What’s Confirmation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kenneyes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kenneyes

Guest
What is confirmation and does it have to be in the same faith one was baptized in?
 
From the CCC

"by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Hence they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed.

No, it does not have to be in your baptized faith
 
Someone who was baptized (validly; this would probably have to be looked into as not all non-Catholics are baptized validly) in a Protestant denomination can be confirmed in the Catholic Church if that’s what you’re asking. They would do so if they were looking to become a Catholic.
 
Last edited:
Arwing said:
Someone who was baptized (validly; this would probably have to be looked into as not all non-Catholics are baptized validly) in a Protestant denomination can be confirmed in the Catholic Church if that’s what you’re asking. They would do so if they were looking to become a Catholic.
Click to expand...
Which is what I did. 😉

Validly baptized United Methodist who converted to Catholicism with a profession of faith and confirmation. They just needed proof of baptism in the UMC (fortunately they also keep good records, and I was able to get a certificate - Protestants don’t routinely issue them like Catholics do).
 
From the old days, confirmation is “laying on of hands” … so in Acts, we see baptisms and laying on of hands, we even hear St. Paul saying, hey, don’t be so hasty to lay on hands because it requires a specific disposition to receive the Spirit.

In effect, when catholics get confirmed, they are getting “hands laid on” by a bishop/priest, who had another bishop who laid hands on him, who had another bishop lay hands on him … and by tradition and logic, we can see that confirmation, goes all the way back to the very day of Pentecost. It’s all kind of really neat to think about!
 
From what I can read here it looks like the Catholic Church sees baptism by Protestants or other churches as invalid. I don’t get why it should stricty be by the church because what happens in baptism involving a Protestant bishop is the same as what happens with a Catholic Bishop. Baptism is something which shouldn’t be considered valid by only a particular church but let’s see it as with God at the center it but not a church .
 
No, it doesn’t see them as invalid if it’s done according to the Trinitarian formula. And that is exactly what folks have said.

We former mainline Protestants (I was United Methodist, and the Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc) are validly baptized and are not rebaptized at Confirmation in the Church.

Mormons and JW’s? Not so much. Those baptisms are invalid as they are incorrect form.

(And not every Protestant church has bishops.)
 
Last edited:
Kenneyes said:
From what I can read here it looks like the Catholic Church sees baptism by Protestants or other churches as invalid. I don’t get why it should stricty be by the church because what happens in baptism involving a Protestant bishop is the same as what happens with a Catholic Bishop. Baptism is something which shouldn’t be considered valid by only a particular church but let’s see it as with God at the center it but not a church .
Click to expand...
Are you talking about baptism or confirmation? I’m not sure where you got the idea that Protestant baptisms are invalid because no one here has said that.

Protestant baptisms with the proper form, matter and intention are valid:
CCC 1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
Click to expand...
As mentioned, that is why those who are received into the Church and have already been baptized validly are not baptized again. A valid baptism imparts an indelible character on the soul; it cannot be repeated.

Now, something like a Mormon baptism would not be considered valid, as their view of the Trinity does not at all line up with the Christian’s; because they reject the true nature and meaning of the Trinity, they cannot truly baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” This prevents the proper form from being present.

If you’re talking about Confirmation, however: I’m not sure which Protestant denominations have something analogous to Confirmation, but they would not be recognized as valid because Protestants do not have apostolic succession (i.e. their ministers are not validly ordained). The minister of the sacrament of Confirmation is a validly ordained Catholic bishop, who can concede the faculty to a (validly ordained Catholic) priest when there is a serious reason for him to do so. Confirmation, the Holy Eucharist, Holy Orders, Reconciliation, and Anointing of the Sick all require valid bishops and priests, which Protestants do not have.
 
Last edited:
Episcopalians, Anglicans, and Methodists have confirmation classes.

The CCC paragraph you quoted isn’t the one about Protestant Trinitarian (“proper”) baptisms being valid. That would be this one:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

1256 states who can baptize.
 
Ah thanks, I had just done a quick search and couldn’t find that one. That puts it a lot more specifically.
 
Laughing at how huge the print is. Sorry! LOL I snipped it from the online CCC. Looks like I was trying to be cute. Oops.
 
Last edited:
Not correct. I was baptized, First Communion, and Confirmation as a Lutheran. I converted to Catholicism when RCIA wasn’t born yet, just before I married back in the day. The Catholic Church recognized the baptism and First Communion as valid, but not Confirmation. About 20 years ago, my pastor just had be walk up with the rest during the Easter Vigil with my wife as sponsor, be confirmed, and walked back to the music ministry!
 
rondirect said:
I was baptized, First Communion, and Confirmation as a Lutheran. I converted to Catholicism when RCIA wasn’t born yet, just before I married back in the day. The Catholic Church recognized the baptism and First Communion as valid, but not Confirmation. About 20 years ago, my pastor just had be walk up with the rest during the Easter Vigil with my wife as sponsor, be confirmed, and walked back to the music ministry!
Click to expand...
Baptism yes, but the Communion should not have been considered valid; Lutherans don’t have valid priesthood and therefore don’t have valid Eucharist. Really your “first Communion” would have been the first time you received as a Catholic, which I would have thought would be done at the Easter Vigil.
 
Yeah I wondered about that…I’m thinking it wasn’t the Communion, it was just the baptism.
 
The issue is a little more difficult. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to a Lutheran pastor in 1993:
“I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper.”

Within that perspective, communion as a Lutheran would be viewed as the beginning of a relationship with Christ that culminated in Catholic communion for those who become Catholic, like rondirect. There is a continuity in the relationship.

Confirmation is different. Baptism and Eucharist continued to be counted as Sacraments by Lutherans and most other Protestants. Confirmation Was not seen as having the same roots in the gospels, and elements of it were problematic for the Reformers. The Bishop’s role and the Chrism he consecrates were dropped and Lutheran confirmation became almost exclusively an adolescent rite of passage. It still shared some characteristics with Catholic confirmation, but not to the degree that we share in in Baptism and Eucharist.
 
Arwing said:
Baptism yes, but the Communion should not have been considered valid; Lutherans don’t have valid priesthood and therefore don’t have valid Eucharist. Really your “first Communion” would have been the first time you received as a Catholic, which I would have thought would be done at the Easter Vigil.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected! Well, it’s been almost 50 years ago or so! You refreshed this old memory! I visited with the pastor ( a Long Island, NY parish) a couple times. He did say that the Lutheran baptism was valid, now go to confession, and receive your first Holy Communion on Sunday with your fiancee. Not until many years later when we moved, did the pastor tell me that Confirmation was not valid either. So, I took care of that basically the same way as First Communon! I don’t believe the RCIA program was around in the late 60s for First Communion, but since I was in ministry for many years, the pastor had no issue with bypassing RCIA and going straight into the Sanctuary at the EV for Confirmation with the rest. I went straight to “GO,” and even collected $200!
 
Last edited:
First and foremost, confirmation is a means to get parents to bring teenagers to faith formation classes for two years. It can only be given to kids who are 15 years old, who have earned it through 50 hours of service, attend youth retreats, two years of classes. It is of no benefit to any child under the age of 15.
 
tafan2 said:
It is of no benefit to any child under the age of 15.
Click to expand...
I don’t know where you got that from, but it was not from the Church. You are aware that there are plenty of Catholics who were confirmed as infants, immediately after being baptized, and immediately before receiving their first Holy Communion? Are you saying that the sacrament is “of no use” to them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top