Restored order of sacraments

[Usige]

Our Archbishop has spoken publicly on this MANY times. He just got appointed to yet another committee with the USCB, and is a former President of same.
He believes in keeping kids in class, and doing Confirmation later, is the most effective way of doing it. We all know parents “would rather not”.
It is what it is.

I am simply saying, that unless your Archbishop has an immortality machine, never is an awful long time. Being on a USCCB committee doesn’t mean that they can’t be reassigned and a bishop that believes differently is installed. This is the same that can happen if Archbishop Aquila is reassigned and a bishop installed that wants confirmation at 25. That is their choice; not parents, not parisioners, not even all powerful DREs.

 

[Usige]

How “confirm” can an 8 year old be in their Faith? That grows with them. I hardly even remember my First Holy Communion. But I Do remember my Confirmation!! God Bless. Memaw

This is the whole problem… the confirmand DOES NOT CONFIRM THEIR FAITH. The Holy Spirit confirms them in in what was started in baptism through the minister of confirmation. It is not something you do, it is something done to you.

Does a confirmand assent to be confirmed? Yes, but even if they don’t it is illicit not invalid.

My apologies for my frustration, but I am always amazed how many people don’t understand that confirmation has zero to do with knowledge of the faith. It is why Eastern confirmatin of infants is perfectly valid.

 

[Markie_Boy]

So if someone goes thru confirmation against their own will - they are still confirmed and it’s valid? Did I misunderstand?

Is this Church teaching?

 

[Vico]

So if someone goes thru confirmation against their own will - they are still confirmed and it’s valid? Did I misunderstand?

Is this Church teaching?

So, you mean when one *lies *under duress?

The sacraments are an juridic act with internal and external elements. When it is against the will, the internal element is missing. Confirmation is invalid if the confirmant deliberately decides not to accept the gift. Disposition (being in mortal sin) can prevent the effectiveness of the grace, but not validity of the sacrament.

Catechism

1298 When Confirmation is celebrated separately from Baptism, as is the case in the Roman Rite, the Liturgy of Confirmation begins with the renewal of baptismal promises and the profession of faith by the confirmands. This clearly shows that Confirmation follows Baptism.111 When adults are baptized, they immediately receive Confirmation and participate in the Eucharist.112

 

[Usige]

So if someone goes thru confirmation against their own will - they are still confirmed and it’s valid? Did I misunderstand?

Is this Church teaching?

So, you mean when one *lies *under duress?

The sacraments are an juridic act with internal and external elements. When it is against the will, the internal element is missing. Confirmation is invalid if the confirmant deliberately decides not to accept the gift. Disposition (being in mortal sin) can prevent the effectiveness of the grace, but not validity of the sacrament.

Catechism

1298 When Confirmation is celebrated separately from Baptism, as is the case in the Roman Rite, the Liturgy of Confirmation begins with the renewal of baptismal promises and the profession of faith by the confirmands. This clearly shows that Confirmation follows Baptism.111 When adults are baptized, they immediately receive Confirmation and participate in the Eucharist.112

It depends on what you mean by against their will. While Vico’s answer is correct about the internal element, we have to be clear about the fact that one must deliberately reject confirmation. It is not enough to just say “my parents made me do it when I didn’t want to.” Unless someone’s will included something like “I think confirmation is hogwash and all I’m getting is an oily forehead”, it would be valid.

So unless one actively rejects the graces of the sacrament, confirmation is valid even if assent is defective.

 

[Markie_Boy]

If confirmation is confirming one’s faith - like baptism used to be - one would need to want it.

I think Jimmy Akin listed the order (as does scripture):

Believe
Repent
Be Baptized

If someone does not believe, do you think they are still getting “graces”. And what are these “graces”?

 

[Memaw]

If confirmation is confirming one’s faith - like baptism used to be - one would need to want it.

I think Jimmy Akin listed the order (as does scripture):

Believe
Repent
Be Baptized

If someone does not believe, do you think they are still getting “graces”. And what are these “graces”?

I think it’s time we stop telling the Church how run things. The Holy Spirit knows what’s best! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Markie_Boy]

I am not telling anyone - only referring to scripture, and asking a question.

I am learning about “graces” given thru sacraments. Sometimes disagreement is more a matter of misunderstanding, with people talking past each other.

Sometimes we all learn when we discuss - the student can learn more, and the teacher can learn to teach better to reach people.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Casilda:

I know many Catholics who were brought up in ‘the system’ of Catholic schools who do not know and do not practice their faith. I blame their parents. Some well meaning parents were duped into believing the system would educate their children, hence the problem we have today. The system is no substitute for religious training. I would encourage parents to home educate their children. Where I live there is an ever growing Catholic homeschooling presence. They have opted out of secular schools.

All to say, the church bestows the sacraments and the parents teach the faith

Very good post!

In the Pre-Vatican II days, when Catholic Schools were mainly taught by religious (nuns) there was virtually no question the kids were getting good solid religious education and discipline. But since then, with the Catholic Schools being mainly taught by laity (many of them stealth dissident Catholics) such is no longer the case.

Once again, Parents, more than ever, are the first line of handing down the Faith. First by their example, and second by catechesis.

Therefore the order of Sacraments should be restored. In some cases it would be best. As was posted, the Eastern Church has an ancient tradition of Baptizing, Chrismating, and giving the Eucharist to infants. This is FULL initiation into Christianity.

On the other hand, the Western practice of waiting as is done, also has a good ancient tradition, some of which may be Apostolic in origin.

 

[Markie_Boy]

Very good post!

In the Pre-Vatican II days, when Catholic Schools were mainly taught by religious (nuns) there was virtually no question the kids were getting good solid religious education and discipline. But since then, with the Catholic Schools being mainly taught by laity (many of them stealth dissident Catholics) such is no longer the case.

Once again, Parents, more than ever, are the first line of handing down the Faith. First by their example, and second by catechesis.

Therefore the order of Sacraments should be restored. In some cases it would be best. As was posted, the Eastern Church has an ancient tradition of Baptizing, Chrismating, and giving the Eucharist to infants. This is FULL initiation into Christianity.

On the other hand, the Western practice of waiting as is done, also has a good ancient tradition, some of which may be Apostolic in origin.

You are so right on about the “stealth dissident Catholics” doing the teaching. I have seen it first hand. I have no idea how the local Church allows it, as it has at times not been well covered.

This makes me struggle with what is done, when I see wrong allowed.