Should Confirmation happen Before First Communion

[PrayForMeStJude]

Definitely it should be Baptism, then Confirmation, the Communion. Its the traditional order. Even when done on the same day in the same Rite, its the order it is done. In fact in the East, baptized children under 7 won’t be given Communion if they are not confirmed/chrismated.

I’m inclined to agree. From what I’ve heard, we in the West maintained the traitional order until the age when many “barbarian” peoples were coming into the Church and the bishops had less and less time for confirmations.

However, if we think back to the events of the Bible,the Last Supper took place before Pentecost, so perhaps the order of confirmation and first communion must not be so set in stone.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I think it should be with First Communion or before. In my case: Baptized as a baby, had first communion…then my parents left the church. I met and married in the protestant faith…

Came back to the church last year…went to confession…receiving the Eucharist after convalidation. But still no confirmation

Now…this Easter Vigil…confirmed…some 30+ years after first communion…

 

[puzzleannie]

Recently, Bishop Aquila of Fargo discussed having the children in his diocese receive first penance in second grade and then being confirmed and receive the Eucharist in Third grade at the same mass. After reading his reasons, I found myself agreeing and wondered what other people thought about this. Here are some of his reasons
…
Any thoughts?

here goes, the annual age of confirmation threadopcorn:

what I think is immaterial. for the nonce the Bishop of Brownsville says the age is 16 for confirmation and 8 for first communion, so it is what it is.

If I were in Fargo I would be following their bishop’s directives.

If I am asked–and I was as were all DREs to give (name removed by moderator)ut in considering changes in sacramental particular law–my response is please confirm them at baptism and save me a lot of grief when then enter 9th grade. What bliss to have only teens who want to be there, rather than being dragged by the ear. To my mind, especially since the RCIA clearly expects all sacramental formation to follow the RCIA model, if 3rd graders can be baptized, confirmed and receive first communion there is no justification for delaying confirmation of baptized Catholic children into middle school or high school, and the theology of the sacrament does not support the delay. From practical experience, every year the age is pushed back the size of the potential confirmation class shrinks, and that is an abuse of the sacrament.

However since the chance of my being appointed bishop is slim I doubt that will carry much weight here.

now I will sit back and watch the hockey game, which the ensuing debate will closely resemble.

 

[centurionguard]

Definitely it should be Baptism, then Confirmation, the Communion. Its the traditional order. Even when done on the same day in the same Rite, its the order it is done. In fact in the East, baptized children under 7 won’t be given Communion if they are not confirmed/chrismated.

Somewhat strange but when I grew up through the 50’s and 60’s it was Baptism, First Communion coupled with the Sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation, then it was Confirmation.

 

[Phemie]

Somewhat strange but when I grew up through the 50’s and 60’s it was Baptism, First Communion coupled with the Sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation, then it was Confirmation.

But if the Moncton Archdiocese was like the Bathurst Diocese Confirmation wasn’t delayed until the teen years. Everyone who’d received their First Communion was prepared for Confirmation the very next time the Bishop came to the parish. For some it might be the same year, for others it would be a year or two later because the Bishop only visited once every two or three years.

 

[centurionguard]

But if the Moncton Archdiocese was like the Bathurst Diocese Confirmation wasn’t delayed until the teen years. Everyone who’d received their First Communion was prepared for Confirmation the very next time the Bishop came to the parish. For some it might be the same year, for others it would be a year or two later because the Bishop only visited once every two or three years.

Actually; I was Born, Baptized, started Holy Communion, and the Sacrament of penance and was Confirmed in the Archdiocese of Halifax. Lived there until the summer of 1971 before moving to the province of Quebec.

I know that the Province of New Brunswick has four Bishops now but it wasn’t always so.
The Saint John former Archdiocese used to be the only diocese. The Archdiocese moved to Moncton due to a greater number of French and English speaking Catholics.

Moncton though is still known as a Baptist city. I still retain my Bluenoser roots as a Nova Scotianer.

 

[Phemie]

Actually; I was Born, Baptized, started Holy Communion, and the Sacrament of penance and was Confirmed in the Archdiocese of Halifax. Lived there until the summer of 1971 before moving to the province of Quebec.

I know that the Province of New Brunswick has four Bishops now but it wasn’t always so.
The Saint John former Archdiocese used to be the only diocese. The Archdiocese moved to Moncton due to a greater number of French and English speaking Catholics.

Moncton though is still known as a Baptist city. I still retain my Bluenoser roots as a Nova Scotianer.

Only one diocese was over 150 years ago and I see no evidence that Saint John was ever an archdiocese.

The Diocese of Saint John in America was erected in 1842 from the Archdiocese of Quebec.

It lost territory in 1860 when the Diocese of Chatham was erected.

In 1924 the Diocese of Saint John in America was renamed simply Diocese of Saint John.

Then in 1936 both dioceses lost territory when the Archdiocese of Moncton was created.

In 1938 the Diocese of Chatham was renamed Diocese of Bathurst and the episcopal seat moved to Bathurst to better accommodate the Acadian population. Since 1920 it has always had a Francophone bishop but that was only accomplished after over 30 years of petitioning Rome for a French Bishop for the diocese with the largest Francophone population in the province.

In 1944, the Diocese of Edmundston was erected from territory that had belonged to the diocese of Bathurst.

 

[centurionguard]

Only one diocese was over 150 years ago and I see no evidence that Saint John was ever an archdiocese.

The Diocese of Saint John in America was erected in 1842 from the Archdiocese of Quebec.

It lost territory in 1860 when the Diocese of Chatham was erected.

In 1924 the Diocese of Saint John in America was renamed simply Diocese of Saint John.

Then in 1936 both dioceses lost territory when the Archdiocese of Moncton was created.

In 1938 the Diocese of Chatham was renamed Diocese of Bathurst and the episcopal seat moved to Bathurst to better accommodate the Acadian population. Since 1920 it has always had a Francophone bishop but that was only accomplished after over 30 years of petitioning Rome for a French Bishop for the diocese with the largest Francophone population in the province.

In 1944, the Diocese of Edmundston was erected from territory that had belonged to the diocese of Bathurst.

I was mistaken about the Saint John diocese being formerly an Archdiocese.

dioceseofsaintjohn.org/about.cfm

The Diocese of Saint John, New Brunswick is the seventh oldest Roman Catholic Diocese in Canada. It was established on September 30, 1842, by Pope Gregory XVI, when New Brunswick was detached from the Diocese of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. Irish-born Father William Dollard, who had spent twenty-five years as a missionary in New Brunswick and Cape Breton, was named its first Bishop. The Diocese originally embraced the entire Province of New Brunswick, and the Episcopal Seat was in Fredericton, the Province’s Capital, for a short time before it was established in Saint John. In 1860 the Diocese was divided in two, with the newly established Diocese of Chatham occupying the north, and the Diocese of Saint John, the south. Subsequent divisions and amalgamations followed, and today there are four Sees in the Province of New Brunswick: Moncton, Bathurst, Edmundston and Saint John, Moncton being the Metropolitan See. Led by the Most Rev. Robert Harris, Twelfth Bishop of Saint John, the Diocese serves over 112,000 Catholics dispersed over seven counties and three principal regions: Saint John, Fredericton and Miramichi. It is served by 58 Diocesan Priests, 3 Religious Priests, 7 Priests on loan to the Diocese, 2 Deacons and 120 Religious Women. There are 58 Parishes (42 with resident Pastor), 32 Mission Churches, 7 Catholic Schools, 1 Retreat House (Villa Madonna Retreat House) and 1 Catholic University (St. Thomas University, Fredericton, New Brunswick).

diomoncton.ca/en/diocese/history/foundation.cfm

 

[anjoh66]

Well, a bishop may allow a priest to confirm. But it almost never happens with your run-of-the-mill common teenage confirmations. Generally, the only time priests confirm is when adults converts are confirmed. This is because most converts are brought into the Church all on one day, the Easter Vigil, and it would be impossible for the bishop to go to every parish to confirm in one night. Converts can be brought into the Church anytime, but it’s general custom to do it on the Easter Vigil. Excellency can’t be in 150 parishes at once.

In my diocese the bishop has reserved the confirmation for himself for both adults and teenagers.

When i was received into the church i was baptized at easter vigil by my parish priest and also participated in the communion, then the confirmation took place approx 2 months later by the bishop.

I sometimes see this as strange when in the canon law we read that :

Can. 866 Unless there is a grave reason to the contrary, an adult who is baptized is to be confirmed immediately after baptism and is to participate in the eucharistic celebration also by receiving communion

Is the bishops reservation of the confirmation for himself a grave reason to delay it or is it an abuse?

 

[puzzleannie]

In
Is the bishops reservation of the confirmation for himself a grave reason to delay it or is it an abuse?

no it is up to the bishop whether he adopts the RCIA as written in his diocese.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m inclined to agree. From what I’ve heard, we in the West maintained the traitional order until the age when many “barbarian” peoples were coming into the Church and the bishops had less and less time for confirmations.

However, if we think back to the events of the Bible,the Last Supper took place before Pentecost, so perhaps the order of confirmation and first communion must not be so set in stone.

We can’t think back to the events of the Bible as our basis of which would come first, because Jesus instituted almost all other Sacraments before Pentecost. So by this reasoning, Confirmation should only come after you have received everything else, including Holy Orders and Matrimony.

 

[Dicerning]

So in an ideal world, it would be cool if you could Confirm a child earlier in life. But practically speaking, I know the students in my parish, at least, are nowhere near ready, even at 6th/7th/8th grade, and that Confirming them earlier in their religious lives would probably end up bringing them more harm than good.

I disagree with your reasoning. Based on your reasoning they shouldnt be receiving first communion until later either. After all the Eucharist is the source and summit of the sacraments. I do wonder what you mean by “ready” to receive the sacrament? The holy spirit isn’t bound by how much we know. It’s not a graduation ceremony it’s a sacrament that confers grace. Why withold those graces?

 

[Madaglan]

Recently, Bishop Aquila of Fargo discussed having the children in his diocese receive first penance in second grade and then being confirmed and receive the Eucharist in Third grade at the same mass. After reading his reasons, I found myself agreeing and wondered what other people thought about this. Here are some of his reasons

“The view that confirmation is a way for young people to make a personal commitment to their faith “distorts” the sacrament”

“Confirmation is not marked by a choice to believe or not believe in the Catholic faith. Rather as disciples we are chosen by God to receive the fullness of the Holy Spirit, to be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit generously bestowed by God, and we are called to cooperate with that grace,”

"In this light, it appears “odd” to have someone participate in the Eucharistic life of the Church if he or she has not received “the seal of the Holy Spirit which perfects the personal bond with the community.”

“If they are mature enough to receive the Eucharist, the crown of the sacraments, are they not mature enough to receive a sacrament that is ordered to it?”

Any thoughts?

In the Eastern rites, baptism, confirmation (chrismation) and then first reception of the Eucharist generally occur on the same occasion and when the child is an infant. I am not recommending the Latin rite adopt this, but I point it out to show that there is nothing inherently wrong with confirming a child before the child receives the Eucharist for the first time.

 

[Dicerning]

In the Eastern rites, baptism, confirmation (chrismation) and then first reception of the Eucharist generally occur on the same occasion and when the child is an infant. I am not recommending the Latin rite adopt this, but I point it out to show that there is nothing inherently wrong with confirming a child before the child receives the Eucharist for the first time.

Come to think of it the Eucharist is also considered “thanksgiving” Why do we celebrate the “thanksgiving” years prior to confirmation. It makes MUCH more sense to me to celebrate the sacraments of in the historically correct order.

 

[TheMc]

Come to think of it the Eucharist is also considered “thanksgiving” Why do we celebrate the “thanksgiving” years prior to confirmation. It makes MUCH more sense to me to celebrate the sacraments of in the historically correct order.

Not to mention always in the same order. At the easter vigil, confirmation always comes first.

 

[PrayForMeStJude]

We can’t think back to the events of the Bible as our basis of which would come first, because Jesus instituted almost all other Sacraments before Pentecost. So by this reasoning, Confirmation should only come after you have received everything else, including Holy Orders and Matrimony.

In my post I cleary stated a personal preference for the traditional order of baptism, confirmation, and first communion. So I was in no way arguing that the Church is bound by the biblical order in which the sacraments were instituted.

However, we must think back to the biblical institution of the sacraments, or they have no meaning. I made my statement regarding the biblical order of the institution of the Eucharist and of Pentecost as an argument against any who would claim that confirmation must come before communion, because clearly Christ thought differently.

 

[puzzleannie]

We can’t think back to the events of the Bible as our basis of which would come first, because Jesus instituted almost all other Sacraments before Pentecost. So by this reasoning, Confirmation should only come after you have received everything else, including Holy Orders and Matrimony.

we can look back to the bible, namely Acts and the Epistles, to see the practice of the early Church, which was to baptize and invoke the holy Spirit at the same time. In fact when the apostles found communities where the people had only been baptized, they immediately called down the Holy Spirit upon them, and when the came to a place where the people had received the Holy Spirit but not baptism, they immediately baptized. Theologically the two sacraments are a “binary star” and should not be separated. The reasons for the separation in time in the West are more historical than theological, and had to do with response to challenges to the authority of the bishops.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

What everyone has failed to see is that the Sacrament of Confirmation is the Christian equivalent of the Jewish Bar and Bat Mitzvah ritual, in which at the age of 13, Hebrew boys and girls attain religious adulthood and pledge their belief in Jewish religion. It is one of the high lights of Jewish life.

 

[Phemie]

What everyone has failed to see is that the Sacrament of Confirmation is the Christian equivalent of the Jewish Bar and Bat Mitzvah ritual, in which at the age of 13, Hebrew boys and girls attain religious adulthood and pledge their belief in Jewish religion. It is one of the high lights of Jewish life.

Not it isn’t the equivalent of the Bar/Bat Mitzvah. Confirmation is not about the confirmands pledging their belief in the Catholic religion; it’s not something that they do, it is something that is done to them. That’s what’s wrong with keeping it from the children until they are in high school, it promotes a misunderstanding about what the sacrament is all about.

I don’t think you’ll find any Jewish children who had their Bar Mitzvah when they were a few hours old, but you’ll certainly find Catholic kids who’ve been confirmed at that age.

 

[TheMc]

What everyone has failed to see is that the Sacrament of Confirmation is the Christian equivalent of the Jewish Bar and Bat Mitzvah ritual, in which at the age of 13, Hebrew boys and girls attain religious adulthood and pledge their belief in Jewish religion. It is one of the high lights of Jewish life.

Actually, it isn’t. It’s a sacrament. It is sometimes adminstered on the deathbead, and sometime shortly after birth. Doesn’t sound like a bat mizvah to me.