Spacing the Sacraments

[Lapey]

I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know all of the doctrine of the church. I’ve only returned the faith in the past month and half. Ultimately I find you quite rude for continually pointing it out.

However, in this instance I do understand the concept of Grace, although I didn’t know the relevant passages in the Catechism. This still doesn’t undermine my point, which is it seems that God is always seeking to bestow grace upon us, but we must seek it out based on our own free will. Receiving Grace is a never ending journey. Thus my point is simply why force kids to receive all the sacraments as fast as possible when it in essence deprives them of their free will to be willing participants in receiving Gods grace?

First off, I am sharing with you and others what the Church teaches. If this is rude to you then maybe it is not us who teach with the problem. If you have just returned to the faith then be willing to learn, not teach. You still do not understand how these little ones should receive the sacraments, and how the Church determines who does or doesn’t and when.

The entire purpose is for the parents and/or guardians to choose for their kids. This is what parents are for. When a person becomes an adult they can choose whatever they want, even though it is bad they can freely choose it. It is my job as a parent and a deacon to be sure they have all the supernatural help from God’s Grace that can be received. This is what they need, they don’t need us caring about their free will to choose; that will come in time whether they receive confirmation or not.

If you find my consistently pointing this out to you rude, then help me and others out by sitting back and learning before posting incorrect information from your opinions of Church teachings of which you have stated you do not know.

I must ask you, if you have just returned to the Church in the last two months or so, are you in RCIA to be received into full communion with Mother Church? If not I would suggest you contact your parish rectory and set up a meeting with your priest then join RCIA so you can learn. Until then, every time things are posted that are outside of Church teaching you will be called on it, as will I if I post things which are inconsistent; and rightfully so. We must know and accept the faith before we can teach it, otherwise we lead people away form Him and not towards Him.

 

[Corki]

I’m one for Baptism and Holy Communion as infants, then Reconciliation at 7, then Confirmation at about 10. That would allow Grace to infuse into children (and we aren’t to “keep little ones” from Christ) for protection, at the times when they need them. It would also allow them Communion at the earliest possible time since Eucharist is necessary to have life in you.

Confirmation at 10, since that is when, developmentally, children are going to most ‘hear’ what is taught.

Sorry,

If you are going to move First Communion to infancy, there is no point in leaving Confirmation to an older age. First Communion is supposed to complete the Sacraments of initiation and even in Western theology requires a higher degree of personal understanding than Confirmation. FHC requires that the child understand, at bare minimum, the difference between the Eucharist and regular bread/wine and the requirements to receive worthily (fasting, state of grace). Confirmation requires nothing except that the person asks for the Sacrament and be a baptized Catholic.

The truth is that the only one of these Sacraments that are available to children that truly needs any teaching is the Sacrament of Penance.

 

[aemcpa]

Unlike Communion, which Canon Law says a child has to understand to receive, Confirmation can be conferred on newborns at the time of an emergency Baptism. A person who is unconfirmed should be confirmed if they are in danger of dying, whether or not they have received instruction. There is no understanding of any kind necessary to receive this sacrament. And really, having to have understanding to receive Communion is a discipline of the Latin Rite Church, not divine law or dogma.

One could argue that there is a strong prejudice in favor of the Latin discipline contained in St. Paul’s admonition that before partaking of communion, one must discern the body. But of course delaying Confirmation has no such Scriptural argument.

 

[Corki]

Yet in essance forcing is what many people do. I don’t remember my Communion being a choice rather I was expected to do it. I think many young Catholics feel this “pressure” to conform. Not to mention I have known a lot that don’t take it seriously.

The fact that some parents might coerce a child to receive Confirmation doesn’t make it right. People are coerced into Marriages too.

In our parish, if a student indicates that he/she is only going to the prep classes to appease a parent, they go home. A level of preparation is nice but not strictly necessary. A willingness to receive the Sacrament IS necessary.

 

[Lapey]

Yet in essance forcing is what many people do. I don’t remember my Communion being a choice rather I was expected to do it. I think many young Catholics feel this “pressure” to conform. Not to mention I have known a lot that don’t take it seriously.

It is what good Catholic parents and Godparents must do, it is what calls us to do. There is pressure to confirm, and should be; because it is that important!

It is not a child’s decision what faith they will be raised in, it is the parent’s decision; and as long as my kids live in my house they will play an active part in their faith. This is how it has been from the beginning of the Church.

The idea of this being a free choice, even as dependants of parents, is not found in Scripture, not in Early Church Father’s writings. This is for the most part modern time protestant lines of thinking.

Why would you have wanted to choose not to receive your First Holy Communion? If I misinterpret your words I do apologize, but I guess I don’t think the Church has ever taught anything other than parents speaking for their children. Only in America children seen to have a “right” to disrespect their parent’s wishes and call it choice.

 

[Lapey]

I’m curious: for those of you who support infant Confirmation, do you think it would be a good idea to call it Chrismation instead of Confirmation?

I know. I’m just throwing out ideas to stir up debate, friendly debate. The disciples in hiding were adults who received Confirmation, so if we follow Christ’s example then Confirmation should be some time in adulthood. Of course in Judaism adulthood is 12-13, but the recipient should want to receive the Confirmation.

This is truly not so, if we believe what we teach about infant baptism. The Early Church fathers believed in infant baptism, Act of the Apostles supports the fact that the entire “households” were baptized, not excluding infants. Then it goes further to say in one instance that Phillip, a deacon sent by Bishops Peter and John after conferring baptism and witnessing great movements of the Spirit, called the bishops to come and confirm all who had been baptized. Now, if we believe, in which ECF writings support this, that infants were among the baptized; then why would they not have been confirmed as well?

CCL # 891 - Tells us that the Church believes a child of the age of reason may be confirmed. Age of reason only means that a child can be culpable of personal sin, not that they are capable of making their decisions in life; this would be the distinct role of parents and Godparents. The Church recognizes the age of minority and majority as does civil law, so this cannot be confused.

The sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred on the faithful at about the age of discretion, unless the episcopal conference has decided on a different age; or there is a danger of death; or, in the judgment of the minister, a grave reason suggests otherwise. (CIC 891)

 

[Lapey]

The fact that some parents might coerce a child to receive Confirmation doesn’t make it right. People are coerced into Marriages too.

In our parish, if a student indicates that he/she is only going to the prep classes to appease a parent, they go home. A level of preparation is nice but not strictly necessary. A willingness to receive the Sacrament IS necessary.

As a sixteen year old junior in high school I would agree, however, I believe that 16 year olds should have received confirmation by their parents’ choosing about 6-8 years prior to that.

It is the parent’s duty to choose this for their children.

 

[aemcpa]

As a sixteen year old junior in high school I would agree, however, I believe that 16 year olds should have received confirmation by their parents’ choosing about 6-8 years prior to that.

It is the parent’s duty to choose this for their children.

 

[CB_Catholic]

I don’t know if it rises to heresy, but I agree. It is being used like a believers baptism. I am so for infants receiving all the sacraments of initiation at once. Lol. My spell check put it as ignition rather than initiation. Almost left it since it is appropriate!!

I am for this also. It makes sense to me. However, I don’t see that happening in the Western Church, esp. with Confirmation, which seems to now have been made into a sort of social justice Sacrament in many parishes.

 

[Cider]

I’m curious: for those of you who support infant Confirmation, do you think it would be a good idea to call it Chrismation instead of Confirmation?

I know. I’m just throwing out ideas to stir up debate, friendly debate. The disciples in hiding were adults who received Confirmation, so if we follow Christ’s example then Confirmation should be some time in adulthood. Of course in Judaism adulthood is 12-13, but the recipient should want to receive the Confirmation.

As long as the term used is properly understood by the laity you can call it what you want. The only problem I see with the word confirmation is that some people misinterpret the sacrament to be mean an adult confirming their faith. Maybe that is because some protestant groups also practice something they call confirmation. Just as people confuse the immaculate conception to Jesus instead of Mary.

In Judaism ones become bar or bat mitzvah at the the proper age regardless if they learned their torah portion and were called to read or not. It’s like reaching puberty, it happens regardless what you do or don’t do. I know those outside the Jewish faith don’t always understand that but the party and being called to the torah is not what makes one bar or bat mitzvah.

As for the disciples being adults, well yes they were. But you are being too literal in extrapolating that to mean that all people should be adults at confirmation. The disciples were also adults at baptism, as you saying we shouldn’t have infant baptism too? Infant baptism, chrismation and first eucharist is the oldest tradition of the church, even if most Latin Rite Catholics may not be aware of that.

 

[MariaG]

I wasn’t specifically talking about baptism in fact you and I agree that baptism should be done as early as possible, which is what I had stated in my post.

I’m not talking about an “emotional kick” I’m talking about the meaning behind free will. Yes kids might be more enthusiastic, but are all kids full formed on what it means to be confirmed or recieve the Eucharist. I know when I was 7 I only had a vague notion of what first communion was and perhaps my class was an anomaly but most of carred more about our family celebrations than we did about receiving the sacrement.
.

But we don’t Have to be full formed. We don’t have to know anything at all. That is why infants can and are confirmed in Eastern rites in communion with the Pope. Respectfully, this is not about free will, knowlegde, experience or anything but a free gift of grace from God that even infants can receive and accept.

You keep saying that you understand that the grace is from God but you keep talking about free will to accept the grace. We have free will throughout our entire lives to accept the grace and grow in it or reject it. In big and little ways our entire lives. The only difference is that by making the Grace available to children and infants they can accept ( or reject) that grace as they grow and the grace grows the more they accept.

 

[Vico]

Would it be a good idea if the Sacraments of Initiation and the Sacrament of Reconciliation were spaced out a little more?

Baptism: Infants
Reconciliation: age 7
First Communion: age 14
Confirmation: age 21

These are approximate ages and of course if someone is ready they could request to receive Confirmation as young as 18. I know there are lots of people who love the idea of everything being done as infants, but for argument sake lets say that’s not an option.

Here’s an interesting read:
wdtprs.com/blog/2012/06/angry-priest-ive-had-it-with-sacrament-prep-of-young-people/

No. The Vatican has emphasized recently that the restored order is desired. That has be practically implemented in Diocese of Phoenix as:

• Baptism: in Infancy (birth to through age 7)
• Reconciliation: Second Grade(age 8)
• Confirmation and First Eucharist: Third Grade (age 9).

 

[Usige]

I tend to be in agreement with early confirmation. Anyone here that thinks we should have a double sacrament of baptism/confirmation in infancy with first reconciliation and communion shortly after the age of reason? (Not that we get to vote )

I sometimes wonder if children might better understand the Eucharist if they had already received the gifts of the holy spirit. It just seems if the sacraments were to be split that the Eucharist should come after confirmation, not 8 to 10 years before.

 

[aemcpa]

I tend to be in agreement with early confirmation. Anyone here that thinks we should have a double sacrament of baptism/confirmation in infancy with first reconciliation and communion shortly after the age of reason? (Not that we get to vote )

Were I ever to be consecrated bishop (quod Deus avertat), the first thing I would do was give the parishes 5 years to get everybody confirmed who is baptized but not confirmed. Then I would make my annual pastoral visits for confirmation as is traditional in many places, except instead of confirming teenagers I would be confirming everybody who was baptized since my last visit who wasn’t immediately confirmed (e.g. at the Easter Vigil). So after 5 years I would be confirmed mostly recently baptized infants.

 

[mikeeh]

This is truly not so, if we believe what we teach about infant baptism. The Early Church fathers believed in infant baptism, Act of the Apostles supports the fact that the entire “households” were baptized, not excluding infants. Then it goes further to say in one instance that Phillip, a deacon sent by Bishops Peter and John after conferring baptism and witnessing great movements of the Spirit, called the bishops to come and confirm all who had been baptized. Now, if we believe, in which ECF writings support this, that infants were among the baptized; then why would they not have been confirmed as well?

CCL # 891 - Tells us that the Church believes a child of the age of reason may be confirmed. Age of reason only means that a child can be culpable of personal sin, not that they are capable of making their decisions in life; this would be the distinct role of parents and Godparents. The Church recognizes the age of minority and majority as does civil law, so this cannot be confused.

The sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred on the faithful at about the age of discretion, unless the episcopal conference has decided on a different age; or there is a danger of death; or, in the judgment of the minister, a grave reason suggests otherwise. (CIC 891)

Interesting.

As long as the term used is properly understood by the laity you can call it what you want. The only problem I see with the word confirmation is that some people misinterpret the sacrament to be mean an adult confirming their faith.

I agree. Confirmation is a little misleading. That’s probably my beef with it. The more I contemplate Chrismation the more I like the idea of it being given to infants instead of teenagers, generally speaking.

As for the disciples being adults, well yes they were. But you are being too literal in extrapolating that to mean that all people should be adults at confirmation. The disciples were also adults at baptism, as you saying we shouldn’t have infant baptism too? Infant baptism, chrismation and first Eucharist is the oldest tradition of the church, even if most Latin Rite Catholics may not be aware of that.

The Gospels say John the Baptist was baptizing all people who were coming to hear him preach, it’s probably likely that families came. The Gospels also say only the disciples in hiding, who were adults, received the Holy Spirit. Be careful with picking and choosing what to interpret and what to take literally in the Gospels, otherwise how do you argue with Protestants about Peter being the rock the Church is founded upon, Confession being a sacrament, the Eucharist, and many other things in the Gospels Protestants love to interpret.

No. The Vatican has emphasized recently that the restored order is desired. That has be practically implemented in Diocese of Phoenix as:

• Baptism: in Infancy (birth to through age 7)
• Reconciliation: Second Grade(age 8)
• Confirmation and First Eucharist: Third Grade (age 9).

I heard about the Diocese of Phoenix doing that. Seems cool to do everything before the teenage years. I was going to ask for my second question if it would be good to have Baptism for infants, Reconciliation and Confirmation for age 5 and First Communion for age 10. But the thread got so many responses I just sat back and enjoyed the discussion.

 

[MariaG]

Interesting.

I agree. Confirmation is a little misleading. That’s probably my beef with it. The more I contemplate Chrismation the more I like the idea of it being given to infants instead of teenagers, generally speaking.

The Gospels say John the Baptist was baptizing all people who were coming to hear him preach, it’s probably likely that families came. The Gospels also say only the disciples in hiding, who were adults, received the Holy Spirit. Be careful with picking and choosing what to interpret and what to take literally in the Gospels, otherwise how do you argue with Protestants about Peter being the rock the Church is founded upon, Confession being a sacrament, the Eucharist, and many other things in the Gospels Protestants love to interpret.

I heard about the Diocese of Phoenix doing that. Seems cool to do everything before the teenage years. I was going to ask for my second question if it would be good to have Baptism for infants, Reconciliation and Confirmation for age 5 and First Communion for age 10. But the thread got so many responses I just sat back and enjoyed the discussion.

I still disagree with not allowing the Eucharist until older. No reason not to allow it. Rule change and it is fine. Again, infants in the eastern rites are nourished with Christ’s body and blood from infancy.

Reconciliation, which is not considered one of the 3 sacraments of initiation can wait til 7.

 

[Corki]

I heard about the Diocese of Phoenix doing that. Seems cool to do everything before the teenage years. I was going to ask for my second question if it would be good to have Baptism for infants, Reconciliation and Confirmation for age 5 and First Communion for age 10. But the thread got so many responses I just sat back and enjoyed the discussion.

You can’t do the Sacrament of Reconciliation until the age of discretion. Age 7 is pretty much the minimum age.

 

[Corki]

Were I ever to be consecrated bishop (quod Deus avertat), the first thing I would do was give the parishes 5 years to get everybody confirmed who is baptized but not confirmed. Then I would make my annual pastoral visits for confirmation as is traditional in many places, except instead of confirming teenagers I would be confirming everybody who was baptized since my last visit who wasn’t immediately confirmed (e.g. at the Easter Vigil). So after 5 years I would be confirmed mostly recently baptized infants.

I don’t think that, as a Bishop, you would have that authority. You would have to get yourself on a committee to change Canon Law first.

THOSE TO BE CONFIRMED

Can. 889 §1. Every baptized person not yet confirmed and only such a person is capable of receiving confirmation.

§2. To receive confirmation licitly outside the danger of death requires that a person who has the use of reason be suitably instructed, properly disposed, and able to renew the baptismal promises.

Can. 890 The faithful are obliged to receive this sacrament at the proper time. Parents and pastors of souls, especially pastors of parishes, are to take care that the faithful are properly instructed to receive the sacrament and come to it at the appropriate time.

Can. 891 The sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred on the faithful at about the age of discretion unless the conference of bishops has determined another age, or there is danger of death, or in the judgment of the minister a grave cause suggests otherwise.

 

[aemcpa]

I don’t think that, as a Bishop, you would have that authority. You would have to get yourself on a committee to change Canon Law first.

Touche. 7 it is, then.

I said it would be a bad thing if I became a bishop, lol.

 

[Usige]

Touche. 7 it is, then.

I said it would be a bad thing if I became a bishop, lol.

But if you became pope you could just change canon law to allow it.