Truly truly a great way of thinking. I work with Elementary Children it is profoundly apparent after recess I speak the First Words Jesus spoke when returning to the upper room after his Resurrection "Peace be with You". The Children, truly stop and look at me. The He did this, push, I this and that instantly stops after hearing these words. I love this movement. Confirmation at Kindergarten-1st grade. I think it is something to ponder. Our Faith has to Abide in us, seal every crack that severs. This has to start earlier. The thought makes me glow. Thank you Bishop
I wish you would talk to all the bishops and get them on board with this. I have been saying it for years. Honestly, we need to focus less on religious ed classes for children than for adults.
As always understood, Confirmation made a youngster an adult in the Church. Hence, the Sacrament as a teenager. I understood adult converts always got baptized, confirmed and received First Holy Communion at the Easter (or Pentecost) Vigil, in that order. The Council of Trent allowed all priests to baptize adults at anytime of year, and therefore could receive Communion. These new Catholics still had to wait for the bishop to confirm. The complaint that Confirmation as a graduation from religious instruction is a testament that parents are making the kids get confirmed and once they become legal adults, they leave the Church. In my opinion, it’s way too young to confirm 3rd graders when they’ve got a decade to go before achieving adulthood.
That you even have to answer this question explains much of what is wrong with the Latin Church. Why not just restore infant communion, and have done with it? It's the right thing to do. And this age of reason stuff is nonsense.
@OHCA-p5c Why? The Council of Trent examined the question, and refuse to condemn the practice (which is normative for the Eastern Catholic Churches, and which was normative in the Western Church until the 13th century). Rather than find infant communion invalid, Trent merely declared it "unnecessary" (even though a host of Popes in the first millennium declared it necessary for salvation). Trent could hardly condemn infant communion, because the same arguments used against it can be (and indeed, are) used against infant baptism. As for the "age of reason" (or "age of discretion", the only magisterial documents the refer to it see it not as a floor, before which one may not receive the Eucharist, but as a ceiling, after which one become liable to the precepts requiring one to receive at least once per year.
@@QSD22 It was the universal practice of the undivided Church, West and East alike, for twelve centuries. Its disappearance in the West was not due to some profound theological insights or pastoral reflection, but was simply an accident. When the Latin Church removed the Chalice from the laity (for reasons that would not stand scrutiny today), it also inadvertently prevented infants from receiving communion, since infants cannot ingest solid food. And so, it just stopped. Theories (and that's all they are) about the need for conscious understanding of the act of reception arose only a century or so later, when the Latin Church realized it had departed from what, until then, had been the Tradition of both the Western and Eastern Churches. The Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox alike, continue to administer all three sacraments of initiation at the same time, and once fully illuminated, infants receive regularly, just like adults. This creates a paradox: why is the age of reason needed in the Latin Church, and nowhere else? And if the age of reason is needed for the Eucharist, why is it not needed for baptism? The refusal of the Latin Church to follow the directive of the Second Vatican Council to restore the integrity of the sacraments of initiation is a good example of the power of inertia, of the triumph of tradition over Tradition.
Truly truly a great way of thinking. I work with Elementary Children it is profoundly apparent after recess I speak the First Words Jesus spoke when returning to the upper room after his Resurrection "Peace be with You". The Children, truly stop and look at me. The He did this, push, I this and that instantly stops after hearing these words. I love this movement. Confirmation at Kindergarten-1st grade. I think it is something to ponder. Our Faith has to Abide in us, seal every crack that severs. This has to start earlier. The thought makes me glow. Thank you Bishop
Absolutely love this.
Come Holg Spirit! 🕊🙏❤️
In Ireland i made my Confirmations before Holy Communion and a week late i made my Holy Communion
I wish you would talk to all the bishops and get them on board with this. I have been saying it for years. Honestly, we need to focus less on religious ed classes for children than for adults.
As always understood, Confirmation made a youngster an adult in the Church. Hence, the Sacrament as a teenager. I understood adult converts always got baptized, confirmed and received First Holy Communion at the Easter (or Pentecost) Vigil, in that order. The Council of Trent allowed all priests to baptize adults at anytime of year, and therefore could receive Communion. These new Catholics still had to wait for the bishop to confirm. The complaint that Confirmation as a graduation from religious instruction is a testament that parents are making the kids get confirmed and once they become legal adults, they leave the Church. In my opinion, it’s way too young to confirm 3rd graders when they’ve got a decade to go before achieving adulthood.
That you even have to answer this question explains much of what is wrong with the Latin Church. Why not just restore infant communion, and have done with it? It's the right thing to do.
And this age of reason stuff is nonsense.
@OHCA-p5c Why? The Council of Trent examined the question, and refuse to condemn the practice (which is normative for the Eastern Catholic Churches, and which was normative in the Western Church until the 13th century). Rather than find infant communion invalid, Trent merely declared it "unnecessary" (even though a host of Popes in the first millennium declared it necessary for salvation).
Trent could hardly condemn infant communion, because the same arguments used against it can be (and indeed, are) used against infant baptism.
As for the "age of reason" (or "age of discretion", the only magisterial documents the refer to it see it not as a floor, before which one may not receive the Eucharist, but as a ceiling, after which one become liable to the precepts requiring one to receive at least once per year.
St Augustune taught Infant Communion.
@OHCA-p5c God bless you
@@QSD22 It was the universal practice of the undivided Church, West and East alike, for twelve centuries. Its disappearance in the West was not due to some profound theological insights or pastoral reflection, but was simply an accident. When the Latin Church removed the Chalice from the laity (for reasons that would not stand scrutiny today), it also inadvertently prevented infants from receiving communion, since infants cannot ingest solid food. And so, it just stopped. Theories (and that's all they are) about the need for conscious understanding of the act of reception arose only a century or so later, when the Latin Church realized it had departed from what, until then, had been the Tradition of both the Western and Eastern Churches.
The Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox alike, continue to administer all three sacraments of initiation at the same time, and once fully illuminated, infants receive regularly, just like adults. This creates a paradox: why is the age of reason needed in the Latin Church, and nowhere else? And if the age of reason is needed for the Eucharist, why is it not needed for baptism? The refusal of the Latin Church to follow the directive of the Second Vatican Council to restore the integrity of the sacraments of initiation is a good example of the power of inertia, of the triumph of tradition over Tradition.