So this is what we teach our young people today
  • musiclover88
    Posts: 156
    Yeah, I think that would be a really good idea. As long as it's organized I think it would work well. I get annoyed at my church because a lot of the parishioners refuse to receive from the extraordinary ministers and they only want to receive from the priest. So you end up with the priest's line being a mile long and then the lay minister is just standing there with nothing to do. Some people even switch lines so they can receive from the priest, which I think is pretty obnoxious. I try to just look at my feet when I'm in line for Communion because otherwise I get way too irritated.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,985
    I find the dogmatic attachment to medieval practices a bit funny, and also odd. There is nothing wrong with kneeling, but it wasn't the practice of the Roman church during the western empire. Standing is fine and more in line with earlier practice, but no one makes a fuss if folks choose to kneel. It's entirely up to them as to which they do and hardly merits the effort to discuss it anymore.

    Another problem is showing up in our diocese. Since confirmation happens so late in the high-school years, many kids are just disappearing and not showing up for classes or confirmation. It has become enough of a problem that the bishop has written about the possibility of confirmations at an earlier age - before the kids can cut and run. Some potential brides and grooms are showing up wanting weddings without ever being confirmed.
    Thanked by 1PaxMelodious
  • FidemInFidebusFidemInFidebus
    Posts: 611
    ^^^ all of the comments above have far exceeded my expectations of how much people care or think about this stuff. Just one more reason I really enjoy being on this forum. :-)

    Our church is huge, and at any given Mass there are at least six or seven lay ministers to assist with communion. If you get to receive from the priest, you're in the minority lol! Since kneeling and all that isn't likely to happen there, I would be glad to at least see more people making a visible bow and "amen" instead of the usual half-nod and shuffle. We teach the kids to do things that adults barely remember to do. Same thing with kneeling/genuflecting before entering the pew (although in a rush I'm guilty as charged on this one), same for when we leave. Just a little more effort helps, you know?
  • musiclover88
    Posts: 156
    It has become enough of a problem that the bishop has written about the possibility of confirmations at an earlier age - before the kids can cut and run. Some potential brides and grooms are showing up wanting weddings without ever being confirmed.


    Yeah, I think that is a problem in a lot of places. Very sad, because Confirmation is so important. They changed the age in my diocese to 8th grade instead of 12th grade I think, which is good. I really think they should go back to confirming infants. Why not give them all the graces they need right at the beginning of life?

    I used to know a priest who realized that a lot of adults in his parish weren't confirmed, so he made a point to call every single person and ask them if they had been confirmed or not. Most of them didn't even know what that was. It turned out that 30 or 40 adults got confirmed that year! I thought it was really nice for him to take the time to do that.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,985
    I really think they should go back to confirming infants. Why not give them all the graces they need right at the beginning of life?


    We easterners have been saying that for years - 1700 or so, as a matter of fact. I don't know how confirmation got so separated from baptism and first communion in the west. Must be a Latin thing, although I think restricting it to bishops certainly caused delays in earlier times. With only one bishop and poor transportation infrastructure, it must have been difficult and time-consuming to get from place to place and perform confirmations.

    Our pastor has notified everyone in the parish that the bishop has given him permission to confirm all adults needing the sacrament during the Easter Vigil. Seems good to me!
  • musiclover88
    Posts: 156
    Yeah, it makes much more sense to me to keep those sacraments together. My husband and I are Byzantine, so when the little one gets baptized he/she will receive chrismation as well. I remember when I was a kid I had an old copy of the Baltimore Catechism, and it always listed Confirmation right after Baptism in the list of sacraments. I remember it also mentioned that a small piece of the Host or a drop of the Precious Blood is placed on the infant's tongue immediately after Baptism. The infant receives all of those graces even if he doesn't understand them, so why not give them to him? I figure that now more than ever our children need all the graces possible!

    Our pastor has notified everyone in the parish that the bishop has given him permission to confirm all adults needing the sacrament during the Easter Vigil.


    That's great! I hope there will be a lot of them receiving the sacrament!
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,396
    Our pastor has notified everyone in the parish that the bishop has given him permission to confirm all adults needing the sacrament during the Easter Vigil.

    CharlesW, your wording may represent exactly what the pastor wrote or said. But canonically it is exceedingly imprecise. I'd like to see the actual rescript from the bishop. I seriously doubt that "permission" was used instead of "faculty." (A priest needs a faculty, not a permission, to confirm validly. Such faculty is supplied by the law itself in some cases, and by rescript in other cases.) I also doubt that "all adults" was used in the rescript, since in canon law, for purposes of Christian initiation, anyone over the age of discretion is termed "adult."
  • musiclover88
    Posts: 156
    anyone over the age of discretion is termed "adult."


    Looks like there's going to be a LOT of people receiving the sacrament at Charles' parish this Easter... :)
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,985
    Let me clarify a bit. The pastor has sent letters to all baptized adults in the parish who have not been confirmed. There will be a class - don't know how many sessions - and the entire class will be confirmed at Easter Vigil. Yes, I know there is a difference between faculty and permission. He has what he needs from the bishop to confirm.
    Thanked by 1musiclover88
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,167
    Here's what I would vote for if I had any say in what my church did.

    And that's the problem right there. The Church is not a democracy. Too many people act complain as if it is. We do not choose our priest or bishop. We can't get rid of one we don't like. We don't get to pick and choose (or vote) on what the church teaches. If there is something you don't like about the Church, learn why it is the way it is and adapt.
  • musiclover88
    Posts: 156
    Dude, settle down. I never said the Church is a democracy or that I wanted it to be. I meant that as a tongue-in-cheek comment knowing that I'm a lowly parishioner that really has no say in anything.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    Adam's simply speaking from having a foot in two drastically different camps.
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,220
    It's good to hear that CharlesW's pastor is making a special effort to see that adults not yet confirmed can be confirmed in his parish.

    If there is a lot of response to that call, and the Easter Vigil service looks to be especially protracted, he might like to consider moving some of those adult confirmations to one of the Sundays of the Easter season, and obtaining any necessary faculty to perform them.

    I figure the Vigil is not the ideal time for adult confirmations anyway, since (Fr. K can correct me on this if it's not so) the RCIA and the associated Vigil rites are designed principally for unbaptized people.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,985
    I figure the Vigil is not the ideal time for adult confirmations anyway, since (Fr. K can correct me on this if it's not so) the RCIA and the associated Vigil rites are designed principally for unbaptized people.


    True, but there will be confirmations anyway for newly baptized and those RCIA candidates already baptized, usually in another church. What's a few more? We can adjust.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    I rather doubt that Jesus went about the upper room putting the elements of that first eucharist on the disciples tongues.


    Yup. We note that all priests, following the Apostles, self-communicate. IOW, that's not a co-incidence.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    Take, eat."


    The Latin is "Accipite...." which is the plural imperative; the first two definitions (of 5) are "accept, receive," not "take." The "take" is, therefore, in the sense of reception, or acceptance.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    wasn't the practice of the Roman church during the western empire.


    Neither was 4-part music, paid musicians, nor organ accompaniment of hymns, Charles. SOME accretions are good, ya'know.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482



    I do not Take, I Receive.

    Take, eat."



    The Latin is "Accipite...." which is the plural imperative; the first two definitions (of 5) are "accept, receive," not "take." The "take" is, therefore, in the sense of reception, or acceptance.


    Right.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,985
    Neither was 4-part music, paid musicians, nor organ accompaniment of hymns, Charles. SOME accretions are good, ya'know.


    And MANY are not, ya' know. Notice I didn't say ALL. Don't want to stir up the pro multis crowd again. May they RIP. LOL.
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,116
    Well, the Latin is not so far as we know what Jesus spoke at this moment in the Last Supper. We don't have the original text of what Jesus said. FWIW, the Gospel passages are in Greek, and the verb is derived from lambano.

    http://biblehub.com/greek/2983.htm

  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    The point, though, is that it wasn't a sign of my irreverence to say that I "take" communion.

    Though if you are looking for signs of my irreverence, I'm sure they are not lacking.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    No, Adam, you're fine. The point was that "take" is not quite the correct imperative.

    @Liam: I'll trust St Jerome's translation from Aramaic (and Greek, too.)
Add a Comment