Restored Order of the Sacraments of Initiation? Confirmation and First Eucharist together? (Vanity)

Diocese of Fargo, ND via Our Sunday Visitor ^ | 3/1/2003 | Bishop Samuel Acquilla

[sinkspur]

...........6. Understanding our past often helps us better understand the needs of the present. From apostolic times until around the fifth century, the Church celebrated the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation in one continuous rite of initiation, which culminated in a Christian’s admission to the Eucharist. This practice held for persons of all ages, including children. The baptismal washing and anointing by the priest were followed by an imposition of hands and anointing by the bishop. Confirmation was seen as a natural extension of Baptism, perfecting what the Holy Spirit had accomplished in that initial sacrament. Hence, the celebration was called the double sacrament of initiation, while still two distinct sacraments (cf. CCC, nos. 1290-1291).

7. In the Middle Ages (fifth-l3th centuries), the distinction between Baptism and Confirmation grew. Due to a growing emphasis on infant Baptism and the territorial enlargement of dioceses, it became increasingly difficult for the bishop to be present to administer Confirmation in a unified rite of initiation. As a result, Baptism and First Eucharist were administered together at infancy, with a later celebration of Confirmation by the Bishop in very early childhood. As the centuries progressed, however, infant Eucharist in the West ceased, with the effect of further neglecting Confirmation. The dominant idea of Confirmation as an intensification of Baptism was supplemented with the notion of strengthening the Christian for the battle of life through the fullness of the gift of the Holy Spirit.

8. From the 13th until the 19th century, a further change occurred in the celebration of Confirmation. Although infant Baptism continued to be the norm, First Eucharist was delayed until after the age of discretion. Thus the ancient order of the three sacraments was restored but spread out in time. Confirmation was celebrated at the age of discretion (7 and above), followed by First Eucharist between the ages of 10 and 14. By the 16th century, Confirmation was celebrated between 7 and 15 years of age, followed by First Eucharist. At the close of the 19th century, the order of Confirmation before First Eucharist received papal approval.

9. The contemporary sequence of the sacraments was determined in part by Pope Pius X, who encouraged First Eucharist at the age of discretion (7 and above). This decision had the effect of placing the reception of First Eucharist before the reception of Confirmation, which would then generally occur as early as 7 and as late as 18. This order (infant Baptism, First Eucharist at the age of discretion, and Confirmation any time between 7 and 18) is the more common pastoral practice of today.

10. At the same time, various Church documents, especially the Second Vatican Council document Sacrosanctum Concilium (no. 71) and the rituals which followed it (Pope Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution on the Sacrament of Confirmation), clearly teach that the purpose of the liturgical reform of Confirmation is to restore the intimate link Confirmation has with the whole of Christian initiation. In order for that link to be clearly established, the proper and desired order of the sacraments is that of the ancient Church: Baptism, Confirmation and First Eucharist..............

[Wessex]

"change. change. change. change. change. change. change. change."


Your reaction set me thinking. The much-promoted 'reform of the reform' is now going to be a trigger for an another avalanche of novelty. Far from turning the clock back to some degree, we are now going to experience yet more tinkering to those traditional practices remaining as well as add-ons, up-dates and new versions of the new order that would make Bill Gates green with envy. 'Reform of the reform' means more reform not less. The hunger for continuous change in the world demands it and Rome will not disappoint.

[NYer]

When Nimatullah Al Hardini was canonized, JPII invited Patriarch Sfeir to concelebrate the Mass that day.

Canonization Mass - May 2004 - 6 saints, including the newest Maronite Saint - St. Nimatullah Al Hardini. The gospel was read first in Latin by a Latin Rite priest, then chanted in Arabic by this Maronite priest who then presented the Book of the Gospels to be revered by JPII, while a Maronite choir chanted the "Praise, Thanksgiving and Blessing" hymn.

At his Installation Mass, Pope Benedict XVI once again extended the invitation to Patriarch Sfeir to concelebrate that Mass.

Installation Mass of Pope Benedict XVI

Yes, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Sfeir shared a mutual respect.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

In my diocese every child went to first Communion in 2nd grade and first confession in 3rd grade, in a ridiculous reversal of the proper order.

Any Christian is free to go to confession whenever they wish. Just take your child yourself and screw the diocese.

[wideawake]

Any Christian is free to go to confession whenever they wish. Just take your child yourself and screw the diocese.

That's what I would do if confronted with the situation.

Luckily, my local parish has a good pastor who offers the Tridentine Rite to his parishioners along with the New Rite, and who prefers the old ways.

[Romulus]

good post.

[Mershon]

If the reason for promoting this were the same as the Eastern-rites reasoning, then I would have no problem with making it earlier. However, Sinkspur and many others in the Novus Ordo establishment have an underlying agenda to push.

St. Thomas Aquinas gives some very poignant answers as to why the Roman rite (which we ARE the Roman rite, which has never had a history of bowing or raising our hands during prayer in its history; these are Eastern-rite customs importanted into the Latin (Roman rite) liturgy has conferred its sacraments as it has.

Here is an article to begin with. It is a little deep, but you wandered into these waters, so it is time to begin to tread water quickly! :) http://www.franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/inerrant.html

The magisterium of the Church has the duty to hand down the Deposit of Faith to us. This "handing on" is called tradition and Tradition. Those who have changed the many "traditions" the past 40 years have done so to destroy the Faith, intended or not. And just because "traditions" (NOT Tradition) can change, does not mean there are good reasons for doing so. The modernists have NEVER given us any good reasons from a theological perspective (turned toward God) for doing so.

Like I said, I love the Eastern liturgies and the Eastern customs. But just like Pope John Paul II has told them to return to their Eastern customs (like dropping the Filioque in the Creed!), I would like the same principles applied to the Latin (Roman) Rite. Let's return to our traditions and customs.

Here is another article for you when you have finished the first. http://www.franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/incommut.html

[Mershon]

"Was not Christ a revolutionary in his day?"

Absolutely not. Perhaps you and the liberation theologians may think so, but a "revolutionary" He was not.

[CouncilofTrent]

If it ain't broke, why fix it?

[CouncilofTrent]

No, he wasn't a revolutionary. He was God.

[CouncilofTrent]

Correction: is God.

[xsmommy]

i think it is hard to get enough info across in CCD classes to any age group. My kids are in Catholic school and they know an incredible amount because of it, much more than i do, actually. my youngest has a learning disability and we had to take her out of catholic school and she now attends a private Christian LD school and attends CCD. Luckily she was in catholic school for her first communion year. you can't possibly get out of one hour of CCD per week, what you get in a day in and day out Catholic education where Catholic history and doctrine is assimilated into the other subjects.

i was baptized Greek Catholic, which meant i was confirmed simultaneously, so in 6th grade i had to sit out Confirmation, other than doing all the study prep stuff, in my Catholic grade school.

[Tax-chick]

I agree - we had a teachers' meeting at my parish earlier this week, to look over the new curriculum. When the DRE asked for comments on the past year, I mentioned that one of my children's classes had parties on every conceivable date: Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Valentine's Day, St. Patrick's Day, Easter ... That was not, I felt, the best use of limited instructional time.

If we're involved in parish religious education, we need to work toward making it as effective and efficient as possible ... but if the families are dropping the ball, it's just going to be dropped, and there's only so much the parish can do.

[xsmommy]

it varies so from teacher to teacher. my daughter's last year CCD teacher was filipina, very strict and gave them homework. this year it was team taught, they watched a lot of movies and had no homework.

[Tax-chick]

This year, I had two children whose classes covered a lot of material, and two that were pretty slack. Since we do religion study at home, I don't worry too much about it, as long as they're not being taught anything erroneous at the parish. But it's neglectful of the children who aren't getting any other religious education.

[WriteOn]

I think it's a good idea. Most of the arguments against doing it don't treat of confirmation as a sacrament. The Orthodox have it right: if it's a sacrament that marks an individual give it to them as soon as possible for their own good! Not sure if this indeed their line of reasoning, but it makes sense to me.

[TheStickman]

I sure did wander in, didn't I? LOL!!! "Ecclesiastical tradition in the proper sense is inerrant. Hence it can not be alienated from the Church, nor can it ever be held as dangerous to the Faith. Accordingly no reform nor renewal of the Church can improve upon ecclesiastical tradition thus understood; for inasmuch as it is the work of the Church Herself, there exists no power on Earth able to produce something more correct than the Church Herself. Hence, he who would assert the necessity of correction in ecclesiastical tradition asserts equally the impotency and hence infidelity of the Church Herself in the fulfillment of Her Divine Mission. But this is contrary to the Faith. Therefore there can be no renewal or reform of ecclesiastical tradition; by the very fact of being a Catholic one is obliged to embrace both the Church and Her traditions. To do otherwise is apostasy. To advocate otherwise is heresy. Hence the grave necessity of every member of the Faithful, from the Pope, the Cardinals, the Bishops, the clergy, the religious to the layman in the pew, to hold fast to ecclesiastical tradition and to propagate it faithfully in the Church." Makes sense to me. "And thus, just as something can be introduced that disagrees in substance, quantity, and/or quality, so there can be "newness" according to substance, quantity, and quality." Hmmm, I'm still ignorant when it comes to knowing all the specific changes in Vatican II--but, since I've heard/read many priests say Vatican II wasn't the problem. The fact that many were allowed to *interperet* for themselves what it all meant and insert or delete things from the Mass and such was/is the problem. "Likewise ecclesiastical tradition in its proper sense is imcommutable by virtue of its principles. It is not immutable in the sense that is undergoes no change according to quality and/or quantity; quality in the sense of progress in clarity and application, quantity in the sense that there is an increase in the number of things and words in which it is passed on." Again, wasn't this the intent of Vatican II? <> Did I drown? :)

[TheStickman]

Sheesh...I guess I need to learn HTML again....sorry about that

[Mershon]

Vatican II must be interpreted and understood in light of Tradition.

Since 99 percent of current-day priests have never read much of anything written authoritatively prior to Vatican II (Vatican I, Trent, Papal encylicals for the past 200 years), it makes it very difficult, with the imprecise and often murky language of Vatican II (Gaudium et Spes) to be interpreted "in light of Tradition," when most of the priests haven't read this Tradition and tradition.

Your understanding though, is pretty on target. Keep up the good work!

In my humble theological opinion (which is limited since I have but a master's in theology), some elements of Vatican II, which lead themselves open to misinterpretation, are indeed the problem. Where things are unclear, a Catholic must revert to clarity, which for me, often is found in things written prior to the 1960s.