Spacing the Sacraments

[mikeeh]

This discussion is good. For fun, let me suggest another alternative: Would it be a good idea if the Sacrament of Baptism and the Sacrament of Confirmation/Chrismation be merged into one Sacrament of Baptism in which the infant (or adult) is baptized with water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit then sealed by the Holy Spirit with Chrism. What is the reasoning in defining these two as separate sacraments?

But again, you seem to be falling into the Protestant believers adult responsibility of the faith kind thing.

Keep not the LITTLE children from Him. 14 is not little.

Possibly…BUT…

The Gospels don’t specifically say infants and children were not baptized by John. And in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 whole families were baptized, implying children were also baptized. Furthermore, Jesus Confirms the disciples in John 20:22 and the disciples were adults.

 

[quiet52]

This discussion is good. For fun, let me suggest another alternative: Would it be a good idea if the Sacrament of Baptism and the Sacrament of Confirmation/Chrismation be merged into one Sacrament of Baptism in which the infant (or adult) is baptized with water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit then sealed by the Holy Spirit with Chrism. What is the reasoning in defining these two as separate sacraments?
QUOTE]

Jesus Christ, who is God, instituted the seven sacraments – we can’t fiddle with them. Each sacrament has a different purpose.

Baptism is the entry sacrament, when we become members of the Body of Christ, and in which we share Christ’s roles as priest, prophet and king. Baptism removes Original Sin and any personal sins we may have committed prior to Baptism, and our souls are sanctified, infused with the theological graces of faith, hope and charity (love).

Confirmation, which perfects Baptism, helps to live our lives as Christians, be witnesses of the faith, and help build up the Church. We are anointed (just as Christ, which means “anointed” or called) and we receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit: wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude (or courage), knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord.

 

[MariaG]

I didn’t say we loose free will. Instead, I suggested it would be more meaningful because people would arrive to on their own accord rather than corecion. Lets not get carried away with the heresy nobody is questioning doctrine rather it seems to be how to apply scripture and doctrine and that would fall starkly out of the category of heresy.

As an aside perhaps someone could explain either on this forum or PM what exactly the purpose of each sacrement is or send me a link I’m sure it been laid out on this forum before.

You keep calling it coercion to get a child confirmed. Do you feel an infant is coerced when they are baptized?

While I don’t doubt the memories are more meaningful for an adult, this is not just about a meaningful decision, an adult choice or a great memory but the grace of God. Grace that we are denying our children when they can have it available to them as infants.

A more meaningful thing would to give our children all the grace possible to live a Holy life without having to ever leave the Church or fall into sin in the first place.

 

[MariaG]

catholic.com/search/content/Sacraments?filters=type%3Atract

Here is a link to tracts to the different sacrament on catholic.com.

 

[MariaG]

Possibly…BUT…

The Gospels don’t specifically say infants and children were not baptized by John. And in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 whole families were baptized, implying children were also baptized. Furthermore, Jesus Confirms the disciples in John 20:22 and the disciples were adults.

Your question as to why can’t they be the same has been answered already above

I am not sure what you ate arguing here. Except that only the adults received confirmation?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

You keep calling it coercion to get a child confirmed. Do you feel an infant is coerced when they are baptized?

While I don’t doubt the memories are more meaningful for an adult, this is not just about a meaningful decision, an adult choice or a great memory but the grace of God. Grace that we are denying our children when they can have it available to them as infants.

A more meaningful thing would to give our children all the grace possible to live a Holy life without having to ever leave the Church or fall into sin in the first place.

This is the thing. The sacrament is not about the memory of the event or about the knowledge gained in CCD, RCIA, etc. The sacrament is about the grace received.

Remember it is an outward sign of inward grace.

Nobody should be coerced to receive grace, but no one should be denied grace based on an arbitrary age cut-off. The separation of confirmation and baptismed happened as it became more difficult for bishops to get around their growing dioceses to conduct confirmations. And then when the age of FHC was pushed down the sacraments got ‘out of order’.

However, if the bishop can now travel around to confirm every 10th grader, he can also travel around to confirm in 2nd grade or at least 6th grade. We should want our children to have the fullness of grace as early as possible to strengthen them for the journey through the teens to adulthood!

 

[MariaG]

This is the thing. The sacrament is not about the memory of the event or about the knowledge gained in CCD, RCIA, etc. The sacrament is about the grace received.

Remember it is an outward sign of inward grace.

Nobody should be coerced to receive grace, but no one should be denied grace based on an arbitrary age cut-off. The separation of confirmation and baptismed happened as it became more difficult for bishops to get around their growing dioceses to conduct confirmations. And then when the age of FHC was pushed down the sacraments got ‘out of order’.

However, if the bishop can now travel around to confirm every 10th grader, he can also travel around to confirm in 2nd grade or at least 6th grade. We should want our children to have the fullness of grace as early as possible to strengthen them for the journey through the teens to adulthood!

AMEN!

 

[thomasf]

I didn’t say we loose free will. Instead, I suggested it would be more meaningful because people would arrive to on their own accord rather than corecion. Lets not get carried away with the heresy nobody is questioning doctrine rather it seems to be how to apply scripture and doctrine and that would fall starkly out of the category of heresy.

As an aside perhaps someone could explain either on this forum or PM what exactly the purpose of each sacrement is or send me a link I’m sure it been laid out on this forum before.

I argue the opposite. I say the faith would be more meaningful to young teens if they have already been confirmed into the church and are full members early on in age. Then the church has more meaning, other than something they have to do and don’t want to do as a teen. Confirm children early, make the church an integral part of their lives at an early age, and it will be important to them their whole lives.

 

[aemcpa]

This discussion is good. For fun, let me suggest another alternative: Would it be a good idea if the Sacrament of Baptism and the Sacrament of Confirmation/Chrismation be merged into one Sacrament of Baptism in which the infant (or adult) is baptized with water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit then sealed by the Holy Spirit with Chrism.

Let’s ask the Council of Trent.

**Canons On The Sacraments In General

Canon 1. If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, or that there are more or less than seven, namely, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order and matrimony, or that any one of these seven is not truly and intrinsically a sacrament, let him be anathema.

Canons On Confirmation

Canon 1. If anyone says that the confirmation of those baptized is an empty ceremony and not a true and proper sacrament; or that of old it was nothing more than a sort of instruction, whereby those approaching adolescence gave an account of their faith to the Church, let him be anathema.**

I’m going to go with “bad idea”.

 

[UncleBill]

This is the thing. The sacrament is not about the memory of the event or about the knowledge gained in CCD, RCIA, etc. The sacrament is about the grace received.

Remember it is an outward sign of inward grace.

Nobody should be coerced to receive grace, but no one should be denied grace based on an arbitrary age cut-off. The separation of confirmation and baptismed happened as it became more difficult for bishops to get around their growing dioceses to conduct confirmations. And then when the age of FHC was pushed down the sacraments got ‘out of order’.

However, if the bishop can now travel around to confirm every 10th grader, he can also travel around to confirm in 2nd grade or at least 6th grade. We should want our children to have the fullness of grace as early as possible to strengthen them for the journey through the teens to adulthood!

Confirm and Commune all INFANTS when they are Baptized…why make them wait?

 

[maryjk]

Confirm and Commune all INFANTS when they are Baptized…why make them wait?

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Corki]

Confirm and Commune all INFANTS when they are Baptized…why make them wait?

Because the Church, in her wisdom, has decided that there is value to tying the last two Sacraments of Initiation to the Sacrament of Penance. This is not dogma; it changeable. But neither is it a capricious decision. There is value to making sure that a child has a grasp of what it means to be in a state of Grace for the continued reception of Communion. That’s why those three Sacraments are timed, traditionally, to the age of reason.

Now Confirmation has another issue which is mostly logistical. Since the Bishop is the ordinary minister of Confirmation, the Sacraments of Confirmation and Baptism are divided in time unless one happens to be a parishioner at the local Cathedral. I am all for a younger age for Confirmation but would not want to see Baptism delayed so that they could be done together.

 

[aemcpa]

Because the Church, in her wisdom, has decided that there is value to tying the last two Sacraments of Initiation to the Sacrament of Penance. This is not dogma; it changeable. But neither is it a capricious decision. There is value to making sure that a child has a grasp of what it means to be in a state of Grace for the continued reception of Communion. That’s why those three Sacraments are timed, traditionally, to the age of reason.

Now Confirmation has another issue which is mostly logistical. Since the Bishop is the ordinary minister of Confirmation, the Sacraments of Confirmation and Baptism are divided in time unless one happens to be a parishioner at the local Cathedral. I am all for a younger age for Confirmation but would not want to see Baptism delayed so that they could be done together.

There is virtually no difference logistically between annually assembling all of the children baptized in the parish during the year, annually assembling all the 2nd graders in the parish, and annually assembling all of the 8th graders in the parish.

 

[tafan]

… When I received it as a teenager I was definitely not ready, and I definitely did not want it. But I would have loved to have received in my mid-20s when I started coming back to the Church. I even asked my mom if I could redo Confirmation, but she said you only receive it once. I feel like it was a waste of a great experience…

With all due respect, this shows your basic misunderstanding of the sacraments. The sacrament of Confirmation (Baptism, Marriage, and Holy Orders also) are not experiences. They are an opening of our soul to grace, continual grace. You are receiving the grace of the sacrament of confirmation now, as long as you accept the grace, just as much as the day you were confirmed. Hence, an early confirmation is important.

Maybe one could say: Your confirmation was not a great experience, it IS a great experience.

 

[stlcatholic86]

Let me make clear I am not saying we should delay sacrements based on age. I’m addition I am not suggesting we delay baptism at it should clearly be done at the earliest age possible. However, with that being said I think there is a distinction about starting the rites of initiation versus completing them. I.e. as parents or legal guardians to start them and teach them in the faith. However as children grow older coercing them into getting the sacrements seems to be the exact opposite of getting “inward grace.” I’ve always thought that the sacrements were incredibly important, but reducing the initiation rite sacrements into children should get them done as soon as possible seems to reduce them in meaning to the participants.

 

[Corki]

Let me make clear I am not saying we should delay sacrements based on age. I’m addition I am not suggesting we delay baptism at it should clearly be done at the earliest age possible. However, with that being said I think there is a distinction about starting the rites of initiation versus completing them. I.e. as parents or legal guardians to start them and teach them in the faith. However as children grow older coercing them into getting the sacrements seems to be the exact opposite of getting “inward grace.” I’ve always thought that the sacrements were incredibly important, but reducing the initiation rite sacrements into children should get them done as soon as possible seems to reduce them in meaning to the participants.

How? Does Baptizing infants reduce the Sacrament in meaning to the child being Baptized? I would certainly say not.

Frankly, if you are looking for the emotional “kick,” it’s better to have Confirmation a few years after First Communion instead of in high school. Kids are much more likely to be enthusiastic at age 8 or 9 than when they are in their teen years and being programmed to be cynical and doubting.

 

[aemcpa]

However, with that being said I think there is a distinction about starting the rites of initiation versus completing them.

Fair point.

However as children grow older coercing them into getting the sacrements seems to be the exact opposite of getting “inward grace.”

This is exactly why many argue that they should receive the Sacraments earlier, while they are still innocent and open to receiving the grace of the Sacraments.

I’ve always thought that the sacrements were incredibly important, but reducing the initiation rite sacrements into children should get them done as soon as possible seems to reduce them in meaning to the participants.

Only if they are not subsequently formed in the faith and taught to appreciate the gift of God’s grace. I appreciate my baptism more now than I ever have, and I am thankful that my parents had me baptized at 18 days old rather than waiting months or years, or God forbid leave it up to me. I am also thankful that I was confirmed at age 11 - I honestly believe that the grace of that sacrament is what protected me from further spiritual disaster in high school and ultimately led me back to the Church in college.

 

[Phemie]

How? Does Baptizing infants reduce the Sacrament in meaning to the child being Baptized? I would certainly say not.

Frankly, if you are looking for the emotional “kick,” it’s better to have Confirmation a few years after First Communion instead of in high school. ** Kids are much more likely to be enthusiastic at age 8 or 9 than when they are in their teen years and being programmed to be cynical and doubting**.

And if I had any doubts about that they were swept away the year I prepared 6 & 7 year olds for Confirmation and First Communion and then sat in on my 15 year old son’s Confirmation preparation. THAT was an eye opener.

 

[Joe_5859]

I do feel like Confirmation could be a choice for a little later. When I received it as a teenager I was definitely not ready, and I definitely did not want it. But I would have loved to have received in my mid-20s when I started coming back to the Church. I even asked my mom if I could redo Confirmation, but she said you only receive it once. I feel like it was a waste of a great experience.

I think one has to be careful about this mindset. Receiving a sacrament is about entering into a life of grace, not having a singular “great experience.” Grace is never wasted. Even now, the graces and gifts you received at your Confirmation are at work in your life.

I think the simple fact is that we will never arrive at a moment where we fully understand a sacrament. How can you possibly expect to understand a sacrament without the grace of that sacrament to help you?

The Church’s requirements for understanding prior to receiving the sacraments are actually very basic. And this is as it should be. We shouldn’t expect people to be theologians or mystics before allowing them to partake of the life of grace. It is enough for them to have a basic understanding and a desire to receive it.

 

[stlcatholic86]

How? Does Baptizing infants reduce the Sacrament in meaning to the child being Baptized? I would certainly say not.

Frankly, if you are looking for the emotional “kick,” it’s better to have Confirmation a few years after First Communion instead of in high school. Kids are much more likely to be enthusiastic at age 8 or 9 than when they are in their teen years and being programmed to be cynical and doubting.

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.

I think cynicism and doubt are important to our faith. It’s a heck of an experience to wander and then to return. It seems a lot of people on this forum left and return and it has only made their faith stronger.