Should Confirmation happen Before First Communion

[Elizium23]

The only reason it has come to be perceived as “the sacrament of Christian maturity” is because of modern practice in the Latin Church. As you can see from Eastern practice and some dioceses moving the age to second grade or so, Confirmation is available to anyone who has been baptized, not just to teenagers about to leave the Church.

And it’s a sad thing. I had a pastor who said that Confirmation is the saddest event in his life, because it’s like a “sending forth” of this class of students into the world, never to return to darken the door of his church again. Many children fall away from the faith just after Confirmation. Myself, I began to fall away just before - Confirmation was offered around 8th grade, and I refused it, and would later leave the Church for 11 years. I was confirmed as an adult, but I missed out on many years of strengthening graces that I could have had from the sacrament.

 

[Barbkw]

I was Confirmed in late High School. I’d always attended public school.

I can tell you that the Holy Spirit in Confirmation bounced off me like a Superball off of concrete.

I’d suggest instead, that children today receive the Holy Spirit one or two years after first Eucharist and Reconciliation.

 

[Dicerning]

I was Confirmed in late High School. I’d always attended public school.

I can tell you that the Holy Spirit in Confirmation bounced off me like a Superball off of concrete.

I’d suggest instead, that children today receive the Holy Spirit one or two years after first Eucharist and Reconciliation.

WHy wait 2 years? Even for Adults. I can’t imagine telling my RCIA people that they had to come back and get confirmed 2 years after they had their first communion.

The real question is why do we do confirmation out of order. It belongs PRIOR to the Eucharist? The catechumens and Candidates in RCIA get confirmed PRIOR to receiving the Eucharist.

 

[Corki]

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.

Ubnfortunately it has been seen that way in the last several decade but this is an incorrect understanding of the Sacrament. It is not a pledge of any sort. It is the final seal on the rites of initiation begun with Baptism. The annointing with Chrism that is the second annointing of the Baptism rite is completed with the annointing at Confirmation.

The only legitimate reason the two halfs were separated was the desire on the part of the west to have the final annointing done by a Bishop. As the Church got larger, the visits from the Bishop were more infrequent meaning that children waited longer to be Confirmed.

This idea that Confirmation is some kind of rite of passage or a Catholic version of a Bar Mitzvah is twisted theology.

 

[KCT]

I think they need the grace of the sacrament before they go to high school.

 

[GwenL]

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.

Well, not according to the Council of Trent.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent says that confirmation can be administered to all Catholics after baptism, but that this is not expedient before the reaching the age of reason. The Catechism says: “for Confirmation has not been instituted as necessary for salvation, but that by virtue thereof we might be found well armed and prepared when called upon to fight for the faith of Christ, and for this kind of conflict no one will consider children, who are still without the use of reason, to be qualified.”

That is clearly a theological, and not an historical, reason.

 

[GwenL]

The only reason it has come to be perceived as “the sacrament of Christian maturity” is because of modern practice in the Latin Church. As you can see from Eastern practice and some dioceses moving the age to second grade or so, Confirmation is available to anyone who has been baptized, not just to teenagers about to leave the Church.

And it’s a sad thing. I had a pastor who said that Confirmation is the saddest event in his life, because it’s like a “sending forth” of this class of students into the world, never to return to darken the door of his church again. Many children fall away from the faith just after Confirmation. Myself, I began to fall away just before - Confirmation was offered around 8th grade, and I refused it, and would later leave the Church for 11 years. I was confirmed as an adult, but I missed out on many years of strengthening graces that I could have had from the sacrament.

Not, it’s not “modern” practice in the Latin Church. Unless you consider anything after Trent to be “modern.” Confirmation has been delayed until the age of reason since at least Trent.

 

[GwenL]

Ubnfortunately it has been seen that way in the last several decade but this is an incorrect understanding of the Sacrament. It is not a pledge of any sort. It is the final seal on the rites of initiation begun with Baptism. The annointing with Chrism that is the second annointing of the Baptism rite is completed with the annointing at Confirmation.

The only legitimate reason the two halfs were separated was the desire on the part of the west to have the final annointing done by a Bishop. As the Church got larger, the visits from the Bishop were more infrequent meaning that children waited longer to be Confirmed.

This idea that Confirmation is some kind of rite of passage or a Catholic version of a Bar Mitzvah is twisted theology.

Your statement about “legitimate reason” is incorrect. Reference my earlier post and quote from the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Confirmation was separated from baptism at Trent, and delayed until the age of reason.

I am not saying that Confirmation is some “rite of passage.” It’s just been separated from baptism for many more centuries than most people think.

 

[Phemie]

Not, it’s not “modern” practice in the Latin Church. Unless you consider anything after Trent to be “modern.” Confirmation has been delayed until the age of reason since at least Trent.

But the age of reason is 7, not 17. In fact, the last time I was involved in the catechetics program I found the 7 year olds more receptive to the idea of the gifts of the Holy Spirit than the 15 year olds being confirmed with them.

The Church still says that babies who are baptized in danger of death should be confirmed at the same time and when that happens there is only one anointing with Chrism.

 

[GwenL]

But the age of reason is 7, not 17. In fact, the last time I was involved in the catechetics program I found the 7 year olds more receptive to the idea of the gifts of the Holy Spirit than the 15 year olds being confirmed with them.

The Church still says that babies who are baptized in danger of death should be confirmed at the same time and when that happens there is only one anointing with Chrism.

I didn’t say the age of reason was 17. I was responding to the many posters who seem to think that Confirmation should not be separated from baptism, and that such separation was mostly “political” on the part of bishops. In the Latin Church, this has been so since at least Trent; Confirmation has been delayed until the age of reason.

Danger of death is clearly an exception to the rule. Exceptions show that something is possible in the extreme; they do not guide best practice for the norm.

 

[puzzleannie]

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.

no it is not

I’ve taught CCD or lead a youth group for more than 20 years. I hear ya on the cluelessness of Jr high kids. But holding confirmation hostage until they are ‘ready’ isn’t the solution.

Confirmation confirms us in the gifts of the Holy Spirirt. Who needs ‘perserverance’ and ‘wisdom’ more than teenagers? By placing the sacraments back in the restored order, we give kids the strength of the spirit before they become jaded and bored by life.

this was the reasoning of Bishop Tobin in lower the age to 8th grade in his diocese from 11th grade

we complain that the teens don’t exhibit knowledge, understanding, wisdom etc. yet we deny the sacrament through which the Holy Spirit confers those supernatural gifts. Weird, as the kids would say

 

[puzzleannie]

Well, not according to the Council of Trent.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent says that confirmation can be administered to all Catholics after baptism, but that this is not expedient before the reaching the age of reason. The Catechism says: “for Confirmation has not been instituted as necessary for salvation, but that by virtue thereof we might be found well armed and prepared when called upon to fight for the faith of Christ, and for this kind of conflict no one will consider children, who are still without the use of reason, to be qualified.”

That is clearly a theological, and not an historical, reason.

the reasons for that development is, as I stated, as much historical relating to the role of the bishops as it is theological. the practice came before the theology evolved to explain it. Just as the theology for 1st communion had to change to “catch up with” Pope Pius X decision to lower the age.

but leaving the 1st, 16th and 20th centuries aside, the current practice promulgated is that “all sacramental preparation should follow the RCIA model.” wherein anyone over the age of reason (about 7) is considered and adult for the purposes of the sacraments of initiation, the minister who baptizes the elect must also confirm at the same time. Thus we have in any given parish unbaptized 3rd & 4th graders receiving full initiation, while their Catholic peers must wait until middle school or high school for Confirmation. This is a clear disconnect and the theological explanations must differ widely (try explaining the difference to parents and you will see how much). Now that the precedent has been set for the Latin Rite, through RCIA, there seems to be no longer any practical, pastoral or theological basis for delaying Confirmation past elementary school age.

The only justification is “they won’t attend CCD any more, or Mass” if they don’t “hafta”. That is a problem best addressed in other ways than using the sacrament as a bribe.

 

[jps23430]

Ok, so since starting this thread, I gather the only motivation to retain the current confrimation age of 13-16 is to either keep the kids in CCD longer or because you falsely believe confirmation to be a rite of passage. I can understand that point of view. But no matter how well you can justify it. even if for some kids it becomes a reaffirmation of thier faith- which is great- that’s not the purpose. One poster said it best when they said that this is not something that the kids do but rather something done to them. I would like my children to be confirmed before or at the same time as first communion. The earlier they have this sacrement, I think the more hope they will have when they reach 13-16 of staying in the church.

I was very poorly catechised and all I can remember about confirmation was that it was like a graduation from the church. My boring nights at CCD were over and I was done.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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 my opinion I think the order of the Sacraments of Initiation should be restored. Baptism, Confirmation, and First Eucharist. I see nothing wrong with doing both Confirmation and First Eucharist at the same Mass.

I agree with the bishop as to these distortions but there is another one that I think is very bad.

Some places do not do confirmation until high school age. Many, if not all, of those places have some sort of service requirement to be Confirmed. This makes it appear that one is “earning” the Sacrament. The Sacrament of Confirmation is a free gift of Grace. We do not earn Grace in any way.

 

[Corki]

Your statement about “legitimate reason” is incorrect. Reference my earlier post and quote from the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Confirmation was separated from baptism at Trent, and delayed until the age of reason.

I am not saying that Confirmation is some “rite of passage.” It’s just been separated from baptism for many more centuries than most people think.

Confirmation was already separated from Baptism before Trent. Trent codified the age as being the age of reason.

Yes, it has been separated from Baptism for many centuries. However, then it was together with First Communion. It was only after Pope Pius X moved the age of First Communion down to around age 7 that the three Sacraments of initiation were completly separate in the west.

I don’t have a problem with separating Baptism and Confirmation. While I respect the tradition of the east, I see the value in using the age of reason target to have an element of catechesis prior to the reception of Confirmation. I also see value in delaying both Confirmation and First Communion until after First Penance.

However, I would love to see a return to keeping First Communion and Confirmation together - both around 2nd or 3rd grade.

I know I post this every time the topic comes up but my favorite explanation is that by Bishop Corrada, until recently the Bishop of Tyler, Texas which he issued when he instituted restored order and lowering Confirmation.

dioceseoftyler.org/documents/Confirmation_document_2.pdf

 

[Phemie]

Confirmation was already separated from Baptism before Trent. Trent codified the age as being the age of reason.

Yes, it has been separated from Baptism for many centuries. However, then it was together with First Communion. It was only after Pope Pius X moved the age of First Communion down to around age 7 that the three Sacraments of initiation were completly separate in the west.

I don’t have a problem with separating Baptism and Confirmation. While I respect the tradition of the east, I see the value in using the age of reason target to have an element of catechesis prior to the reception of Confirmation. I also see value in delaying both Confirmation and First Communion until after First Penance.

However, I would love to see a return to keeping First Communion and Confirmation together - both around 2nd or 3rd grade.

I know I post this every time the topic comes up but my favorite explanation is that by Bishop Corrada, until recently the Bishop of Tyler, Texas which he issued when he instituted restored order and lowering Confirmation.

dioceseoftyler.org/documents/Confirmation_document_2.pdf

I notice that in this document he refers to the practice of Solemn Communion, something that was very much in practice in my diocese when I was growing up. First Communion was usually at the end of Grade 1, Confirmation the next time the bishop came to visit and Solemn Communion, the ‘adult’ ceremony, if you will, was around the age of 14 or 15.

The year I was supposed to make my Solemn Communion I told my parents I wasn’t ready. In fact, I just didn’t want to spend the time in Catechism class on beautiful May evenings. The next year, Solemn Communion was gone and Confirmation started to creep up into the higher grade levels.