Loading ...
A very engaging reflection on the Sacrament of Confirmation from our indefatigable reporter in the land of the Turks:
Reflections on Confirmation
Recently I had my four kids, ages 6, 4, 2 and newborn, confirmed in the Chaldean rite by the Chaldean Vicar in Istanbul.
Earlier last year, in a phone conversation with our FSSP priest in the USA, he told me to take advantage of my proximity to eastern rite Catholics and get all of my children confirmed. He said that the age of confirmation in the USA had progressively risen higher and higher, and that children today need the graces of Confirmation at a much younger age.
I didn’t need to think much about it. My priest, whom I trust, gave me advice, and my wife and I started to make plans for the Confirmation.
Fortunately for me making arrangements with the local Chaldean clergy was not a problem. My father was baptized in the Chaldean rite, as was his father, and so on going back at least 500 years. My grandfather was knighted by Pius XII for building a Chaldean church in Cairo. My great-great-uncle, Timothy, was a famous bishop of eastern Turkey. So, the Chaldean vicar in Istanbul welcomed the proposal immediately.
Our baby was born on the 21st of November and we made arrangements with the good Monsignor in Istanbul for the Chrismation to take place in mid-December.
The ceremony was very beautiful and moving. I witnessed all four of my children infused with the power of the Holy Ghost.
The Monsignor gave a short sermon – and frankly, some parts of it caused me some consternation. He said that we were there because our fathers were there. And our duty, and in time, our children’s duty, is to make sure that our future progeny come there to receive the sacraments of the Church. This is a typically eastern way of looking at things, and one that I am not used to hearing. My individualistic, masonically-trained mind was initially repulsed by this message. My faith is personal. My faith is God calling me and me answering His call. Isn’t it? Isn’t this what I’ve been taught?
Now, I’m hearing that my faith is a result of my father and his father and his father, and so on. Does recognizing this fact make me feel less special in a way? Does recognizing this fact make me feel no better or special than some Jew or Muslim who also adheres to his faith because it’s the faith of his father?
To me this was a radically different way of looking at my faith. And frankly it’s grown on me.
Look at how we view the sacrament of Confirmation in the USA now. As our society has grown more corrupt and immoral, and as our children get exposed to soul-destroying crap at younger and younger ages, our bishops have continued to advance the age of Confirmation higher and higher. I never knew until recently that prior to modern times, throughout much of Christian history, children were confirmed prior to First Holy Communion!
And how often have you heard our Novus brethren saying that Confirmation is our answer to the protestant’s notion of accepting Jesus Christ as our personal lord and savior?
Are we ashamed to be following the traditions of our fathers?! So much so that we have to concoct some false notion that the sacrament of Confirmation is “the young adult opportunity to personally accept Christ”?
How absurd is this when you really think about it?
Does a 15 or 16 year-old Catholic kid really have the option of rejecting Christ?
Can he really say ‘no’ to Confirmation and then what does this gain him? He’s already a baptized Catholic. Can he walk away from the Church? Will his eternal salvation be different when he’s judged because, although he walked away from the Church, he had never personally accepted Christ in the sacrament of Confirmation?
I’m glad I was able to get my children the sacrament of Confirmation. And I’m blessed to be part of the Catholic Church. I’m blessed that my forefathers persevered in the Faith. They could have had an easier and more convenient life by embracing Islam. My Irish ancestors on my mother’s side could have had an easier life if they had entered the Church of Ireland. But they didn’t. They maintained their membership in that perfect society, the Barque of Peter, outside of which there is no salvation. Had they chosen a different path, had they rejected the Church, I’d likely be a Muslim or protestant destined for eternal darkness.
It’s not all up us. It’s about a family: the Catholic Church. And one father’s bad decision can have terrible consequences on countless generations of souls of his family.
Think about it. One man’s sin is the ultimate cause of every human suffering on this planet. Adam’s sin is responsible, in some respect, for every single soul burning in Hell right now. Every murder that has ever been committed, every rape, every child ever abused, every wife ever cheated on, can thank one man, Adam. (Thanks a lot, Adam.) And, he made this decision, he committed this sin, knowing what would happen to us, to all his billions of children. This level of malicious evil is beyond my comprehension. (And to think of the mercy of God, that this man now is in Heaven.)
To a lesser degree in terms of numbers of souls, but not in terms of ultimate consequences, we as parents play the key role in passing on the Faith, or not, to our children.
This is what the Sacrament of Confirmation has shown me.
Congratulations to you and your offspring on the occasion of their Confirmation! (Well, belated congratulations.) And thank you for writing that reflection.
I don’t know the whole history surrounding the age of Confirmation. I know that the Eastern church has always done it in infancy (normally together with baptism, I think?) whereas the West has traditionally done it at an older age. I can see the arguments for both. On the one hand, it’s good to have the graces through your whole life and not just a part, and this also ensures that they will receive the Sacrament before death. (Obviously it’s not as important to be confirmed before death as it is to be baptized before death, but still, it’s obviously good to get the graces from both.)
But I’m not sure the argument for later confirmations needs to be “we want to be like Protestants,” or even “they need to individually accept Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.” I had the idea that the West confirmed people later in order to signify that they had reached the age when they were expected to be soldiers for Christ. In infancy or early childhood, people obviously aren’t expected to fight (either physically or metaphorically) for the faith; at confirmation they are given to understand that they are now considered mature enough to play their part in the battle for souls. So, at baptism they are adopted into the Christian family, and at confirmation they are conscripted into the Christian army. It doesn’t seem entirely inappropriate that these events should take place at different ages. There is some good in having a sort of “rite of passage” signifying that one is prepared for adult responsibilities, and Confirmation seems to fulfill that function within the Western church.
But perhaps your priest’s idea is that, in today’s world, the children will inevitably have to be conscripted at a younger age, since the battle is raging all around us. And if they’re going to be required to fight, they deserve to be given the weapons of soldiers. I can understand that argument. Anyway, congratulations again!
Dear Clara,
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1290 In the first centuries Confirmation generally comprised one single celebration with Baptism, forming with it a “double sacrament,” according to the expression of St. Cyprian. Among other reasons, the multiplication of infant baptisms all through the year, the increase of rural parishes, and the growth of dioceses often prevented the bishop from being present at all baptismal celebrations.
In the West the desire to reserve the completion of Baptism to the bishop caused the temporal separation of the two sacraments.
The East has kept them united, so that Confirmation is conferred by the priest who baptizes. But he can do so only with the “myron” consecrated by a bishop.
1292 The practice of the Eastern Churches gives greater emphasis to the unity of Christian initiation. That of the Latin Church more clearly expresses the communion of the new Christian with the bishop as guarantor and servant of the unity, catholicity and apostolicity of his Church, and hence the connection with the apostolic origins of Christ’s Church.
Okay, that’s some history for you. But it doesn’t totally explain things, does it? The need to wait for a bishop might justify some separation between baptism and confirm