Why do we not ask more questions before confirming youth?

[SonCatcher]

If someone can give me a link or something as to why did the time of confirmation change from infancy to young adult or in some cases 7 or 8 year olds?

That had to do perhaps with the expansion of the Presbyterate. Originally, only the bishop would Chrismate the neophyte, whether adult or infant. As the Church grew, the number of Catholics under the care of the bishop also grew. In time it became simply impossible for the bishop to be present at every baptism. In the East, the practice retained its connection to Baptism and Eucharist to emphasize the unity of these three sacraments at the cost of its unity with bishop (that is, priests confer all three sacraments in the same liturgy). In the West, the connection of the sacrament and believer to the bishop was emphasized, at the cost of displacing the sacrament temporally from Baptism. Only under certain circumstances does the bishop delegate Confirmation to the priest.

I learned this in a spiritual conference so I don’t have a link to share.

 

[babochka]

People should be very wary of “I personally think” responses that oppose church teaching. If they are unsatisfied with the Latin Rite they should ask the bishop’s permission to join another rite instead of poisoning the thoughts of others!

Wow. That’s pretty strong language. Those who support the restored order of the sacraments of initiation are in no way opposed to church teaching. Even current canon law clearly allows for Confirmation to be conferred between the age of reason and 18, with the age to be set by the diocesan Bishop. As for having a personal opinion that all three Sacraments should be received at the same time, in infancy, that doesn’t oppose church teaching. It is only an opinion contrary to current church discipline.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I disagree. The restoration is of the ORDER of the sacraments. Baptism and Confirmation should precede Eucharist even when separated temporally.

It does not make sense that Eucharist precedes Confirmation even in the West as all theological discussion including the CCC teaches this order.

Despite the order, it was never practiced in the past that the Sacraments were given so far apart from one another. That is why I said there is no restoration. They may have been faithful to the order the Sacraments were given, but the fact that there is still considerable time in between them means it still is a different practice. Also don’t forget that Confession will still come before First Communion, something that does not happen if you are baptized, chrismated and Communed on the same day.

 

[PleaseDoNotLOL]

Remember, parents are the primary educators of their children in the faith. So we must first look at how and why our parents might have failed us in that regard. The Church provides eucation also, but it is secondary to the family. On a local level this might be lived out in a better or worse manner, but the Church as a whole provides GOBS of teaching, we have but to pay attention to it

I agree that the parents play the biggest part. Mine set wonderful examples in my youth and were never hypocritical. However, at my age it’s a little different, and I’d hate for any parent to feel they have in anyway “failed” to do their job when their kid is no longer their “kid” and a grown adult on their own. I talk to my parents openingly and the rest of my family and church community. My family is still holding to their principles strongly. But, it’s me.

“true Catholic”? What does that even mean? The Church is already pretty “demanding”. In order to be considered a practicing Catholic, a Catholic in good standing, one must assent to the Church’s teachings. It’s pretty clear

I’m starting to feel that I can no longer be a Catholic in good standing. To me a “true Catholic” is what you said, one must assent to the Church’s teachings. I’m not sure if I can do that. Sorry I’m being brief, but there are a few things, no matter how many explainations I get, I have a hard time believing these things to be true in my heart. How can I really call myself a Catholic if I find it impossible to believe in certain teachings?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Me four on what 1ke said. My children were confirmed “early” - at 10 and 13 - and they will say that they can feel the strength given to them in confirmation.

Education is a lifelong project. We make an assent of the will to church teaching and then learn the why and wherefores afterward if we need to.

 

[Don_Jackson]

Wow. That’s pretty strong language. Those who support the restored order of the sacraments of initiation are in no way opposed to church teaching. Even current canon law clearly allows for Confirmation to be conferred between the age of reason and 18, with the age to be set by the diocesan Bishop. As for having a personal opinion that all three Sacraments should be received at the same time, in infancy, that doesn’t oppose church teaching. It is only an opinion contrary to current church discipline.

Strong indeed. There is no room for the faint of heart in defending Roman Catholicism. If you think it no big deal walk into a local RC parish or diocese and demand a priest or bishop administer the rite to an infant immediately and see where it gets you. And demand they do it out of respect for your personal opinion.

 

[JGMendes4049]

In my diocese, the “confirming your faith” heresy would need to be squashed first.

 

[babochka]

Strong indeed. There is no room for the faint of heart in defending Roman Catholicism. If you think it no big deal walk into a local RC parish or diocese and demand a priest or bishop administer the rite to an infant immediately and see where it gets you. And demand they do it out of respect for your personal opinion.

I would certainly hope that a person who walks into a parish of any rite and demands that the priest confirm an infant immediately would not get anywhere. On the other hand, if I were to have an infant who needed life endangering surgery, I would ask and expect that the priest would be happy to administer the sacrament of Confirmation (and Baptism) if needed.

This isn’t as if we hold the personal opinion that women should be ordained to the priesthood. That would, indeed, be contrary to the Catholic faith. Confirmation of infants (or anyone) immediately after Baptism has been the universal practice in the past. It is allowed in exceptional circumstances under current canon law. It is, to this day licitly practiced in some parts of Mexico and the Philippines, and perhaps other places. How is this contrary to the faith?

 

[babochka]

In my diocese, the “confirming your faith” heresy would need to be squashed first.

That is easily enough accomplished. The Bishop makes the announcement that children are to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation prior to their First Communion, perhaps even at the same Mass. This is accompanied by the same sort of education campaign that was used with the recent change in translation. Children in religious education are taught the proper meaning of the Sacrament and so are their parents. It takes one generation, maybe two. It has been only 100 years since we started Confirming after the reception of Holy Communion, yet everyone believes this is the way things have always been done. As soon as you and I and anyone else over 25 or so are gone, everyone will think the “new” way is the way it has always been done and a more correct understanding of the sacrament will have taken hold.

 

[Vico]

Apparently it is not necessary to ask more questions before confirmation. It is the strengthening of the Holy Spirit that is most important, and for the Latin Church understanding of the sacrament. See item 6, in agreement with TG Constantine.CIC Can. 879 The sacrament of confirmation confers a character. By it the baptized continue their path of Christian initiation. They are enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit, and are more closely linked to the Church. They are made strong and more firmly obliged by word and deed to witness to Christ and to spread and defend the faith.

Can. 890 The faithful are bound to receive this sacrament at the proper time. Parents and pastors of souls, especially parish priests, are to see that the faithful are properly instructed to receive the sacrament and come to it at the opportune time.
In the July/August 2011 issue of *New Earth, *Diocese of Fargo stated that the children “receive first reconciliation in their parishes when they are in second grade. When they are in third grade, they receive both confirmation and first Eucharist during a Mass celebrated by the bishop”.

So second grade first Confession is about age 7-8. So then they wait one more year for sacraments of Confirmation and first Eucharist age 8-9. Quite a contrast from later Confirmation ages.

1. From apostolic times until about the fifth century the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation were given in one continuous rite of initiation, which culminated in a Christian’s admission to the Eucharist.
2. In the Middle Ages (5th-13th centuries) Baptism and First Eucharist were administered together at infancy, with a later Confirmation by the bishop in very early childhood.
3. During the thirteenth to sixteenth century, infant Baptism was the norm but Confirmation was celebrated at the age of discretion (seven), with First Eucharist between the ages of ten and fourteen.
4. By the sixteenth century until the nineteenth century infant baptism was the norm, Confirmation was between seven and fifteen years, followed by First Eucharist.
5. In modern times infant baptism, First Eucharist at the age of discretion, and Confirmation between seven and eighteen became common.
6. The restored order for children is similar to that of the sixteenth century, but early, and for adults, RCIA, is like apostolic times, so *it is not a full restoration *to before the fifth century.
7. BCE
8. BE…C
9. B…C…E
10. B…CE
11. B…E…C
12. B…CE

americancatholicpress.org…ur_Spirit.html

 

[benjammin]

Why are so many people saying they want confirmation to be younger? I always thought of it as becoming an adult in the church, and a full member. Why not make it older, but emphasize that a person must fully believe in all the church teachings. MAybe this way we’d get less Cafeteria Catholics who feel they are full members of the church and people would take it more seriously rather than just having everyone confirmed as a baby.

 

[Vico]

Why are so many people saying they want confirmation to be younger? I always thought of it as becoming an adult in the church, and a full member. Why not make it older, but emphasize that a person must fully believe in all the church teachings. MAybe this way we’d get less Cafeteria Catholics who feel they are full members of the church and people would take it more seriously rather than just having everyone confirmed as a baby.

It is from the bishops. Pope Benedict favors this restoration.
See: wdtprs.com/blog/2012/03/american-bishop-receives-kudos-from-the-pope-for-reordering-sacraments/

Diocese of Phoenix (2005):As the General Directory for Catechesis notes, initiatory catechesis encompasses more than mere instruction in the faith, “it is an apprenticeship of the entire Christian life” (GDC #67).
…
The main reason for restoring the order of the sacraments (i.e. putting Confirmation before First Communion) is to emphasize that Eucharist (Communion) is THE sacrament, which celebrates our FULL membership in the Body of Christ. It is the sacrament of ongoing growth and the sacrament of unity. The Church tells us that it “culminates” the initiation process. When it comes last in order, it calls us to renew that baptismal covenant each time we come to the Table of the Eucharist.

ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/ordsacinit.htm

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Strong indeed. There is no room for the faint of heart in defending Roman Catholicism. If you think it no big deal walk into a local RC parish or diocese and demand a priest or bishop administer the rite to an infant immediately and see where it gets you. And demand they do it out of respect for your personal opinion.

It is never a good idea to ‘demand’ anything. Have you tried asking? Asking before the child is even born? In a situation where the priest knows you and knows that you are a faithful Catholic?

If you walked into a parish or diocese and demand that a priest or bishop provide you with sacraments when they do not know you, do not know your faith, or the background, I wouldn’t be suprised if you are turned down.

Even if you come in asking for reconcilliation, there will be questions about if you are really a Catholic.

 

[Filii_Dei]

Strong indeed. There is no room for the faint of heart in defending Roman Catholicism. If you think it no big deal walk into a local RC parish or diocese and demand a priest or bishop administer the rite to an infant immediately and see where it gets you. And demand they do it out of respect for your personal opinion.

Yes, I see you are proud of the strength of your words, but it is unfortunately misplaced. There is nothing here contrary to Church teaching. Why not try walking into a local parish and demanding that the priest celebrate a Latin Mass according to the 1952 Missal immediately that evening, and see where it gets you too? It’s not contrary to Church teaching, but it’s not required discipline either.

The same logic applies. The current order of initiation is standard practice in practically all Latin dioceses, but there is no canonical impediment to it being otherwise, and in fact the Magisterium is considering moving back to the traditional practice. However, what must first change are said diocesan policies, before the priests will consider administering the sacraments of initiation in a different order, at a different age.

And all this talk of ‘demands’ is a red herring that neither proves nor disproves the argument. Whether it is a valid request or not, priests are not bellboys. It is not in our place to place demands upon them. They minister to us to serve the Lord, not administer the Lord to serve us.

 

[bilop]

Strong indeed. There is no room for the faint of heart in defending Roman Catholicism. If you think it no big deal walk into a local RC parish or diocese and demand a priest or bishop administer the rite to an infant immediately and see where it gets you. And demand they do it out of respect for your personal opinion.

Disciplines are not doctrine. Catholics are free to disagree on disciplines. They are not free to disagree on doctrine.

Examples:

1. Discipline: any Catholic is free to believe that the EF (or OF) is a poor expression of Mass, and the OF (or EF) is immeasurably superior. Doctrine: no Catholic should believe that either the EF or the OF is not a valid Mass where transubstantiation occurs.
2. Discipline: any Catholic is free to believe that the Latin Church should more regularly ordain married men. Doctrine: no Catholic should believe that already ordained priests be allowed to marry, or women be ordained.
3. Discipline: any Catholic is free to believe that a particular war meets just war criteria, even if the Pope urges peace. Doctrine: no Catholic should believe that abortion or euthanasia is ever permissibile.

God Bless

 

[Elizium23]

1. Discipline: any Catholic is free to believe that the Latin Church should more regularly ordain married men. Doctrine: no Catholic should believe that already ordained priests be allowed to marry, or women be ordained.

Just a minor derailment for a clarification here: sacred orders is a diriment impediment to matrimony that can be dispensed, but it is not doctrine that priests cannot marry. It is just vanishingly rare that it actually happens. Actually you would need two things: dispensation from the impediment and dispensation from the vow/promise of celibacy.

 

[benjohnson]

My Lutheran churches has Infant baptism where the child is anointed with chrism, then immediate following they go through confirmation where the parents, god-parents, and laity stand in for the child. The child then partakes in first communion as they are without sin.

At the age of reason, the child is instructed rigorously and then afterwards goes though an affirmation of baptism where the child recites their beliefs and creeds and affirms the promises made during confirmation.

The god-parents of my third child are Catholic, and they appreciated the confirmation after baptism . The have taken their vows seriously, and I treasure them as part of my children’s faith formation.

 

[Cider]

Thinking back 15 years ago when I was in confirmation classes, at that age I just pretty much went with whatever the church said. I remember not fulling understanding everything, and also not knowing better at the time, to ask more contriversial questions. I didn’t realize that was the time to challenge myself and start thinking for myself. So it brings me to a few questions now that I’m older.

Do you think the church confirms at too young of an age?

Does anyone think we should be asking more forward questions? And, if one disagrees with any of the below questions, should we tell them they can not be part of the church?

Here are a few of those questions I think we should be asking -

Do you, or do you not support gay rights including gay marriage?

Do you, or do you not think women should be church leaders including women as priests?

Do you, or do you not favor artificial birth control?

Do you, or do you not think the bread and wine really becomes Jesus?

I think that in order to call yourself a true Catholic, this is what the church should be more demanding of in their teachings.

No, I think the Church does not confirm too young, but too old. IMO we should go back to the earliest tradition of the Church and confirm everyone at baptism.

 

[Brendan]

Does anyone think we should be asking more forward questions? And, if one disagrees with any of the below questions,** should we tell them they can not be part of the church**?.

The error in your statement is that if they are seeking Confirmation, that means they have already been Baptized.

In other words, they already ARE a part of the Church.

What Confirmation provides is a strengthening of the Theological Virtues, including Faith, which seems to be exactly what you are calling for

 

[JimG]

I received First Communion in 2nd Grade and Confirmation in 4th Grade. Of course, that is still out of proper sacramental order. I agree with Bishop Olmsted’s change to the correct sacramental order: Baptism in Infancy, Reconciliation in Second Grade, Confirmation followed by First Eucharist in Third Grade.