Eucharist before confirmation???
#1
Shocked 
So this practice is becoming more prominent in the West due to how the sacraments of baptism and confirmation developed in the West (with the bishop being the only one allowed to minister it). Now the priest (at least in the Latin rite) can perform this sacrament too. (For the record, I consider the Ordinariate different than the Latin rite.)

Now, confirmation or chrismation seals the sacrament of baptism. Acts 8 does not appear to be talking about ordination either as those who were baptized had not received the Holy Spirit. So if one is communing without being confirmed, are they receiving communion without the Holy Spirit?

Another point is that even many High Anglican clergy are considering this very question especially in Continuing traditions. It seems rather nonsensical that one is baptized and not even made complete and yet receiving of the Eucharist. I don't think it is making an unnecessary bar to the Eucharist by requiring that the baptized be also confirmed. I know High Anglicans are not among the Church but this does not mean their sacramental theology does not bear orthodoxy on the matter. Rather, I think it shows the departure of some of the false teachers infesting our own Holy Church.

So maybe this is controversial but maybe not?
Reply
#2
I received my first communion before confirmation in 1976. In Oregon. I'm thinking it's where you live as well.
[-] The following 1 user Likes jack89's post:
  • ServusDei
Reply
#3
People have been receiving Holy Communion before Confirmation in the Latin Rite at least since St Pius X (obit. 1914) lowered the age for First Communion.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • ServusDei
Reply
#4
I don't know that it is unorthodox that people commune prior to confirmation, but I would strongly prefer infants to be baptized, confirmed, and communed at their initiation in one go.

I do not understand denying infant and child Catholics holy communion or confirmation for that matter. When I was Episcopalian, we were giving infants communion (or what we understood to be communion in our tradition) at baptism, but this was a more recent change of practice.
[-] The following 1 user Likes everbecoming2007's post:
  • newenglandsun
Reply
#5
(02-12-2020, 12:30 AM)everbecoming200 Wrote: When I was Episcopalian, we were giving infants communion (or what we understood to be communion in our tradition) at baptism, but this was a more recent change of practice.

I'll say! The Episcopalian bishops and priests I knew, including my foster-father, a graduate of Nashotah House, would have had a heart attack at the very idea. One was required to be confirmed or 'ready a desirous' to be confirmed if there was no bishop available, and the latter was a holdover from colonial and frontier days when you might not see a bishop for years. I know of no other Anglican Church that had such a provision, so outside the US, one was required to be confirmed to receive communion.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • newenglandsun
Reply
#6
(02-12-2020, 12:30 AM)everbecoming2007 Wrote: I don't know that it is unorthodox that people commune prior to confirmation, but I would strongly prefer infants to be baptized, confirmed, and communed at their initiation in one go.

So you want to just discard a minimum of 1500 years of tradition in the Latin Rite? Doesn't sound very 'Traditional' to me.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • newenglandsun
Reply
#7
(02-11-2020, 11:23 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: People have been receiving Holy Communion before Confirmation in the Latin Rite at least since St Pius X (obit. 1914) lowered the age for First Communion.
St. Pius X made a lot more changes than his cult generally gives him credit for  Chainsaw
Reply
#8
It is the more ancient practice.  Why would you want to deny a Catholic child the body and blood?
[-] The following 1 user Likes everbecoming2007's post:
  • newenglandsun
Reply
#9
(02-12-2020, 04:34 PM)everbecoming2007 Wrote: It is the more ancient practice.  Why would you want to deny a Catholic child the body and blood?

That attitude is known as false antiquarianism, condemned by Pope Pius XII. 'It is the more ancient practice' is the argument used by the modernists who destroyed the Liturgy.

'It is the more ancient practice' to confess your sins publicly before the whole congregation as well. Shall we restore that too?
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#10
(02-12-2020, 04:50 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(02-12-2020, 04:34 PM)everbecoming2007 Wrote: It is the more ancient practice.  Why would you want to deny a Catholic child the body and blood?

That attitude is known as false antiquarianism, condemned by Pope Pius XII. 'It is the more ancient practice' is the argument used by the modernists who destroyed the Liturgy.

'It is the more ancient practice' to confess your sins publicly before the whole congregation as well. Shall we restore that too?

It is not the same.  We still ought to ask ourselves the reason behind a practice and whether it is still fit.  Why do we deny children Jesus in the Blessed sacrament?
[-] The following 1 user Likes everbecoming2007's post:
  • newenglandsun
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)