Proper Order of Sacraments

[SMHW]

Yes…but it’s wrong! :banghead:

It’s not “wrong” if it is permitted. Most western Catholic bishops in the English speaking world have established norms for the sacraments to be administered in a different order.

I would agree that it does not seem to be the ideal. But I like to save the word “wrong” for that which is done outside the power and authority given to a bishop.

 

[tafan]

It’s not “wrong” if it is permitted.

What? Do you consider the Church infallible in its governance? It can certainly be wrong, even though it is permitted. That being said, while we are free to criticize this type of permission, we must respect and adhere to the Church’s authority to make such decisions

 

[UncleBill]

It’s not “wrong” if it is permitted. Most western Catholic bishops in the English speaking world have established norms for the sacraments to be administered in a different order.

I would agree that it does not seem to be the ideal. But I like to save the word “wrong” for that which is done outside the power and authority given to a bishop.

It most certainly is WRONG. Just because it is allowed doesn’t make it correct. Bishops have been known to make mistakes ya know…even the one in Rome with the white Bennie!

 

[FrDavid96]

With all due respect Father, I believe a document does exist which states this fairly clearly. The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains the following:

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.88 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.”

1322 The holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation.

Now, if we accept that Baptism is first, and then are told that it is completed by the Holy Eucharist, it seems rather obvious that confirmation comes in the middle.

It does not “states this fairly clearly.”

The Church simply does not define an order for the Sacraments, beyond saying that Baptism must come first. After Baptism, the order in which the sacraments will be received can, will, and does vary.

 

[SMHW]

What? Do you consider the Church infallible in its governance? It can certainly be wrong, even though it is permitted. That being said, while we are free to criticize this type of permission, we must respect and adhere to the Church’s authority to make such decisions

I believe the Church can make unwise choices in governance sometimes. And I question the wisdom of putting First Eucharist before Confirmation.

But I do not equate a lack of wisdom with being wrong.

 

[FrDavid96]

It most certainly is WRONG. Just because it is allowed doesn’t make it correct. Bishops have been known to make mistakes ya know…even the one in Rome with the white Bennie!

No. It is not wrong.

You are stating nothing more than your own personal opinion.

 

[tafan]

It does not “states this fairly clearly.”

The Church simply does not define an order for the Sacraments, beyond saying that Baptism must come first. After Baptism, the order in which the sacraments will be received can, will, and does vary.

Fr, I agree the order they are administered varies, and that is allowed by the Church. However, the proper order is clearly defined. What part of " completes Christian initiation" is not clearly stated? Placing the quote in context, makes it even more clear.

 

[tafan]

It does not “states this fairly clearly.”

The Church simply does not define an order for the Sacraments, beyond saying that Baptism must come first. After Baptism, the order in which the sacraments will be received can, will, and does vary.

Fr David, since we have a priest on this thread, I think it fair to ask you: why does the Church in the United States delay confirmation for so long? The Church clearly teaches us what confirmation does, eg CCC 1303. In several places it clearly gives an order to the sacrament of initiation. We know that elsewhere in the Church, and in the past, children are confirmed at very young ages. Yet these immense graces are not given to our children. It seems fair to ask why? The Church should be willing to catechize even us old folks, this is a chance. Why is it suddenly correct, in this time and place, to confirm at such a late age? Why do our children not need those graces of that sacrament, despite a culture and society that is attempting to corrupt them constantly? This is meant to be a very sincere question, please do not think it cynical.

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr, I agree the order they are administered varies, and that is allowed by the Church. However, the proper order is clearly defined. What part of " completes Christian initiation" is not clearly stated? Placing the quote in context, makes it even more clear.

Look, you are reading into the text something which is simply not there.

The Church is not (in that sentence) establishing a proper order for the Sacraments.

One could just as easily take the other part of the Catechism that you quoted:

It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace.

And make the same argument that it is Confirmation that should come last among the sacraments of initiation. Of course, that’s not true either.

The Church does not define an order for the Sacraments. You are trying to prove something which quite simply does not exist.

 

[UncleBill]

Look, you are reading into the text something which is simply not there.

The Church is not (in that sentence) establishing a proper order for the Sacraments.

One could just as easily take the other part of the Catechism that you quoted:

It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace.

And make the same argument that it is Confirmation that should come last among the sacraments of initiation. Of course, that’s not true either.

The Church does not define an order for the Sacraments. You are trying to prove something which quite simply does not exist.

Sure it does…all of the Apostolic Churches…Rome included baptized, confirmed then gave e
Eucharist. Rome has since modified the order and you father are trying to justify this.

 

[tafan]

Look, you are reading into the text something which is simply not there.

The Church is not (in that sentence) establishing a proper order for the Sacraments.

One could just as easily take the other part of the Catechism that you quoted:

It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace.

And make the same argument that it is Confirmation that should come last among the sacraments of initiation. Of course, that’s not true either.

The Church does not define an order for the Sacraments. You are trying to prove something which quite simply does not exist.

Fr, with all due respect, I do not believe I am dong so.

Are you saying the order the sacraments are explained in the Catechism does is inconsequential? What about the norms which say the confirmation should be received at the age of reason? What about paragraph 11 of Lumen Gentium? What about the introductory paragraphs to the revised Rite of Confirmation? All of these documents (and I can find more) clearly describe the sacraments of initiation in the order of Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist.

And, if the Bishop of Fargo is to be believed, Pope Benedict XVI clearly thought there was a proper order to these sacraments: catholicnewsagency.com/news/bishop-aquila-receives-popes-praise-for-reordering-sacraments/ .

Nevertheless, I will drop the issue of the proper order, if you will please clearly explain to me why the age of confirmation should be so late (it is 14 years of age in my diocese, and that seems about the norm, although there are some places that do it as late as 17-18). Do our children not merit those graces?

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr David, since we have a priest on this thread, I think it fair to ask you: why does the Church in the United States delay confirmation for so long? The Church clearly teaches us what confirmation does, eg CCC 1303. In several places it clearly gives an order to the sacrament of initiation. We know that elsewhere in the Church, and in the past, children are confirmed at very young ages. Yet these immense graces are not given to our children. It seems fair to ask why? The Church should be willing to catechize even us old folks, this is a chance. Why is it suddenly correct, in this time and place, to confirm at such a late age? Why do our children not need those graces of that sacrament, despite a culture and society that is attempting to corrupt them constantly? This is meant to be a very sincere question, please do not think it cynical.

First of all the very premises of the question are flawed.

There is simply no requirement in the Church that Confirmation must or should come before Communion. The requirements for both First Communion and Confirmation are the same—the only difference being that Confirmation requires the ability to renew the Baptismal promises (something, notably not required for First Communion)

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.

Can. 889 §1. Every baptized person not yet confirmed and only such a person is capable of receiving confirmation.

§2. To receive confirmation licitly outside the danger of death requires that a person who has the use of reason be suitably instructed, properly disposed, and able to renew the baptismal promises.

The requirements are

1. Sufficient knowledge (which includes that they have reached the age of reason)
2. Properly prepared/instructed
3. Properly disposed (which includes that they have been to Confession)
4. Able to renew Baptismal promises (for Confirmation)

There is no required order.

The second problem is that you ask “Why is it suddenly correct, in this time and place, to confirm at such a late age?”

Again, the question is flawed. It has been the practice since the fourth century to delay Confirmation after Baptism in favor of the bishop (not the priest) confirming. This is hardly a modern practice. I know you said you’re old, but I rather doubt you’re so old that you consider the 4th century to be “suddenly…in this time”

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr, with all due respect, I do not believe I am dong so.

Are you saying the order the sacraments are explained in the Catechism does is inconsequential?

No. I am not saying it’s inconsequential–those are your words, not mine. I am saying that defining the Sacraments in a particular order is not the same thing as requiring that they be administered in any particular order.

**Do you understand the difference between a description and a requirement? **

Do you need me to explain the definitions of the two different words?

What about the norms which say the confirmation should be received at the age of reason?

What about them? Saying that the minimum age of confirmation is the age of reason is NOT the same thing as saying that Confirmation should come before Communion.

Once again, you are confusing two different concepts.
There is a difference between saying on the one hand that the proper age for Confirmation is (at least) the age of reason, and on the other hand saying that there is some requirement that Confirmation precede Communion.
Do you understand the difference between the two concepts?

What about paragraph 11 of Lumen Gentium?

Since LG 11 does not establish a required order for receiving the Sacraments, references to it do nothing to prove your point.

What about the introductory paragraphs to the revised Rite of Confirmation? All of these documents (and I can find more) clearly describe the sacraments of initiation in the order of Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist.

They describe the Sacraments in a particular order. They do NOT require that a particular order be followed in the actual administration of those sacraments. You are completely confusing the two.

And, if the Bishop of Fargo is to be believed, Pope Benedict XVI clearly thought there was a proper order to these sacraments: catholicnewsagency.com/news/bishop-aquila-receives-popes-praise-for-reordering-sacraments/ .

Again, this does not mean that the Church requires the Sacraments to be administered in any particular order.

Nevertheless, I will drop the issue of the proper order, if you will please clearly explain to me why the age of confirmation should be so late (it is 14 years of age in my diocese, and that seems about the norm, although there are some places that do it as late as 17-18). Do our children not merit those graces?

I will answer that question if you will first answer my question:

Would you please quote the post in which I said anything (anything whatsoever) about the age of confirmation beyond saying “age of reason”?

It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat it.

The Church simply does not have any requirements that the Sacraments be administered in any particular order beyond Baptism being first. There are times when one must come before another—such as Confession before Communion. But there is simply no one listing of sacraments in any particular order. This will vary by circumstances.

There is no requirement in the Church that Confirmation should come before First Communion. No such thing exists.