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.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
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 confirmation, but there wouldn’t be any need to wait as long as we typically do in the West. Most of the time parishes hold confirmations every year or perhaps every other year, and all the kids of a certain age (normally in their teens sometime) get confirmed. But it wouldn’t be difficult to keep basically the same system while changing the age so that it was the three-year-olds, say, and not the thirteen-year-olds who were receiving the Sacrament.
In the West we tend to make confirmation into a kind of Catholic rite of passage, and I was offering an (I think) non-ridiculous reason for why we would want to do that.
Anyone born in the 1940’s knew people who were confirmed before first communion, specifically their Grandparents. I once saw an interview with Mother Angelica where I understood her to say she had been confirmed prior to first communion. If you believe in the efficacy of Grace then confirming and Baptizing simultaneously or with only a short interval between the two actions makes a great deal of sense. A return to this tradition may be a very good idea.
Indeed, my mother was confirmed as an infant in Mexico since the bishop only passed through the village once every so many years. So when he came by, people just brought out all of their non-confirmed children and had them confirmed.
Having read too many Patristic texts, I have come to think that there is an asymmetry in receiving First Communion before being confirmed. Not that Confirmation is the most understood sacrament theologically, but having had experience in the Eastern Church, I know that it is the seal of the Holy Ghost over the soul. I don’t understand why this has to take place later in life.
As Mr. Mooney said, up to relatively recently, it was First Communion that made you an adult, back in the day when you received First Communion at the age of 12 or 14. I know that this was the case at least in France. People were often confirmed before that. So it doesn’t make sense to me, at least theologically, to think that a seven year old is old enough to discern the Body and Blood of Christ, but not old enough to be sealed in the Spirit. Somehow, the Eastern discipline seems more logical, or at least the order of sacraments the way my mother received them. (I have a soft spot for infant communion, since I used to assist the priest at Divine Liturgy when he gave out communion.)
As for religion being tied to our Fathers, I am realizing that, as a cradle Catholic from a heavily Catholic culture. it is indeed a product of one’s collective identity, and this makes it very authentic in my case. My own family still prays petitions that can date back at least to the Cristero Rebellion in the 1920’s (”que el gobierno conozca a Dios, que los captivos cristianos encuentren pronto refrigerio…”) It is a bit repulsive to postmodern individualism, but in order to return to who you really are, you have to be and act what you have inherited. I don’t know how this would work for converts, but in my case it makes a lot of sense.
Concerning the age of confirmation the Code of Canon Law says:
Can. 889 §2. To receive confirmation licitly outside the danger of death requires that a person who has the use of reason be suitably instructed, properly disposed, and able to renew the baptismal promises.
Can. 891 The sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred on the faithful at about the age of discretion unless the conference of bishops has determined another age, or there is danger of death, or in the judgment of the minister a grave cause suggests otherwise.
In my experience it seems to depend on the diocese in the USA. I don’t know if the bishop’s conference established a standard.
It is clear from C 891 that the Church intends that children be confirmed around the age of 7, the time when they know right from wrong and are obliged to the sacrament of penance. This makes perfect sense, for the graces of confirmation strengthen them to live holy lives, avoid sin, make moral choices, etc., at the time when they become responsible for their acts.
It seems to me that waiting until a later age is to deprive children of the specific graces of the sacrament that they need in their adolescent years. This is sinful. By the time they reach the age for confirmation as practiced in the USA they have already developed bad and sinful habits, been exposed to society’s moral relativism and started down the road that leads to unhappiness and, eventually, damnation. (Hyperbole used for emphasis.) It makes no sense to withold this sacrament and perfect sense to administer it as soon as possible after one reaches the age of discretion.
The Church only requires that they be able to renew their baptismal promises (be instructed in what they mean and in the Apostles Creed) and be properly disposed. Basic catechism that should be learned for first Communion anyway.
Children growing up in today’s world need all the help they can get to lead Christian lives. Why deny them what will only help them when they need it most?
Clara, I don’t think there is an explanation… or at least a good one for witholding confirmation until a later age. The sacrament was never intended to be a rite of passage. It only became a “conscription into the army of Christ” when infant baptism became the norm and confirmation became a separate rite so there was a need to defend and justify the Western practice’s development. The separation into two distinct sacramental rites is a product of history: it has always been theologically a completion of baptism.
The article in the Catholic Encyclopedia is quite good and well worth reading: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04215b.htm
Well, wait a second… do you mean just that the practice of putting confirmation off until adolescence is a later innovation (or perversion if you prefer) or that confirmation was not, until recent times, seen as the Sacrament by which one became a Soldier of Christ? I was under the impression that confirmation had always been understood so.
Sorry for the confusion.
Putting it off until (late) adolescence is a fairly recent innovation beginning in the 1970s in the great search for relavency. Until then it was generally between the ages of 7 and 10, give or take.
Confirmation was not always understood as making one a Soldier of Christ. That only came about when it was separated from Baptism although the idea was always present. The special sacramental grace of the confirmation is the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, especially the courage and fortitude to boldly proclaim Christ and stand up for the faith. It’s from this that the idea of becomming a Soldier of Christ developed, for to stand up for or defend something is the work of a soldier. It did not become a common way of talking about the effects of confirmation until the early Middle Ages.
You may find it interesting to contrast the Canons of the Roman Rite (ISBN 0-943616-20-4) cited by Father Bailey to those of the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches (ISBN 0-943616-53-0)given below.
CHAPTER II
CHRISMATION WITH HOLY MYRON
Can. 692 - It is necessary that those who are baptized be chrismated with holy myron, that by a seal they be signed with the gift of the Holy Spirit and be made more proper witnesses and co-builders in the Kingdom of Christ.
Can. 693 - Holy myron, which is made from the oil of olives or other plants and from aromatics, is confected only by a bishop, with due regard for particular law which reserves this power to the patriarch.
Can. 694 - According to the tradition of the Eastern Churches, chrismation with holy myron is administered by a presbyter either in conjunction with baptism or separately.
Can. 695 - §1. Chrismation with holy myron must be administered in conjunction with baptism, except in a case of true necessity, in which case, however, it is to be seen that it is administered as soon as possible.
§2. If the celebration of chrismation with holy myron is not done together with baptism, the minister is obliged to notify the pastor of the place where the baptism was administered.
Can. 696 - §1. All presbyters of the Eastern Churches can validly administer this sacrament either along with baptism or separately to all the Christian faithful of any Church sui iuris including the Latin Church.
§2. The Christian faithful of Eastern Churches validly receive this sacrament also from presbyters of the Latin Church, according to the faculties with which these are endowed.
§3. Any presbyter licitly administers this sacrament only to the Christian faithful of his own Church sui iuris; when it is a case of Christian faithful of other Churches sui iuris, he lawfully acts if they are his subjects, or those whom he lawfully baptizes in virtue of another title, or those who are in danger of death, and always with due regard for the agreements entered between the Churches sui iuris in this matter.
Can. 697 - Sacramental initiation in the mystery of salvation is perfected in the reception of the Divine Eucharist, and thus the Divine Eucharist is administered after baptism and chrismation with holy myron as soon as possible according to the norms of the particular law of the each Church sui iuris.
Can. 710 - With respect to the participation of infants in the Divine Eucharist after baptism and chrismation with holy myron, the prescriptions of the liturgical books of each Church sui iuris are to be observed with the suitable due precautions.
Confirmation was, in the early Church, a post-baptismal anointing with Sacred Chrism by the bishop. In the West, this anointing still takes place immediately after the Baptism proper by the priest, but it is not considered a separate sacrament. (In the Baptism of adults followed by Confirmation this anointing is omitted.)
It’s interesting to me that the Eastern Churches have maintained the close tie of Confirmation (Chrismation) with Baptism while the West maintained the tie with administration by the Bishop.
The Eastern custom makes more sense to me, for from Baptism we are in need of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. But, if not at Baptism, I think Confirmation should be given at the age of reason, certainly before first Penance when these Gifts and graces will be needed.
Thank you Bill, for posting the canons of the Eastern Code.
And thank you, Fr. Bailey, for all the information you’ve given on this topic. It’s good to see you back here!
So if your ancestors male line was Chaldean and you were baptized before the age of reason and your parents (assuming your mother was Roman) didn’t intend for you to be baptised into the Roman rite specifically aren’t you then (and your children mutatis mutandis) Chaldeans too?
(Having been baptized as an adult, I wonder if I would have chosen to be Eastern Rite if I had known that choice was available to me.)
I don’t know how that works. I was baptized into the Roman rite. All four of my kids were baptized into the Roman rite, but now confirmed in the Chaldean..
I’m not totally happy in the Chaldean rite. Canon law permitting, I plan on bouncing back and forth, getting an future kids confirmed at infancy in the Chaldean rite.
I don’t like the closed ethnic focus of the Eastern Churches - especially here in Asia — in the USA, I think they are more open to converts.
Also, I’ve seen the whole Faith preached and practiced best by traditional Catholic priests of the Roman rite. The Eastern Church, to me, seems weaker on dogma and more emphasis on family - salvation by association.
I think these are the two lungs of the Church. They both need to influence each other. The Roman rite needs to lower the age of Confirmation. It needs to bring the sacred back into its liturgy. It needs to stop trying to out do the Protestants. All things the Eastern Church can teach us.
Our Lady of the Atonement, an Anglican Use parish in San Antonio, TX, recently celebrated Confirmation and First Communion. The celebrant was Archbishop Jose Gomez. The children were the age of First Communion, about 7. You can see pictures and find more information here: http://atonementparish.blogspot.com/index.html
Mr. Howard, I’m guessing that you entered the Church in the USA. Given that, an Eastern Rite Catholic priest would most likely have directed you to a Roman Rite parish unless you had been attending the Eastern Rite Church for a while before asking for Baptism. This is the result of a long historical tension that has existed between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic churches in the USA. At one time Roman Catholic bishops went so far as to declare that Eastern Catholics were not, in fact, Catholic. Since there were very few Eastern Catholic bishops in the USA that made the priests and people subject to Roman Catholic bishops who refused to allow them to use their own rites and follow their own traditions. The biggest issue was that the Eastern Catholics had married clergy and Roman Catholic bishops refused to allow married priests to function. Although time has made the issues moot, some of the tension still remains on a parochial level.
As far as the question of rite, I believe a person belongs to the rite in which they were baptized, unless the baptism took place in another rite due to danger of death or no priest of his own rite is available. This would be noted in the baptismal register. It is extremely difficult to change rites. Permission of one’s bishop is required. That does not mean that a person baptized in the Roman RIte cannot spend the rest of his life going to an Eastern Rite parish. One can go to Mass anyplace it is validly offered. However, he couldn’t canonically join the parish unless there was no local Roman parish. Neither could he ordinarily be confirmed, married, anointed, or buried from that parish. As a caveat, it’s been a while since I studied or thought about any of this and I’ve never had to make use of it in ministry so I might not have it right.
Fr. Bailey, I am not a canon lawyer, but my understanding is that these kinds of situations aren’t uncommon at all, that unless the parents actually choose something different on purpose, the children of two catholics of different rites are automatically enrolled in the Church of the father:
Canon 29 (Eastern Code)
1. By virtue of baptism, a child who has not yet completed his fourteenth year of age is enrolled in: the Church sui iuris of the Catholic father; or the Church sui iuris of the mother if only the mother is Catholic or if both parents by agreement freely request it, with due regard for particular law established by the Apostolic See.
It’s not uncommon for these situations to be hidden, the paperwork screwed up, and not sorted out until years later. See for example:
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=274975
It would be unlikely that I would have chosen to join the Church through a Byzantine or Ukranian, except for some other pieces of the puzzle. I was in the diocese of Rochester at the time where things are, shall we say, difficult. And liturgy itself was very close to the reasons for my conversion. As for the priest… it depends… some would I think be militant about NOT directing you to the local Latin parish for precisely the reason of the history of inequality between the rites.
In many places, transfers between rites are not difficult administratively any more (at least from West to East, there might be more hostility in the other direction) assuming that the person has beeen involved for a while (usually several years) and is sincere. In fact, in most cases in the U.S. today the Eastern Code delegates the decision to the local Bishops involved… I’ve known several people who’ve transfered.
Mr. Howard, thank you. I now vaguely remember that the child would be enrolled in the rite of the father. It’s been a long time. I assume both codes agree… at least I hope they do!
Rochester? His Excellency Matthew Clark? Yikes!
“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?”
Frankly, it should make you feel a little Jew-ish! No doubt about it, the obligations to pass on the Faith in the Catholic Church, the New Israel to the nations, is there… As a bit of a traditionalist, you do realize that the imperatives to not impeded the marital act and preclude being “fruitful and multiplying” aren’t there to just produce heathens (which we ALL are before baptism!)…
Protestant friends who question infant baptism sometimes see the connection to Old Israel, if they are open minded enough to admit it… I ask them “Did Israelites wait for children to reach an age to decide their membership in that land among those people for themselves?” So too for us.
No responsible father would let his children run naked until they reached an age where they could “decide what to wear.” No child would survive the same thinking when it came to “what to eat!” And we don’t leave them out in the snow until we can be sure they really want to live with us because they tell us that!
Any father told he should do any of the above, may be tempted to toss the person suggesting it out the front door, if he doesn’t die laughing first! On the face of it one need not ask why - it is OBVIOUS that a Father knows best and provides for his children before they even know what they need. Grace and salvation is all the more needed that water, food, clothes or a roof!
Of course you demonstrate you understand we don’t do things BECAUSE they are traditions… they are traditions because they are things to do!
(And you were a lucky man to get to see Chaldean chrismation - I have never witnessed it. Did you opt to begin communining your children as well?)