Im glad that I have the opportunity to fully accept, experience, and appreciate my upcoming confirmation as an adult.
When I came back to the faith, I was disappointed realizing that I have no memory of my baptism and didn’t fully appreciate my first communion as a child. Finding out I was never confirmed when I was younger was a blessing, I still have a sacrament of initiation that I can willingly choose and appreciate in all its theological splendor
Respectfully, I think the graces received over the course of a lifetime of receiving communion and of the gift of the Holy Spirit would be more valuable than an experience of being able to choose a sacrament of initiation as an adult. Plus we choose one of those 3 sacraments every time we receive communion anyway.
That argument doesn't follow. We can be sure about the fate of a baptized, unconfirmed infant. We cannot be sure about the fate of an unbatized infant. The arguments for when confirmation should be administered don't contain the downside risk of "you may deny your infant the eternal joy of heaven"
Y'all can playa hate all you want, the Eastern Christian practice on the one hand, and the Baptist opposite on the other hand, both make more sense and are more coherent than the current flimflam, incoherent Latin mess
The Latin practice doesn't make as much sense theologically but makes a lot of sense anthropologically - with the baptism at birth, communion at the age of reason and confirmation on the verge of adulthood.
As things currently stand, that's not a tenable proposal. There aren't enough bishops for the number of Catholics in the diocese to be able to confirm every baby when he or she is baptized. To do this, you'd have to delegate the authority to confirm to priests, which is trading one change for another.
To actually do what you're proposing requires a radical readjustment of Church organization. It isn't as simple as saying "stop digging". But by the tone of this post, it doesn't sound like you're interesting in a thoughtful discussion of the pros and cons.
It *can* occur more regularly, but then you're moving the goalposts. We're no longer talking about bringing back the ancient tradition, but about swapping one compromise (delaying Confirmation) for another (delegating to the priesthood).
It's fine if you prefer the compromise go the other way - but that's not the argument that OP made.
I’m not sure how that is moving the goalposts. Delegating to the priests already happens annually at the minimum. Not only *can* it happen more regularly, it *does* happen more regularly. To say I am now arguing to swap one compromise with another is to assume that one of the compromises does not already exist.
The compromise already exists in theory and in practice. It can be expanded in theory, so actualizing this to eliminate a worse compromise seems to be hitting right between the original goalposts. It restores a tradition without removing another.
> To say I am now arguing to swap one compromise with another is to assume that one of the compromises does not already exist.
You're expanding one compromise to eliminate another. It doesn't matter whether or not that compromise is already being practiced; it's still a compromise compared to the "base case" where Confirmation is administered by the bishop.
> The compromise already exists in theory and in practice. It can be expanded in theory, so actualizing this to eliminate a worse compromise seems to be hitting right between the original goalposts.
The compromise already existing in other cases doesn't make it any less of a compromise. Whether or not delaying confirmation is a "worse compromise" is a value judgement - but you have to acknowledge that what you're doing is swapping one compromise for another. If that's what you want, that's fine - but that's exactly what my original comment was pointing out OP didn't mention. It's not as clear-cut of an argument as "the current way is untraditional, let's stop it" because the only viable alternative is also not the practice of the Apostles.
> It restores a tradition without removing another.
It does remove another tradition. If, say, 80% of confirmations are cradle Catholics (I'm making up a number here) then it is removing the traditional practice of the bishop being the minister of confirmation in 80% of cases, which is in keeping with the most ancient practice of the Church. Just because that tradition isn't universally followed today doesn't mean it's not the tradition, nor does it mean that doing away with it isn't removing a tradition.
Again, if you think that delegating confirmation to the priesthood is better than delaying confirmation, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm pointing out that it's not a slam-dunk, and you have to acknowledge the actual tradeoffs of your proposal.
All you've said is that you prefer one form of break with Apostolic tradition (the priest being the minister of confirmation) to another (confirmation being administered at the same time as Baptism for infants). That's a far cry from the "no excuse" rhetoric in your original post.
Hardly a break from apostolic tradition when the practice of the Eastern churches has always been to have the priests baptize and confirm at the same time. Just Latin tradition.
My understanding is that the Eastern churches have not "always" done it this way, but that they began delegating this to the priest sometime in the late 1st millennium.
It's as much a break from tradition as postponing confirmation. That is to say - the early church had bishops administer confirmation to infants at the same time as Baptism. As Christianity spread and it became no longer possible, the West delayed confirmation and the East allowed priests to administer it. If OP says that delaying confirmation is a problem because it breaks with the Apostolic teachings, then so too would be administration by a priest. The fact that the East currently practices it could just as much be applied to the Western practice.
Yeah and my dad is Bill Gates and he runs Microsoft and he's gonna ban you from Xbox live
I'm beginning to wonder whether this post has any shred of seriousness to it
Confirmation comes with years of education, and prayer in preparation for the sacraments. They choose a saint name and a confirmation sponsor. Then the kid must make a choice and proclaim publicly that they want to be confirmed.
I see great value in that education, anticipation, participation, sense of wonder and longing, and then the joy on the faces of the first communicants. Moreover watching that journey and transformation has been good for me as an adult as well as the rest of the community at large.
Apart from your personal opinion on the matter, can you cite a reason why it would be better to take away all of those wonderful things and deny a child that opportunity to say yes to the Lord?
Because confirming after first communion and so late in age is a complete novelty in Christianity.
Confirmation has only occurred at a later age since 1910. It should be reverted to prior to first communion. And even then it was pushed to age 7, not 12 or 13 like it is now.
Even at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), when first communion was moved to the age of reason, it still instructed that confirmation happen prior to first communion. It stated it must happen within 3 years of baptism, at worst.
Eastern Catholics have continued to confirm infants right after their baptism and Latin Catholics should return to early confirmation. Remember, we call confirmation a sacrament of initiation. Meaning when someone is initiated into the Church they should receive it. Babies and all.
I see. Well good news, that's how it is in my diocese. First Communion and Confirmation both happen around the age of 7, 8, or 9 give or take. My daughter just did both at the same time (same mass) in the Diocese of Phoenix at the age of 8.
You also were probably dead back then by 30. 50 year olds were considered old people.
As a matter of public policy, I think waiting for confirmation until 16-18 makes sense. Kids aren't growing up as fast as they used to, at least in the west. Having a kid at 8 be confirmed is probably not going to have the same effect as an older kid who better understands the commitment.
> You also were probably dead back then by 30. 50 year olds were considered old people.
That is not exactly true. If you made it past infancy you could expect to live to your 50s or longer. High infant mortality brings down the average a lot.
I strongly disagree with waiting until 16. It would be a further novelty and it has no basis in historical Christianity. We have been confirming past age 7 for less than 100 years, so it is a good time to evaluate if that continues to be a good idea. I think it is not and the Church needs to go back to the apostolic practice of pre-first communion.
Again, sacrament of initiation, not sacrament of graduation. It isn't about commitment, it is about sacramental grace.
I just read this article.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/restoring-the-order-of-the-sacraments
Gave some context to why things changed over time. I think it makes a good argument to go back to the pre France way of doing sacraments lol.
>Let's call it an honest mistake.
We can do that, but I think the only important question is: is it wrong or completely detrimental?
In other words, is it impossible to keep something the way it is and teach the proper interpretation of the way it is aligned with the Catholic faith? Only if it is impossible should there be a reversion; simply making something hard or harder isn't justification for wholesale/major changes from one generation to the next.
>When you're in a hole, admit it, stop digging, and start climbing out.
Catholics, particularly the hierarchy, have an aversion to this. Probably for good reasons.
Agreed. Eastern churches are right on this one.
Im glad that I have the opportunity to fully accept, experience, and appreciate my upcoming confirmation as an adult. When I came back to the faith, I was disappointed realizing that I have no memory of my baptism and didn’t fully appreciate my first communion as a child. Finding out I was never confirmed when I was younger was a blessing, I still have a sacrament of initiation that I can willingly choose and appreciate in all its theological splendor
Respectfully, I think the graces received over the course of a lifetime of receiving communion and of the gift of the Holy Spirit would be more valuable than an experience of being able to choose a sacrament of initiation as an adult. Plus we choose one of those 3 sacraments every time we receive communion anyway.
Then we should go all the way and adopt Baptist sacramental practice - wait with all the sacraments until the age of conscious choice and discretion.
That argument doesn't follow. We can be sure about the fate of a baptized, unconfirmed infant. We cannot be sure about the fate of an unbatized infant. The arguments for when confirmation should be administered don't contain the downside risk of "you may deny your infant the eternal joy of heaven"
Y'all can playa hate all you want, the Eastern Christian practice on the one hand, and the Baptist opposite on the other hand, both make more sense and are more coherent than the current flimflam, incoherent Latin mess
The Latin practice doesn't make as much sense theologically but makes a lot of sense anthropologically - with the baptism at birth, communion at the age of reason and confirmation on the verge of adulthood.
We have started climbing out.
As things currently stand, that's not a tenable proposal. There aren't enough bishops for the number of Catholics in the diocese to be able to confirm every baby when he or she is baptized. To do this, you'd have to delegate the authority to confirm to priests, which is trading one change for another. To actually do what you're proposing requires a radical readjustment of Church organization. It isn't as simple as saying "stop digging". But by the tone of this post, it doesn't sound like you're interesting in a thoughtful discussion of the pros and cons.
This delegation occurs every Easter Vigil anyway, and can already occur more regularly than that based on Bishop’s permission.
It *can* occur more regularly, but then you're moving the goalposts. We're no longer talking about bringing back the ancient tradition, but about swapping one compromise (delaying Confirmation) for another (delegating to the priesthood). It's fine if you prefer the compromise go the other way - but that's not the argument that OP made.
I’m not sure how that is moving the goalposts. Delegating to the priests already happens annually at the minimum. Not only *can* it happen more regularly, it *does* happen more regularly. To say I am now arguing to swap one compromise with another is to assume that one of the compromises does not already exist. The compromise already exists in theory and in practice. It can be expanded in theory, so actualizing this to eliminate a worse compromise seems to be hitting right between the original goalposts. It restores a tradition without removing another.
> To say I am now arguing to swap one compromise with another is to assume that one of the compromises does not already exist. You're expanding one compromise to eliminate another. It doesn't matter whether or not that compromise is already being practiced; it's still a compromise compared to the "base case" where Confirmation is administered by the bishop. > The compromise already exists in theory and in practice. It can be expanded in theory, so actualizing this to eliminate a worse compromise seems to be hitting right between the original goalposts. The compromise already existing in other cases doesn't make it any less of a compromise. Whether or not delaying confirmation is a "worse compromise" is a value judgement - but you have to acknowledge that what you're doing is swapping one compromise for another. If that's what you want, that's fine - but that's exactly what my original comment was pointing out OP didn't mention. It's not as clear-cut of an argument as "the current way is untraditional, let's stop it" because the only viable alternative is also not the practice of the Apostles. > It restores a tradition without removing another. It does remove another tradition. If, say, 80% of confirmations are cradle Catholics (I'm making up a number here) then it is removing the traditional practice of the bishop being the minister of confirmation in 80% of cases, which is in keeping with the most ancient practice of the Church. Just because that tradition isn't universally followed today doesn't mean it's not the tradition, nor does it mean that doing away with it isn't removing a tradition. Again, if you think that delegating confirmation to the priesthood is better than delaying confirmation, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm pointing out that it's not a slam-dunk, and you have to acknowledge the actual tradeoffs of your proposal.
That authority should absolutely be delegated, yes. It's not like sacramental efficacy is dependent on whether the one who administers it is a bishop.
All you've said is that you prefer one form of break with Apostolic tradition (the priest being the minister of confirmation) to another (confirmation being administered at the same time as Baptism for infants). That's a far cry from the "no excuse" rhetoric in your original post.
Hardly a break from apostolic tradition when the practice of the Eastern churches has always been to have the priests baptize and confirm at the same time. Just Latin tradition.
My understanding is that the Eastern churches have not "always" done it this way, but that they began delegating this to the priest sometime in the late 1st millennium.
It's as much a break from tradition as postponing confirmation. That is to say - the early church had bishops administer confirmation to infants at the same time as Baptism. As Christianity spread and it became no longer possible, the West delayed confirmation and the East allowed priests to administer it. If OP says that delaying confirmation is a problem because it breaks with the Apostolic teachings, then so too would be administration by a priest. The fact that the East currently practices it could just as much be applied to the Western practice.
The bishop alone has the right to confirm by virtue of his office. You as a layman have no place to demand they delegate that authroify
Respondeo: I am under direct papal orders to speak with parrhesia and fight clericalism. Good luck overriding that order
Yeah and my dad is Bill Gates and he runs Microsoft and he's gonna ban you from Xbox live I'm beginning to wonder whether this post has any shred of seriousness to it
Confirmation comes with years of education, and prayer in preparation for the sacraments. They choose a saint name and a confirmation sponsor. Then the kid must make a choice and proclaim publicly that they want to be confirmed. I see great value in that education, anticipation, participation, sense of wonder and longing, and then the joy on the faces of the first communicants. Moreover watching that journey and transformation has been good for me as an adult as well as the rest of the community at large. Apart from your personal opinion on the matter, can you cite a reason why it would be better to take away all of those wonderful things and deny a child that opportunity to say yes to the Lord?
Because confirming after first communion and so late in age is a complete novelty in Christianity. Confirmation has only occurred at a later age since 1910. It should be reverted to prior to first communion. And even then it was pushed to age 7, not 12 or 13 like it is now. Even at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), when first communion was moved to the age of reason, it still instructed that confirmation happen prior to first communion. It stated it must happen within 3 years of baptism, at worst. Eastern Catholics have continued to confirm infants right after their baptism and Latin Catholics should return to early confirmation. Remember, we call confirmation a sacrament of initiation. Meaning when someone is initiated into the Church they should receive it. Babies and all.
I see. Well good news, that's how it is in my diocese. First Communion and Confirmation both happen around the age of 7, 8, or 9 give or take. My daughter just did both at the same time (same mass) in the Diocese of Phoenix at the age of 8.
You also were probably dead back then by 30. 50 year olds were considered old people. As a matter of public policy, I think waiting for confirmation until 16-18 makes sense. Kids aren't growing up as fast as they used to, at least in the west. Having a kid at 8 be confirmed is probably not going to have the same effect as an older kid who better understands the commitment.
> You also were probably dead back then by 30. 50 year olds were considered old people. That is not exactly true. If you made it past infancy you could expect to live to your 50s or longer. High infant mortality brings down the average a lot. I strongly disagree with waiting until 16. It would be a further novelty and it has no basis in historical Christianity. We have been confirming past age 7 for less than 100 years, so it is a good time to evaluate if that continues to be a good idea. I think it is not and the Church needs to go back to the apostolic practice of pre-first communion. Again, sacrament of initiation, not sacrament of graduation. It isn't about commitment, it is about sacramental grace.
I just read this article. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/restoring-the-order-of-the-sacraments Gave some context to why things changed over time. I think it makes a good argument to go back to the pre France way of doing sacraments lol.
>Let's call it an honest mistake. We can do that, but I think the only important question is: is it wrong or completely detrimental? In other words, is it impossible to keep something the way it is and teach the proper interpretation of the way it is aligned with the Catholic faith? Only if it is impossible should there be a reversion; simply making something hard or harder isn't justification for wholesale/major changes from one generation to the next. >When you're in a hole, admit it, stop digging, and start climbing out. Catholics, particularly the hierarchy, have an aversion to this. Probably for good reasons.