T
terryobrien80
Guest
Not if he was an adult and was LYING when he renewed his Baptismal vows. I though that was the issue.
- Status
H
Hesychios
Guest
I disagree, I don’t see the Holy Spirit being frustrated or denied by the will of a person. It is like conjuring…summoning the Holy Spirit of God or dismissing Him at will.
The implications for sacramental theology are very grave, it seems (at least to me, at this point) to attack the foundation of the sacrament itself.
But I now suggest the proper place for this question is the “ask an apologist” section. I’m out.
A
ahannah
Guest
Western. He was in the eighth grade.
A
ahannah
Guest
I will direct the question to an apologist.
A
ahannah
Guest
I meant to say “if a person is unwillingly confirmed.” I apologize for any confusion this caused…
T
terryobrien80
Guest
Then I’m sticking by my guns. If he was lying when the Bishop led the renewal of baptismal promises then I don’t think the sacrament was valid.Western. He was in the eighth grade.
You should ask an aplogist, and make the situation clear.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Hmmm. I see what you’re saying, but…
…what if (and granted, this is a hypothetical), some baptized person were to be brought in, hog-tied and definitely against his will, forcibly confirmed?
Yes, a bit silly scenerio nowadays, but in the middle ages quite a possibility (the forcible part, anyway).
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
A friend of mine got confirmed because it was expected of him by his family, and he didn’t want to disappoint them. But he did not believe in Catholicism at the time of his confirmation. Does the sacrament still take place?
**He may have received the Mystery of Confirmation to his own damnation, just like an unbeliever receiving Communion or Baptism.
But he truly received this Sacrament.
But it is possible for the Sacrament of Confirmation to “revive” (in theological language), that is, to take effect upon his repentance, and there would be no need to repeat it.**
**He may have received the Mystery of Confirmation to his own damnation, just like an unbeliever receiving Communion or Baptism.
But he truly received this Sacrament.
But it is possible for the Sacrament of Confirmation to “revive” (in theological language), that is, to take effect upon his repentance, and there would be no need to repeat it.**
R
rpp
Guest
After sleeping on this, and reviewing posts here from some very bright and insightful people, I am going to reverse my earlier position.
The confirmation would be valid.
Now, let me say why I think it would be.
Confirmation leaves an indelible mark on the soul. In addition, some (many? most?) Eastern Churches, and possibly Orthodox Churches not in communion with Rome as well, often perform baptism and confirmation, and even first communion at the same and this is administered to infants. Thus, personal consent is not a necessary part of the sacrament.
Now, if as an adult, consent was not honestly given, or later withdrawn (a person falls away from the faith), that would not invalidate the sacrament.
Comparing this sacrament to confession or matrimony, which I did earlier, is not entirely correct as those sacraments can be repeated (in the case of matrimony, only after the death of a spouse). Like baptism, confirmation cannot be repeated.
Thus the confirmation of someone old enough to give consent, who actually rejects Church teaching, but pretends to go along would indeed be valid. However, it would be ineffective and may be sacrilegious.
The confirmation would be valid.
Now, let me say why I think it would be.
Confirmation leaves an indelible mark on the soul. In addition, some (many? most?) Eastern Churches, and possibly Orthodox Churches not in communion with Rome as well, often perform baptism and confirmation, and even first communion at the same and this is administered to infants. Thus, personal consent is not a necessary part of the sacrament.
Now, if as an adult, consent was not honestly given, or later withdrawn (a person falls away from the faith), that would not invalidate the sacrament.
Comparing this sacrament to confession or matrimony, which I did earlier, is not entirely correct as those sacraments can be repeated (in the case of matrimony, only after the death of a spouse). Like baptism, confirmation cannot be repeated.
Thus the confirmation of someone old enough to give consent, who actually rejects Church teaching, but pretends to go along would indeed be valid. However, it would be ineffective and may be sacrilegious.
A
ahannah
Guest
After reading everything that has been posted, here is the best conclusion that I can draw:
It makes sense for the sacrament to have been valid, since all of the criteria for a proper confirmation were met. However, since the person being confirmed did not have the proper disposition to receive the sacrament, it would also stand to reason that he did not receive the gifts normally bestowed by the sacrament - nor would he receive them unless he genuinely “returned” to the Church. (I use the word “returned” loosely since by baptism he is still Catholic in the Church’s eyes.)
Unfortunately, this still does not solidly answer my more pressing question of whether or not by receiving the sacrament of Confirmation, my friend has basically condemned himself to Hell. My friend does not outright deny the existence of God; he is essentially Agnostic now; he believes there is a greater power out there, but he remains uncertain if that power is the Being that we Catholics call God. He has a hard and fast set of morals that he tried very hard to follow, the majority of which are consistent with the teachings of the Catholic church. In my mind I have trouble believing that a merciful God would condemn to Hell a person who spends his or her whole life striving to do what is morally good and proper. I believe God understands that not everyone is easily capable of automatically believing in His presence. (He made us, after all.) So I submit that maybe my friend does not (at least at the present) have enough faith to take God or Catholicism or even Christianity at face value. Therefore, he is not culpable for is unbelief, as long as he leads a good life in search of truth. In my heart, I believe that God might still welcome my friend into Heaven.
But I am human, so I started this thread to get other viewpoints and feedback about this situation. I do not want to remain ignorant, and where my thinking is flawed, I would like to know so that I may readjust my way of thinking. I am looking for answers, but I fear that I may be more confused now than I was before, so I sincerely hope that an apologist will address this question that I sent them…
In the meantime, I would still like to hear what everybody has to say, but I ask that people take care not to blatantly attack other people’s posts. It accomplishes nothing, there are more tactful ways to go about it, and it is not a very Christian thing to do. Also, I would point out that this thread is severely lacking credible sources for information; so if anyone knows of any good, relevant, websites, please feel free to post them.
It makes sense for the sacrament to have been valid, since all of the criteria for a proper confirmation were met. However, since the person being confirmed did not have the proper disposition to receive the sacrament, it would also stand to reason that he did not receive the gifts normally bestowed by the sacrament - nor would he receive them unless he genuinely “returned” to the Church. (I use the word “returned” loosely since by baptism he is still Catholic in the Church’s eyes.)
Unfortunately, this still does not solidly answer my more pressing question of whether or not by receiving the sacrament of Confirmation, my friend has basically condemned himself to Hell. My friend does not outright deny the existence of God; he is essentially Agnostic now; he believes there is a greater power out there, but he remains uncertain if that power is the Being that we Catholics call God. He has a hard and fast set of morals that he tried very hard to follow, the majority of which are consistent with the teachings of the Catholic church. In my mind I have trouble believing that a merciful God would condemn to Hell a person who spends his or her whole life striving to do what is morally good and proper. I believe God understands that not everyone is easily capable of automatically believing in His presence. (He made us, after all.) So I submit that maybe my friend does not (at least at the present) have enough faith to take God or Catholicism or even Christianity at face value. Therefore, he is not culpable for is unbelief, as long as he leads a good life in search of truth. In my heart, I believe that God might still welcome my friend into Heaven.
But I am human, so I started this thread to get other viewpoints and feedback about this situation. I do not want to remain ignorant, and where my thinking is flawed, I would like to know so that I may readjust my way of thinking. I am looking for answers, but I fear that I may be more confused now than I was before, so I sincerely hope that an apologist will address this question that I sent them…
In the meantime, I would still like to hear what everybody has to say, but I ask that people take care not to blatantly attack other people’s posts. It accomplishes nothing, there are more tactful ways to go about it, and it is not a very Christian thing to do. Also, I would point out that this thread is severely lacking credible sources for information; so if anyone knows of any good, relevant, websites, please feel free to post them.
R
rpp
Guest
Referring to the section in in bold…
No one can know the state or disposition of the soul of another person. The Church has never infallibly taught that a particular person is in Hell. (The Church, when she canonizes a saint does infallibly declare they are in Heaven.)
While we cannot know for certain if a person is in bound for Hell, we can do know that those who knowingly separate themselves from the Church knowing what the Church teaches put their immortal soul in grave peril. That is as far as we can go.
T
terryobrien80
Guest
ahannah, have you asked the apologists yet? If you do, post a link
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
A person would not condemn themselves by receiving a Sacrament with indifference, they very well could if intentionally committed sacrilege. Which it does not sound like your friend did. If he received the Sacrament of Confirmation unknowingly in a state of Mortal sin and goes to Confession now, he could possibly receive the grace of the Sacrament that was blocked at the time the Sacrament was received.
T
terryobrien80
Guest
What if a person lied while repeating after the Bishop the Baptismal vows? Would that invalidate the sacrament?
A
ahannah
Guest
I have submitted the question to the apologists. If it is answered I will definitely post the link here. 
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
The only thing that would INVALIDATE the Sacrament is if something was wrong with the actual celebration of the Sacrament. The person was not a Bishop or acting under the authority of the Bishop, did not lay hands on the person or say the proper words.
C
Corki
Guest
I can’t think of anything the person being confirmed could do or not do that would make the Sacrament invalid. This is IMHO a reflection of a few decades of making Confirmation into a Sacrament that is tied to what young people DO. It is a Sacrament we RECEIVE, not something we DO. The Bishop “does” Confirmation, the person passively receives it.
When we talk about a Sacrament needed valid intent, in the case of Confirmation, it is only the intent of the Bishop that matters. If he intended to impart the Sacrament and uses the proper form - it’s done.
The only exception to validity that wasn’t tied to the actions or intent of the Bishop would be (possibly) if the person presenting him/herself for Confirmation wasn’t already Baptized.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Well, many of us older Catholics can tell you about when we received Confirmation and how we didn’t know what we were doing, but it ended our being forced to attend CCD.
Today, there is more emphasis in teaching young people that receiving the Sacrament is their decision, not their parents. In my parish, the pastor interviews each candidate and there have been some, who’s parents left the Church because the pastor would not allow the unwilling child to receive Confirmation, just to please them.
Jim
Today, there is more emphasis in teaching young people that receiving the Sacrament is their decision, not their parents. In my parish, the pastor interviews each candidate and there have been some, who’s parents left the Church because the pastor would not allow the unwilling child to receive Confirmation, just to please them.
Jim
A
AJV
Guest
I’m not sure about such a blanket statement vis the marriage but:
In all sacraments, as you know, the scholastics speak of the “matter” and “form”, matter being divided into proximate matter and remote matter.
With regard to penance, sins are the “remote matter”. Some theologians, following the opinion of St. Thomas held that the confession itself was part of the proximate matter. If one goes with that theory, then the sacrament is obviously invalid since the matter is lacking.
When one examines the sacrament from a juridical viewpoint, it becomes simpler. A judge passes a verdict based on the accusation. If something was wrong about the accusation, then the verdict has to be re-evaluated. Or if you take it from a medicinal viewpoint: the doctor’s diagnosis is dependent on the patient’s medical information. Likewise, the absolution of the priest is dependent upon a sincere confession of all sins.
With regard to marriage, in the Latin Church, the couple are the ministers and the ‘matrimonial contract’ * provides the matter and the form- that being expressed through consent as in the vows. A contract is made with certain assurances- in the case of matrimony, the duties of the Christian marriage. It thus follows that certain types of falsehoods break the assurances of the contract. Equally, in the minister of the sacrament, the correct intention is required. In the Latin Church, the couple are the ministers- thus lying (in certain cases) can also involve a defect in intention.
None of this applies to Confirmation. In Confirmation, the minister is the bishop, or priest delegated. The remote matter is the chrism, the proximate matter the application to the forehead with the hand. Hence the sacrament can be validly conferred (as long as there are no other impediments like the person is not-baptised or is dead). That does not mean that the grace is automatically received since the recipient can hinder it by mortal sins.
The reception of sacrament is invalid if the recipient is an adult but does not intend to receive the Sacrament. But this is different from disbelief, lack of faith, lack of belief in the effects of the Sacrament, etc. The intention to receive a sacrament is not the intention to profess the faith of the Church. Thus lying to a question like “Do you believe in the communion of saints?” has no impact on validity but lying to a question like “Is it your wish to be confirmed?” does.
For example, one can say mentally “OK fine, I’ll receive what this dumb Church is conferring on me” and he will receive the sacramental ‘seal’ of Confirmation but NOT the grace because of disbelief.
*I suppose I should more accurately say covenant which all valid Christian marriage contracts are
A
ahannah
Guest
Well, Folks, I directed these questions to the apologists; but it has been more than five days, so I suppose my questions aren’t going to be answered. I tried…
- Status