- Status
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
Nope, other than the annual canned food drive for the whole school, or classroom projects 'to help the poor".Didn’t the kids who learned the Baltimore Catechism have to do service projects? (Maybe not for Confirmation, but at some point during their religious education?)
I know both my daughter and son had to keep tabs in a little notebook as to how many service hours they worked. I don’t remember the exact amount, but it was quite a ridiculous number for a group of kids living in one area of a city. The adult in charge of whatever venue of service had to sign it.
We never had to keep a little notebook. We had to learn, by heart, all our prayers (“adult” versions and no kidding around with “baby” versions), memorize the red catechism, then be quizzed by one of the parish priests- orally. Nobody wanted to get Monsignor, believe me!
That’s a fallacy. Contrary to stories and media coverage, we were the generation who got Richard Nixon elected. Was he the best? Maybe not, but the point is, he was a Republican, in a suit, with short hair and a tie. (Can you believe this thread censored the short form of Richard?)
And I was confirmed at 10. I don’t know a ton of people who were catechized “the old way” instead of the Jumping Hoop Method who’ve left, except my sister, the Lutheran.
In my opinion, the best thing the West can do is take the example of the East and chrismate those babies!
Absolutely correct, along with Mom and Dad going with the kids to Mass, or going at another time, and not sending them to Mass as if it’s something only kids do!
1
1ke
Guest
Learning to “work as a group” of “like minded folks” has nothing to do with the Sacrament of Confirmation.
Volunteering and serving others is a laudable endeavor. However, contriving “service projects” and requiring “service hours” to receive a Sacrament-- what is by law every Catholic’s right-- defies rational explanation.
Religious education “professionals” have-- in many instances-- lost sight of the fact that the Sacraments are not their playthings.
1
1ke
Guest
And, where are all these endless hoops for adults seeking confirmaiton?
If this same kid, who is being denied a Sacrament for no good reason, shows up at age 18 and asks to be confirmed he will not have to do “service hours” or go on retreats or put in his time punching a CCD clock, or deal with a bunch of malarky. He’ll have a couple of meeting with the priest or an adult confirmation instructor and receive the Sacrament-- as it should be for everyone.
Or, if Mom had neglected to baptize her child until after age 7-- he could have received all three Sacraments of Initiation at one time after a year in RCIC.
I have very few things I disagree with regarding Church disciplines-- and this is one of them. I think the Church should confer all three Sacraments of Initiation on infants.
We all need Grace and lots of it, let’s not dangle it in front of our kids on a string and jerk it up out of their grasp when they reach for it.
If this same kid, who is being denied a Sacrament for no good reason, shows up at age 18 and asks to be confirmed he will not have to do “service hours” or go on retreats or put in his time punching a CCD clock, or deal with a bunch of malarky. He’ll have a couple of meeting with the priest or an adult confirmation instructor and receive the Sacrament-- as it should be for everyone.
Or, if Mom had neglected to baptize her child until after age 7-- he could have received all three Sacraments of Initiation at one time after a year in RCIC.
I have very few things I disagree with regarding Church disciplines-- and this is one of them. I think the Church should confer all three Sacraments of Initiation on infants.
We all need Grace and lots of it, let’s not dangle it in front of our kids on a string and jerk it up out of their grasp when they reach for it.
1
1ke
Guest
If we are living the faith-- rather than teaching about it-- service projects are redundant and unnecessary.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
How? Please show me with a logical presentation how service projects make sense to receiving the Gifts of the Holy Spirit from the bishop, as is the proper definitation of Chrismation/ Confirmation; instead of service projects being a hoop to be jumped because Confirmation has become not what the sacarment should be, but a Catholic bat or bar mitzvah, warpped around each child “Making their own profesison of Faith”.
G
grandfather
Guest
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
I just thought I’d underscore that your phraseology is particularly apt as a pastor is responsible for every single individual within his boundaries, even non-Catholics.
Can. 518 As a general rule a parish is to be territorial, that is, one which includes all the Christian faithful of a certain territory. When it is expedient, however, personal parishes are to be established determined by reason of the rite, language, or nationality of the Christian faithful of some territory, or even for some other reason.
There is no mention there of “volunteer parishes” because they don’t exist. The simple fact is that in the US we pretend the law works differently than it does.
This is key, and is also, I think, where much of the misunderstanding about the continued reality of geographical parishes comes from. As things are now, parish boundaries mostly only delineate priests’ responsibilities. In the 1917 code, though, pastors’ rights gave rise to concomitant obligations on the part of the faithful to seek the sacraments (or at least permissions to go elsewhere) from their proper pastors. For instance, a pastor used to have the right to baptize his subjects, meaning that you had to approach your proper pastor for baptisms, if only to get his rubber stamp for your uncle the monsignor to confer the sacrament. At the parish’s most onerous, there was a point in the Middle Ages when the Sunday obligation could only be fulfilled at one’s parish church. Now that these sorts of obligations no longer give rise to situations that would highlight the reality of geographical enrolment, people just don’t realize that their registration papers have no legal effects.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
If the classes were decent I might say go along to get along. But we’re dealing with classes where kids are being fed heresy, and it is never acceptable to require children to listen to heresy in order to receive the sacraments. The way I see it, the faithful who are suitably instructed and disposed have a right to the sacrament, but bishops are legally able to specify the terms of suitability. So before approaching the bishop I would determine if there is any particular law for the diocese stipulating requirements for confirmation (many diocesan “guidelines” or “rules” are not actually canonically binding laws). If the diocese requires a certain amount of attendance at parish classes, then it would not be unfair of the bishop to stand by his policy that was already stipulated when the children were pulled from class.
BUT if the children have met all the diocesan standards (if these even exist) the pastor has no business refusing to even assess the children’s readiness. Parish norms are not binding - we should ordinarily work within them and a bishop is almost always going to stand behind them, but when the rubber meets the road a pastor can’t make laws for his subjects. He should be open to presenting all canonically qualified candidates for the sacrament (which means they need a 7-year-old’s understanding of the sacrament unless further specified by particular law). Apart from what seems to be the poor nature of the program, what I find outrageous is not so much the insistence on parish programs as the outright refusal to even examine the preparation of the OP’s children, especially when the other children are only required to keep a seat warm regardless of how much they learn or care.
Very rarely will you find a priest who has the sort of faculties to “confirm any person privately.” Priests receiving individuals into the Church do have faculties by the law itself to confirm them (and must use the faculties), but when the individuals are already Catholic there would need to be a specific faculty granted by the bishop. Bishops are the ordinary ministers of the sacrament. Typically the only priests who confirm cradle Catholics are 1) vicars general or other “high-ranking” officials who have been granted the faculty habitually to ease the bishop’s load or 2) priests who receive a faculty for a specific instance when they assist the bishop at a large celebration confirming many people at once. Those are not the only conceivable instances, but it is a far cry from any priest being able to confirm at any time.
G
grandfather
Guest
I have been to a wedding where the priest confirmed the groom prior to vows. I have been to Masses where the priest confirmed the already baptized. I questioned another priest whether this was licit and was told the bishop gives all priests the faculty to confirm when he is absent. I went to one Mass that was scheduled solely to receive a validly baptized person into the church, where she was confirmed by a priest. I know of a priest who regularly receives validly baptized converts in a private ceremony when requested and administers the sacrament privately. I know a person who was received into the Church in a monsatery by a priest and confirmed. In the Eastern Church where all who enter the Church, even babies, receive all sacraments of inititiation and Holy Eucharist, the priest always is the minister. I have seen Eastern rite priests Chrismate individuals including children who were baptized in the Latin rite, completing their initiation begun in the Latin rite, as Eastern Catholics.
J
Just_1_hr_a_wk
Guest
With as little as some adults do it would not be a bad idea.
1
1ke
Guest
What, exactly, do you believe the purpose of the Sacrament of Confirmation to be?
G
Greg72
Guest
Also, they have provided a stumbling block for many protestants. There are quite a few of them who believe that Catholics try to buy their way into heaven and that they don’t realize that it is our Faith in Christ that saves us, not our works.
As you stated earlier, this exercise could be theologically problematic.
When I went through RCIA (at age 33) we had one class after we were confirmed in which all of the parish groups were explained either by the RCIA team or by sponsors who were involved in the group. We were given a sheet of paper with all of the contact numbers for the groups.
It was explained to us that our journey was not over, but had just begun. Then it was left up to us to use our talents as we saw fit. There was no shortage of support or encouragement, but no coercion.
P
pprimeau1976
Guest
I agree with you. But in this instance it was a cluster of parents who taught the students based on a textbook. Since the textbook was supposedly approved by the USCCB, and the parents are supposed to teach what is from the textbook, what should be addressed is the parent/facilitator’s decision to insert stuff that was not in the textbook. I doubt that “listening to heresy” was a part of the program.
Now, I say this with hesitation because I have felt it necessary to insert stuff into my classroom teaching that I felt the textbook should have included. For example, I taught a course on discipleship where the textbook didn’t even mention the corporal or spiritual works of mercy…so I inserted them and made it part of the course.
C
cameron_lansing
Guest
As a general statement, the first statement is not correct, and one has to be careful because the validity of confirmation is at stake. In the Latin Church, the valid confirmation of a person by a priest requires the existence of a faculty according to canon 882: “The ordinary minister of confirmation is the bishop; a presbyter who has this faculty by virtue of either the universal law or a special concession of competent authority also confers this sacrament validly.”
Provision is then made in canon 883:“The following have the faculty of administering confirmation by the law itself: 1º within the limits of their territory, those who are equivalent in law to the diocesan bishop; 2º with regard to the person in question, the presbyter who by reason of office or mandate of the diocesan bishop baptizes one who is no longer an infant or one already baptized whom he admits into the full communion of the Catholic Church; 3º with regard to those in danger of death, the pastor or indeed any presbyter.”
Thus the situations that Grandfather relates strike me as most understandable on the basis of this provision rather than on the notion that a priest could do these things as he sees fit.
The mention of the case of Easterns though would involve additional consideration.
Canon 696 of the code of canons of the Eastern Churches provides "§1. All presbyters of the Eastern Churches can validly administer this sacrament either along with baptism or separately to all the Christian faithful of any Church sui iuris including the Latin Church. §2. The Christian faithful of Eastern Churches validly receive this sacrament also from presbyters of the Latin Church, according to the faculties with which these are endowed. §3. Any presbyter licitly administers this sacrament only to the Christian faithful of his own Church sui iuris; when it is a case of Christian faithful of other Churches sui iuris, he lawfully acts if they are his subjects, or those whom he lawfully baptizes in virtue of another title, or those who are in danger of death, and always with due regard for the agreements entered between the Churches sui iuris in this matter.
However, when a Latin Rite priest baptizes the child of Eastern Catholics, the child becomes a member of the Eastern Church sui iuris nevertheless. Since the law of the Latin Church did not provide this priest with the faculty to also confirm the child, Chrismation with Holy Myron would have to be provided later.
(In passing, keep in mind that when a Latin Rite priest receives a member of an Orthodox Church into full communion, that person becomes a member of the corresponding Eastern Church sui iuris and not the Latin Church. They would have been, of course, Chrismated and Eucharistized already. Now as canon 35 of the Eastern Code says: “Baptized non-Catholics coming into full communion with the Catholic Church should retain and practice their own rite everywhere in the world and should observe it as much as humanly possible. Thus, they are to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the same rite with due regard for the right of approaching the Apostolic See in special cases of persons, communities or regions.”)
While the conferral of any sacrament has a necessary public character, it is possible that only a small group gathers at the event and that it is not publicized to broader community of the Christian faithful. In that sense we may speak of “private” Baptism or Confirmation or reception into full communion.
G
grandfather
Guest
I disagree. The converts coming into the Church are quite amazing and active. It is the cradle Catholics who are asleep.
1
1ke
Guest
RCIA is not for adults seeking confirmation-- neither those baptized Catholic nor those baptized in other denominations. RCIA is for catechumens.Take a quick look at the RCIA threads, and you tell me.
I am an adult convert too. I did not have any hoops.
I disagree. Only Catechumens have a formal process to follow that includes several Rites in the Church and culminates with receiving all three Sacraments of Initiation at Easter.Not the same ones, I grant you, but the mouse must nagivate the maze in order to get the cheese, regardless of age, in this great Church of ours.
Candidates and adult Catholics seeking Confirmation should not have any requirements other than religious instruction and reception of the Sacraments.
- Status