U
UncleBill
Guest
Looks like Buffalo has become Lutheran. Are they Missouri Synod, ELCA or WELS?
- Status
B
Brendan_64
Guest
I didn’t miss that. So you are saying that the pastor can choose to deny someone access to the Sacraments, simply because he deems that they don’t have sufficient catechesis and understanding? He sets the required level himself?
C
Cider
Guest
This thread is the perfect example of why we should return the sacraments to their oldest tradition of baptism, chrismation/confirmation and first eucharist for infants.
U
UncleBill
Guest
More of this catechesis rubbish…without the grace of the sacrament all the catechesis in the world will do you no good.
Return to your roots Latin Church…baptize, confirm and give the eucharist to infants! Enough already!
B
Brendan_64
Guest
I’d agree with that.
H
Hopey
Guest
I can’t copy and paste but the problem w the guidelines, or most obvious, have to do w under the section Candidate. Confirmation is not about a personal choice to be fully catholic. There in lies the errors. I can see where you are coming from but it is wrong and very common misunderstanding. We decide this when they are babies usually. They continue to remain a practicing catholic on their own. We do all we can, esp graces from sacraments, to help them remain in Christ. This decision is not what confirmation is about. 
G
GRATEFULONEjim
Guest
That is the standard procedure here. If there is a willingness, then show it. Learn the faith.
T
tafan
Guest
But I find little of your argument in that document. A prime example is your statement I quoted above that confirmation “should be a sending off point, the fruition of childhood catechesis”. The document says nothing of the sort that I can see. I will admit to doing a rather quick reading, so correct me if I am wrong.
The document really says very little with respect to this issue. Indeed, if one changed a few numbers here and there, and a few word replacements such as “high school” to “elementary school”, it would read just as consistently, albeit still not say much of substance.
I will give you this: based on the document, you have attempted to explain the situation in this thread much more clearly than your diocese does. In my opinion, your explanations are clearly wrong, but at least you are willing to make a go of justifying a situation which you believe in. And you are certainly fighting the battle without adequate back up from the people who you are trying to support.
I am sure that the document is surely adequate for the vast majority of Catholic parents, who have had a generation of experience with older age confirmation, and who do not even think to question the practice.
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
I am curious about this, since I know that Bishop Malone is relatively new to Buffalo. Where these rules in force with Bishop Klimek (sorry if I spelled that wrong) or are these new guidelines from Bishop Malone?
My thoughts on the subject~
I live in the Diocese of Rochester, and our Bishop (who has since retired, and been replaced by an ‘Aposolic Adminstrator’- +Cunningham from Syracuse, who I believe cannot make changes to how things are done unless they are doctrinally unsound) has left it up to the Pastor/Pastoral Administrator of each parish to decide how it’s done for their parish. The Cathedral and about 10 other communities do “restored order” so children as young as 2nd grade are confirmed and make their First Communion at the same Mass. Most parishes do it in middle-school (6-8th grade) and a few wait until high-school (9-10th grade).
I am not a fan of this system, as I think it should be more consistant.
All of our confirmations are at the Cathedral, and sometimes you may have more than one parish celebrating at the same Mass, so you make have a group of 25tenth graders, 25 sixth graders and and 25 second graders.
And kids being kids, let me tell you I have heard a lot of grumbling from the older ones when they found out that some of the kids being confirmed with them were half their age!
What needs to happen, IMHO, is that we need to get the parents more educated. I am a supporter of “family-based catechesis” where twice a month, parents are also expected to attend a catechetical session, so that they can learn & reinforce the teaches at home. And in the cases of sacramental prep, I think the parent session should be mandatory. Part of the problem with the gross misunderstanding of Confirmation is not the lack of catechesis among those being confirmed, but of those teaching them.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Learn the faith? What exactly do you mean by that? The faith as applied in the diocese of Buffalo, or the faith as it is in the Catechism?
The Catechism states that every baptised person not yet confirmed can and should recieve the sacrament of Confirmation and are obliged to receive the sacrament at the appropriate time (CCC 1306). It also states that grace of the sacrament is a grace of free, unmerited election (CCC 1308). There is nothing whatsoever in the Catechism that states that a person is required to reach a certain level of ‘competence’ with regard to catechesis before they are eligible to receive the sacrament.
What you describe may be standard procedure in your diocese, but it is not standard procedure in the Church as a whole. It certainly has no backing in Church teaching.
T
tafan
Guest
What? What about ever so present “requirement of X service hours”? I suppose you are going to tell us that is missing from the CCC and canon law also.
I am positive there is a listing, somewhere on the Vatican website, maybe even in one of Paul’s epistles of a exact set of requirements for confirmation. I will research it and get back to you when I find it.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
No. All the Catechism says on preparation for Confirmation is.
“Preparation for Confirmation should aim at leading the Christian toward a more intimate union with Christ and a more lively familiarity with the Holy Spirit - his actions, his gifts, and his biddings - in order to be more capable of assuming the apostolic responsibilities of Christian life. To this end catechesis for Confirmation should strive to awaken a sense of belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ, the universal Church as well as the parish community. The latter bears special responsibility for the preparation of confirmands.” (CCC 1309)
There is nothing in Canon Law either that specifies that so many hours preparation are needed etc. All Canon Law says on the matter is
Can. 889 §1 Every baptised person who is not confirmed, and only such a person, is capable of receiving confirmation.
Can. 889 §2 Apart from the danger of death, to receive confirmation lawfully a person who has the use of reason must be suitably instructed, properly disposed and able to renew the baptismal promises.
Certain dioceses and parishes may have decided to introduce their own interpretation of what ‘suitably instructed’ means, but the Church doesn’t specify that X amount of hours preparation is required, or that a certain level of knowledge of catechesis is required before the person may be confirmed. Just because a particular diocese or parish does it, doesn’t mean that it is part of Church teaching.
T
tafan
Guest
Brendan, my previous post was written as sarcasm, sorry should have been indicated it was a joke.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Fair enough, I ought to have been sharp enough to spot that.
G
GRATEFULONEjim
Guest
This has been the procedure since even before Bishop Kmiec. Bishop Malone agrees that this will remain the standard for the Diocese. From what I gather…We are quite rogue in our handling of the Sacrament.
I am in no position to argue with the bishop or my pastor, and firmly believe that our handling of the Sacrament has fostered the growth of countless well catechized young men and women who have not complained in any way that they were unduly withheld a Sacrament that rightly should have been granted to them earlier in their lives.
Maybe some time in the future the USCCB will make a statement on the matter and provide some direction to clear up the issue as I do believe that we should all be on the same page.
Until then…:slapfight:
T
tafan
Guest
All kidding aside, I consider this an extremely important issue in the Church. The Church in most of the United States really has this wrong, and it is a serious state of affairs.
If we truly believe in what the Church teaches as to the effects of the sacrament, and then stop and think about how our society and culture is pushing kids to do the exact opposite of everything on that list: all one can conclude is that we are schizophrenic. Why in the world would we deprive our children of the supernatural graces listed above, especially at this point and time in history? Its is absolutely a spiritual version than refusing to feed our kids and letting them starve to death. And it is being forced upon us by our Bishops, jeeze…
T
tafan
Guest
I can appreciate that you are in no position. As a parent, neither am I. I tried to get my kids confirmed early and hit road blocks.
As to none of the kids complaining that they were unduly withheld a sacrament that rightly should have been granted to them earlier, do they have any idea what the Church teaches as the norm for the age of confirmation or have they been taught the proper order of the sacraments of initiation? Serious question. After reading the document posted from your diocese, I am almost positive they were never told that the Holy Eucharist should have completed their sacraments of initiation. Someone not knowledgeable about the proper course of things cannot really be expected to complain. So your point is kind of mute.
G
GRATEFULONEjim
Guest
All of the parents and children are fully aware of the Rite of Initiation as they are taught this beginning in K-1 as part of learning the Sacraments. Our parish is only a short distance away from a parish that resides in the Diocese of Rochester which allows 8th grade Confirmation. We have had parishioners ask permission for their children to attend that parishes program. Our pastor will not allow it and if the family does not agree they are asked to withdraw from our parish and attend the one in the Diocese of Rochester. The Buffalo Diocese is firm on its teaching.
T
tafan
Guest
So how do you explain to children the improper order of the sacraments of initiation?
B
babochka
Guest
Here’s how I see it:
It is the Bishop’s right and responsibility to set the confirmation age for his diocese. In the last 100 years or so, but even more so in the last 50 years, there has been tremendous experimentation in the church regarding this sacrament. The Bishops are trying to respond to a pastoral situation unique to our times. Our children are growing up in a post-Christian secular society, in largely uncatechized families.
The teaching of the church is clear on what the sacrament of confirmation is and previous posts have given the teaching in detail. It is not a rite of passage. Given the situation, however, of conferring the sacrament on teenagers, it is indeed a time for them to affirm the faith on their own. An older child or teenager should not receive the sacrament unless he or she is able to affirm that faith and has sufficient knowledge of it. Knowledge of the faith and free choice appropriate to one’s stage of development is necessary for all of the sacraments of initiation, not just confirmation. For this reason, accepting Confirmation as a teenager is indeed a person’s opportunity to make a free choice for the faith, and I’m glad that there are diocese out there that take seriously the responsibility to prepare these children, even while I think they should confirm at a much younger age, prior to First Communion.
The first approach (younger confirmation) does create a problem, since it is a reality that children will drop out of religious education. To me, the second approach (later confirmation) creates a bigger problem, since it gives the impression that confirmation is, by its very nature, a sacramental “rite of passage”, which we all agree is not the case.
I clearly have my own bias here. I was Chrismated (Confirmed) as an infant and all of my children were Chrismated as infants. I believe firmly that children benefit from receiving all of the sacraments of initiation at a young age. I do understand the dilemma of catechesis, but I don’t believe it is reason to delay the sacraments. I believe we ought to have more uniformity in practice as well. I, however, am not a Bishop. It is the Bishop’s decision in his own diocese.
It is the Bishop’s right and responsibility to set the confirmation age for his diocese. In the last 100 years or so, but even more so in the last 50 years, there has been tremendous experimentation in the church regarding this sacrament. The Bishops are trying to respond to a pastoral situation unique to our times. Our children are growing up in a post-Christian secular society, in largely uncatechized families.
The teaching of the church is clear on what the sacrament of confirmation is and previous posts have given the teaching in detail. It is not a rite of passage. Given the situation, however, of conferring the sacrament on teenagers, it is indeed a time for them to affirm the faith on their own. An older child or teenager should not receive the sacrament unless he or she is able to affirm that faith and has sufficient knowledge of it. Knowledge of the faith and free choice appropriate to one’s stage of development is necessary for all of the sacraments of initiation, not just confirmation. For this reason, accepting Confirmation as a teenager is indeed a person’s opportunity to make a free choice for the faith, and I’m glad that there are diocese out there that take seriously the responsibility to prepare these children, even while I think they should confirm at a much younger age, prior to First Communion.
The first approach (younger confirmation) does create a problem, since it is a reality that children will drop out of religious education. To me, the second approach (later confirmation) creates a bigger problem, since it gives the impression that confirmation is, by its very nature, a sacramental “rite of passage”, which we all agree is not the case.
I clearly have my own bias here. I was Chrismated (Confirmed) as an infant and all of my children were Chrismated as infants. I believe firmly that children benefit from receiving all of the sacraments of initiation at a young age. I do understand the dilemma of catechesis, but I don’t believe it is reason to delay the sacraments. I believe we ought to have more uniformity in practice as well. I, however, am not a Bishop. It is the Bishop’s decision in his own diocese.
- Status