]

I’m a little rusty of some of the details here, but my understanding is that the practice of baptizing and confirming on two separate occasions (with the bishop confirming) goes *way *back in the West.

You’re correct. However, when that practice began, the Church still retained the order of baptism-confirmation-eucharist. Furthemore, confirmation and admittance to Holy Communion still took place in infancy or early childhood.

 

[RyanBlack]

I won’t argue the virtues of postponing baptism to adulthood, as I personally don’t support that position, but was only using it as an example of an ancient tradition that was changed for the benefit of the faithful (even though not universal, it was so common that at least in some places it could safely be called a small-T tradition). But I will say that I don’t think the primary reason for postponing baptism, at least in general, was to allow people to have more sins forgiven at baptism. I think we have to give St Ambrose (who wasn’t even baptised when he was elected bishop) et al the benefit of the doubt, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Yes, people did indeed postpone baptism primarily so that they could have more sins forgiven at baptism (this is very well known). Now, in some cases, it may have had more to do with fear as to whether post-baptismal sins could be forgiven at all, as opposed to simply wanting to live hedonistically. Also, I think you are incorrect in characterizing this as a change in tradition for the benefit of the faithful. This practice of postponing baptism until one was very near death, or at least until one was finished with “the sins of youth” was never a tradition supported by the Church. On the other hand, infant baptism, chrismation, and admittance to Holy Communion is as the normal practice of the Church is very, very ancient, and possibly Apostolic.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I’m a little rusty of some of the details here, but my understanding is that the practice of baptizing and confirming on two separate occasions (with the bishop confirming) goes *way *back in the West.

If I am not mistaken, it stems from the fact that bishops need to perform Confirmation. In the East, the solution to not having enough bishops was for the bishops to consecrate the Chrism. In the West, the solution was to wait for the bishop to visit.

 

[SteveGC]

I won’t argue the virtues of postponing baptism to adulthood, as I personally don’t support that position, but was only using it as an example of an ancient tradition that was changed for the benefit of the faithful (even though not universal, it was so common that at least in some places it could safely be called a small-T tradition). But I will say that I don’t think the primary reason for postponing baptism, at least in general, was to allow people to have more sins forgiven at baptism. I think we have to give St Ambrose (who wasn’t even baptised when he was elected bishop) et al the benefit of the doubt, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

But I digress – I was trying to make a larger point about changing ancient small-T traditions (or practices). Perhaps the Orthodox view is that none of the ancient traditions should be changed, or at least that the standard for changing an ancient practice should be so very high that there are very few cases when such a change would occur. And perhaps that is the proper disposition for Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, based on their unique history and experiences (I’m particularly mindful of the iconoclast heresy in this respect).

But is it not also possible to admit–even from an Orthodox perspective–the possibility that for the Latin church the legitimate standard may be lower? Many of our changes have been to counteract heresy or otherwise to develop the faith of of our people. Is it not possible that–after weighing all the facts–the bishops of the Latin church made a decision in good faith to change the order of the reception of the sacraments, because they genuinely believed this would help their people better appreciate the mysteries, become closer to God, become more attached to their church, and generally lead more people to salvation through Christ?

I am not taking a position on whether the Latin bishops were or are correct in their assessment, nor which order of the sacraments is proper; rather I am only making an argument that it may be appropriate to change the order if a genuine need or great benefit arises from it. This may not be the approach the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic traditions take, but do you disagree that it may be a completely valid approach for the Latin church–or any sui iuris church?

Did you read the article posted earlier? It seems to dispel any notion that it was changed for a benefit.

Bp. Aquila goes over the history and theology very well in the paper I linked. Here’s his response to your concern. He goes over a lot more, but I don’t want to quote the whole paper so I’ll only post a snippet. Please read the paper and see what you think about what he says!

fargodiocese.org/bishop/HillenbrandLectureOnConfirmation.pdf

 

[RyanBlack]

If I am not mistaken, it stems from the fact that bishops need to perform Confirmation. In the East, the solution to not having enough bishops was for the bishops to consecrate the Chrism. In the West, the solution was to wait for the bishop to visit.

Exactly.

 

[Peter_J]

If I am not mistaken, it stems from the fact that bishops need to perform Confirmation. In the East, the solution to not having enough bishops was for the bishops to consecrate the Chrism. In the West, the solution was to wait for the bishop to visit.

Yes. In the early days, children in the West were still confirmed at a young age, maybe a year after their baptism. But over the centuries the age of confirmation was pushed back.

This did not, in itself, lead to changing the order of the sacraments, but it may have opened the door for it.

 

[5Loaves]

If I am not mistaken, it stems from the fact that bishops need to perform Confirmation. In the East, the solution to not having enough bishops was for the bishops to consecrate the Chrism. In the West, the solution was to wait for the bishop to visit.

Priests of the Latin Church routinely confirm in their own parish,using the Chrism consecrated by their bishop during the Chrism Mass in Holy Week, whenever a Christian is received into the Catholic Church, which can happen in any Mass, indeed under some circumstances even outside of Mass, during The Rite of Reception of Baptized Christians into the full Communion of the Catholic Church. The only time the Bishop of the Latin Church routinely confirms is when confirming adult Catholics who didn’t receive Confirmation at any point after their Baptism. (Again, I’m talking about the Latin Church in the US since in other countries the age and sequence of the Rites of Initiation is different.)

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

Priests of the Latin Church routinely confirm in their own parish,using the Chrism consecrated by their bishop during the Chrism Mass in Holy Week, whenever a Christian is received into the Catholic Church, which can happen in any Mass, indeed under some circumstances even outside of Mass, during The Rite of Reception of Baptized Christians into the full Communion of the Catholic Church. The only time the Bishop of the Latin Church routinely confirms is when confirming adult Catholics who didn’t receive Confirmation at any point after their Baptism. (Again, I’m talking about the Latin Church in the US since in other countries the age and sequence of the Rites of Initiation is different.)

Question:
If that is the case (here in the US), then why doesn’t the priest Confirm infants/children as well? The original reason Confirmation/Chrismation and Baptism were separated was because the bishop was not always able to be present. In the East (and for Orientals as well, I think), this was solved by having them Confirmed by the priest via the Chrism consecrated by the bishop. It seems that the Latins do the exact same thing, only for adults. This confuses me.

 

[dochawk]

If I am not mistaken, it stems from the fact that bishops need to perform Confirmation. In the East, the solution to not having enough bishops was for the bishops to consecrate the Chrism. In the West, the solution was to wait for the bishop to visit.

Not quite.

Confirmation was reserved to the bishop in order to reinforce his role and authority.

AMDG

hawk

 

[Hesychios]

Not quite.

Confirmation was reserved to the bishop in order to reinforce his role and authority.

AMDG

hawk

This brings me to thinking about the development of the clerical ranks from the beginning. once elders became more common everything they did (and do today) has been delegated from the authority of the bishop.

At least that’s the theory.

 

[jmjconder]

**Restored order is spiritually correct.

How can a seven year old understand the fullness of the Eucharist without the fullness of the Holy Spirit?

You may say children “grow” into the truth. Then why not allow the fullness of the Spirit to guide them?

I need to say that IMHO there needs to be a huge focus on catechetical formation before ANY sacrament is celebrated.**

 

[Hesychios]

**…

I need to say that IMHO there needs to be a huge focus on catechetical formation before ANY sacrament is celebrated.**

I can see the sense of this argument, and I sympathize. Probably if we didn’t have a lot of history on this subject already I could possibly be convinced of it.

But that is not the traditional position of the church. The sacrament is efficacious whether or not we understand it, and it is the mystical and holy work of the Holy Spirit in a sacrament that takes priority here. The work of God is not nullified by ignorance, it is always efficacious (simply because it is the work of God).

In fact, some would say that the Holy Eucharist is a great strength for young and fragile Christians, a fortifier. Thus, the earlier the reception (theoretically) the better. Since the confirmation/Chrismation should ideally precede the reception of the Holy Eucharist it stands to reason that this should be given as early as possible.

It seems to me that the earlier church took the same position on Chrismation as it does on Baptism, understanding of it is not a prerequisite to the reception of it, the sacrament is too important to delay. The modern Latin church does accept this, for it will not re-Chrismate a convert (except by mistake) regardless of the age it was originally administered.

 

[jmjconder]

**

I can see the sense of this argument, and I sympathize. Probably if we didn’t have a lot of history on this subject already I could possibly be convinced of it.

But that is not the traditional position of the church. The sacrament is efficacious whether or not we understand it, and it is the mystical and holy work of the Holy Spirit in a sacrament that takes priority here. The work of God is not nullified by ignorance, it is always efficacious (simply because it is the work of God).

In fact, some would say that the Holy Eucharist is a great strength for young and fragile Christians, a fortifier. Thus, the earlier the reception (theoretically) the better. Since the confirmation/Chrismation should ideally precede the reception of the Holy Eucharist it stands to reason that this should be given as early as possible.

It seems to me that the earlier church took the same position on Chrismation as it does on Baptism, understanding of it is not a prerequisite to the reception of it, the sacrament is too important to delay. The modern Latin church does accept this, for it will not re-Chrismate a convert (except by mistake) regardless of the age it was originally administered.

**

I stand by my statement…people that are asking for a Catholic Sacrament need to fully understand what this means.

A Sacrament is only efficacious if the person is willing to embrace the grace. Children are naturally disposed to this great gift!

 

[Hesychios]

I stand by my statement…people that are asking for a Catholic Sacrament need to fully understand what this means.

My only reaction right now is that this is exactly the same reasoning Anabaptists (and following them many other western Christians) do not baptize infants.

I believe that the best practice is to educate converts fully before they are accepted. So I think we can agree here on that. If they are mature enough to want to be baptized or confirmed, and they ask for it, these persons should be given proper instruction, in the early church this could amount to a few years sitting by the door as a catechumen.

But for the children raised in the community I believe the sacraments should be given as soon as possible in infancy, then catechesis should follow as soon as the youngster is ready and hopefully continue the rest of the person’s life.