Confirmation.

Genghiz Cohen

What do you guys think of kids age 12(ish IIRC) making their Confirmation.
I remember myself not really understanding, just going through the motions. Maybe if my parents were more religiously active it may have made more sense.
i really just did it because I was told to.

Do you remember your Confirmation? Did you fully understand what it implied?
Do kids actually get what they are doing?

Should the age of Confirmation be looked at?

PDN

A waste of time and money in my opinion - but then again I'm not a Catholic.

prinz

I know that in Germany, it tends to take place much later (15-18 years), and is done because people actively want to do it, NOT because it's the done thing and you get your money, presents or whatever, because in that country that's not the reasoning behind it.

I mentioned in another post that the sacraments, particularly first communion and confirmation, imo, are completely and unnecessarily rushed in this country. I only assume it was some sort of 'get-them-young' mentality.*




*please no sick jokes about the recent Abuse Report.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

A waste of time and money in my opinion - but then again I'm not a Catholic.

Agree. It's a farce. I'd have some respect for it if the money side of it hadn't got way out of control.

Galvasean

When I did mine the only thing that was significant to me and all the other kids was the money. At the time, we were just that, kids. The prospect of picking up a couple of hundred euro for a couple of hours in a church was too good to turn down.

kelly1

I know most of you don't care about Church traditions but Confirmation does have a scriptural basis (shock horror).

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/confirmation.html

Genghiz Cohen

kelly1 wrote: »

I know most of you don't care about Church traditions but Confirmation does have a scriptural basis (shock horror).

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/confirmation.html

No arguments here, it has a purpose within the RC church, but is the timing right, even fair?

Coriolanus

I don't think 99% of the children that do it understand a thing. I really think the entire religious "experience" should be delayed until the person reaches 16-18. If they decide to be Catholic then, so be it.

If today it's anything like the 10+ years ago I did mine, then they're not even given a choice about it. It's just the done thing unless the parents decide otherwise.

My girlfriend and I argue about this every now and then and I'm more or less resigned to her getting her way until about any kids we might have reach adulthood, whereuppn hopefully I can help them see reason.

I'm all for some kind of thing to celebrate the onset of puberty or whatever, that's what the Jews do, sort of, right? Bar Mitzvah is more about the boy reaching manhood etc... I think

Genghiz Cohen

Nevore wrote: »

I'm all for some kind of thing to celebrate the onset of puberty or whatever, that's what the Jews do, sort of, right? Bar Mitzvah is more about the boy reaching manhood etc... I think

If my parents celebrated me hitting puberty and I caught on, it would be the single most uncomfortable experience of my life.

Coriolanus

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

If my parents celebrated me hitting puberty and I caught on, it would be the single most uncomfortable experience of my life.

Well, maybe not so explicity. :P Some kind of big party to celebrate the end of primary or something.
Only reason I mention it is that I remember feeling sorry for a girl in my class whos parents decided to let her choose. So, at 7 and 12 or whatever the ages were, she was lacking in the white dress and wad of cash department.

AtomicHorror

The timing is silly. At an age when a person cannot vote nor legally drink, get married or make any other significant choices, the Catholic Church asks people to make what is, in their view, a much more significant choice than any of these.

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

I know most of you don't care about Church traditions but Confirmation does have a scriptural basis (shock horror).

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/confirmation.html

That's interesting. Didn't realise that. Good post.

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

I know most of you don't care about Church traditions but Confirmation does have a scriptural basis (shock horror).

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/confirmation.html

Sorry Noel, in my opinion that is one of the worst collections of twisting misinterpretations that I have ever encountered.

homer911

Just to be clear, confirmation is not just a Catholic thing!

The Anglican church (CoI anyway) confirms children in their early teens.

The Presbyterian Church has a very simple ceremony where the individual is admitted to full church membership after "confirming" their faith through a few questions in front of their fellow church members. I imagine the Methodists are something similar, although both (and possibly the CoI) accept adult baptism.

Baptists, Independent Evangelicals etc would subscribe to Adult Baptism, which makes a lot more sense to me.

Yes, I know people will say there are references to child baptism in the Bible, but only in the context of whole families being baptised...

PDN

homer911 wrote: »

Yes, I know people will say there are references to child baptism in the Bible, but only in the context of whole families being baptised...

I don't believe there is a single reference in the New Testament to infants being baptised.

homer911

PDN wrote: »

I don't believe there is a single reference in the New Testament to infants being baptised.

I do agree, but some will say by inference that there is..

prinz

PDN wrote: »

I don't believe there is a single reference in the New Testament to infants being baptised.

Forgive me if I'm wrong (which I probably am) but I figured Baptism was the new covenant, replacing circumcision, just as Jesus was the new covenant.

postcynical

I was recently looking to get baptised or confirmed again, but it's a once-only sacrament. Personally I feel I was too young when both occured. I supposed the idea was that most people left school after primary school back in the day so it made sense to confirm them then. However I read some decent arguments recently in the catechism for youthful confirmation. Will look them up here.

*updated here:

RCC Catechism wrote:

1308 Although Confirmation is sometimes called the "sacrament of Christian maturity," we must not confuse adult faith with the adult age of natural growth, nor forget that the baptismal grace is a grace of free, unmerited election and does not need "ratification" to become effective. St. Thomas reminds us of this:

Age of body does not determine age of soul. Even in childhood man can attain spiritual maturity: as the book of Wisdom says: "For old age is not honored for length of time, or measured by number of years. "Many children, through the strength of the Holy Spirit they have received, have bravely fought for Christ even to the shedding of their blood.124

Interestingly I read somewhere that marriage (or Holy Orders) can be considered a third stage of baptism.

Mickeroo

prinz wrote: »

Forgive me if I'm wrong (which I probably am) but I figured Baptism was the new covenant, replacing circumcision, just as Jesus was the new covenant.

Did confirmation replace the bamitzfah(sp?) pretty much?

I dont really remember knowing what it was all about at the time(i still dont know actually now i think of it), but the money was much appreciated.

PDN

prinz wrote: »

Forgive me if I'm wrong (which I probably am) but I figured Baptism was the new covenant, replacing circumcision, just as Jesus was the new covenant.

Baptism, like circumcision, is a sign of the covenant.

A Jewish child did not become a Jew by being circumcised (otherwise females would not be Jewish). They became a Jew by being born to Jewish parents. Circumcision, then, was a visible sign that they were part of God's covenant people.

A Christian, however, becomes a child of God by faith. Therefore baptism is to be a visible sign that they have now entered into God's people. This is why faith, in the New Testament, precedes baptism. When churches practice infant baptism then they are (wrongly IMHO) reversing the biblical order and placing baptism before faith. This makes baptism into a meaningless ritual.

postcynical wrote:

I was recently looking to get baptised or confirmed again, but it's a once-only sacrament. Personally I feel I was too young when both occured.

This my stir up a hornet's nest - but I would say there is nothing to stop you getting baptised. Since your previous ritual was not preceded by faith then it was not baptism in the biblical sense.

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

Sorry Noel, in my opinion that is one of the worst collections of twisting misinterpretations that I have ever encountered.

Would you care to elaborate on your incredible claim?

In your opinion, what do you think was happening in the following verses?

Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, 15 who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit, 16 for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul laid (his) hands on them, the holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

Since when does baptism involve the laying-on of hands?

kelly1

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

No arguments here, it has a purpose within the RC church, but is the timing right, even fair?

I think it would be better to increase the age of Confirmation so those concerned can make an informed and conscious decision to be "soldiers" of Christ. i.e. to consciously decide to live for Christ and the advancement of His kingdom.

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

Would you care to elaborate on your incredible claim?

In your opinion, what do you think was happening in the following verses?



Since when does baptism involve the laying-on of hands?

Paul laid hands so as to pray for them to be filled with the Holy Spirit. When his prayer was answered they prayed in tongues. I see this happening in my church all the time.

So, Noel, how many kids in your church start speaking in tongues when they undergo the rite of confirmation?

Biro

I think you guys underestimate kids. I knew what was going on when I got confirmed, I still remember it clearly.
The money issue is people driven, nothing to do with the religious aspect, so don't even know why it's being discussed.

Genghiz Cohen

Biro wrote: »

I think you guys underestimate kids. I knew what was going on when I got confirmed, I still remember it clearly.
The money issue is people driven, nothing to do with the religious aspect, so don't even know why it's being discussed.

A few people, including myself, had no idea what it really meant. Maybe kids today are sharper, but for me it was too early.

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

Paul laid hands so as to pray for them to be filled with the Holy Spirit. When his prayer was answered they prayed in tongues.

And is there something wrong with calling this Confirmation?

PDN wrote: »

So, Noel, how many kids in your church start speaking in tongues when they undergo the rite of confirmation?

None that I know of. Do you think that proves they haven't received the gifts of the Spirit? What's the point of speaking in tongues anyway?

The Mad Hatter

kelly1: as I was taught, speaking in tongues meant speaking in a language that all people could understand. Not the gibberish you get in evangelical churches.

Anyhow, confirmation was probably when I started to question my belief in religion. I remember being told over and over again that I was being confirmed because I was now old enough to make the choice myself to be baptised, and thinking 'No I'm not. There's no way I can say "I don't want to do this" and get away with it.'

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

And is there something wrong with calling this Confirmation?

There's nothing to stop you calling it 'Confirmation' if you choose, just as there's nothing to stop you calling carrots 'chicken nuggets' if you choose. However, there's everything wrong with then entering into a debate about poultry with others and referring to 'chicken nuggets' knowing fine well that you're now talking about something different than the subject under discussion.

What Paul did, and what Peter and John did in Acts Chapter 8, was to pray for people to be filled with the Holy Spirit. That was something so visible that it was obvious when it hadn't happened (as in Samaria) and when it did happen it was so obvious and dramatic that Simon the Sorcerer offered Peter money in order to learn how to pull such a spectacular stunt (hence the word 'simony'). Now, think for a moment about the practice that your church calls 'Confirmation'. Do you seriously think Simon would pay money to be able to imitate an elderly man mumbling a few words over an uncomprehending child who is too busy calculating how many euro his granny will give him to pay any attention to what the old man is saying?

None that I know of. Do you think that proves they haven't received the gifts of the Spirit?

I think it proves that what Paul was doing was very different to what your church does.

As for the gifts of the Spirit, let's talk about them. Which gifts of the Spirit can you honestly say are absent from the lives of children before Confirmation and then are clearly evident after Confirmation? .... Prophecy? Healing? Discernment of spirits? Speaking in tongues? Interpretation of tongues? The working of miracles? Words of knowledge? Words of wisdom? The gift of faith? Administration? Mercy? Serving?

What's the point of speaking in tongues anyway?

If you want to start a thread on speaking in tongues then I will gladly participate in it. However, here it would simply derail this thread from discussing Confirmation.

prinz

Biro wrote: »

I think you guys underestimate kids. I knew what was going on when I got confirmed, I still remember it clearly.
The money issue is people driven, nothing to do with the religious aspect, so don't even know why it's being discussed.

The problem as I see it isn't who understands what, but rather the fact that if you go to First Communion and Confirmation mass, everybody is there because everyone else is, money is spent on meals/bouncing castles/parties/pubs however 95% of the kids involved or their parents will notsee the inside of the church again until Christmas perhaps. This is what detracts from the meaning of the rituals. It has become a social rite of passage at the expense of it's religious foundation.


Confirmation should be part of a conscious decision to be part of the congregation, to practice your faith, it should not be done, simply because it's the done thing. Therefore I think he continental system of later confirmation, which is not part of a school programme and is not done at the behest of the parents, but has to be sought out by the person wishing to be confirmed is a much better model, in that only people who truly wish to be confirmed have it done at 17 or 18 years of age. Without all the extra baggage attached as it is here.

homer911

prinz wrote: »

The problem as I see it isn't who understands what, but rather the fact that if you go to First Communion and Confirmation mass, everybody is there because everyone else is, money is spent on meals/bouncing castles/parties/pubs however 95% of the kids involved or their parents will notsee the inside of the church again until Christmas perhaps. This is what detracts from the meaning of the rituals. It has become a social rite of passage at the expense of it's religious foundation.


Confirmation should be part of a conscious decision to be part of the congregation, to practice your faith, it should not be done, simply because it's the done thing. Therefore I think he continental system of later confirmation, which is not part of a school programme and is not done at the behest of the parents, but has to be sought out by the person wishing to be confirmed is a much better model, in that only people who truly wish to be confirmed have it done at 17 or 18 years of age. Without all the extra baggage attached as it is here.

Amen!

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

What Paul did, and what Peter and John did in Acts Chapter 8, was to pray for people to be filled with the Holy Spirit. That was something so visible that it was obvious when it hadn't happened (as in Samaria) and when it did happen it was so obvious and dramatic that Simon the Sorcerer offered Peter money in order to learn how to pull such a spectacular stunt (hence the word 'simony'). Now, think for a moment about the practice that your church calls 'Confirmation'. Do you seriously think Simon would pay money to be able to imitate an elderly man mumbling a few words over an uncomprehending child who is too busy calculating how many euro his granny will give him to pay any attention to what the old man is saying?

PDN, why did you use the word mumbling? Why the insult?? So you "Pray" and a bishop mumbles? Who do you think you are you bigot!!??

BTW, I know what Simony is, thanks very much. And granny giving a child money doesn't count as simony!

PDN wrote: »

I think it proves that what Paul was doing was very different to what your church does.

As for the gifts of the Spirit, let's talk about them. Which gifts of the Spirit can you honestly say are absent from the lives of children before Confirmation and then are clearly evident after Confirmation? .... Prophecy? Healing? Discernment of spirits? Speaking in tongues? Interpretation of tongues? The working of miracles? Words of knowledge? Words of wisdom? The gift of faith? Administration? Mercy? Serving?

How do you know what gifts these children receive? Who are you to JUDGE!?

PDN wrote: »

If you want to start a thread on speaking in tongues then I will gladly participate in it. However, here it would simply derail this thread from discussing Confirmation.

You're the one who started talking about speaking in tongues.

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

PDN, why did you use the word mumbling? Why the insult?? So you "Pray" and a bishop mumbles?

Because, the only time I observed a Confirmation, I was standing 20 feet away and I couldn't hear what was being said. Therefore I doubt if it would impress Simon enough to cause him to dig very deep into his pocket.

For what it's worth I tend to mumble quite often.

Who do you think you are you bigot!!??

And you're accusing me of being insulting?

BTW, I know what Simony is, thanks very much.

I wasn't telling anyone what simony is. I was pointing out the origin of the term, which I think some posters might find interesting.

And granny giving a child money doesn't count as simony!

If you calmed down a bit then you might realise nobody was saying it does.

How do you know what gifts these children receive? Who are you to JUDGE!?

Well, it seems a bit pointless to have gifts of the Spirit that are so vague that no-one can tell if they've got them or not, particularly since in a few years time many, if not most, of those children won't darken the doors of a church again except for weddings and funerals. Do you really believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are so ineffective?

You're the one who started talking about speaking in tongues.

No, actually you did. You quoted a Scripture about it in post #21. I simply responded to what you posted.

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

And you're accusing me of being insulting?

You are a bigot because you frequently disparage the Catholic faith and your smugness about your church shows a lack of humility. Not very becoming of any Christian or a moderator!

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

You are a bigot because you frequently disparage the Catholic faith and your smugness about your church shows a lack of humility. Not very becoming of any Christian or a moderator!

Cop on Noel! You just got oversensitive and start misrepresenting (Maybe on purpose, or maybe because of misunderstanding) PDN's post. Now you are getting very personal. You regularly tell us that we haven't got the full truth etc, and we engage in conversation. We certainly don't call you a bigot for it. C'mon man, lets keep it peaceful.

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

You are a bigot because you frequently disparage the Catholic faith and your smugness about your church shows a lack of humility. Not very becoming of any Christian or a moderator!

I think you're wrong there, Noel. You frequently post about how your Church is the only true Church - how smug is that? I freely admit that my church is not perfect and that there are plenty of other Christian churches that are equally as good and legitimate as mine.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Mickeroo

How about people just shouldn't throw stones?

PDN

Mickeroo wrote: »

How about people just shouldn't throw stones?

In that case maybe we shouldn't answer questions, since somebody's answer is bound to offend someone else?

The problem is that if you start off by saying your particular church is the only right one, and your beliefs are the only true beliefs, then anyone who expresses a different view is seen as bashing your church and beliefs. Which means the rest of us have to either keep silent, or we cause offence.

The charter of this forum forbids unreasonable bigotry or antagonism against any branch of Christianity - but there has to be room for us to criticise one another's beliefs and practices. After all, in another thread the majority of posters are being very critical of a practice in my church (speaking in tongues) but I recognise that there is a diversity of belief within Christianity so I'm hardly going to get all upset and start calling everyone else a bigot.

kelly1

PDN, I'm not bashing your beliefs, you (and others) are bashing mine. You said:

"[Confirmation is] A waste of time and money in my opinion - but then again I'm not a Catholic."
and
"Sorry Noel, in my opinion that is one of the worst collections of twisting misinterpretations that I have ever encountered."

and you denounced infant baptism.

I've debated, in other threads, things (e.g. Purgatory, the Real Presence, validity of confession and Tradition) which your church and others deny. That's defending my faith, not attacking the faith of others. I feel strongly that the Catholic faith needs to be defended because it's under attack so much.

And I appologise of getting emotional about this and insulting you.

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

And I appologise of getting emotional about this and insulting you.

No problem. We all (myself included) lose it from time to time on here. It's the internet!

Genghiz Cohen

Group hug?

:pac:

prinz

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Group hug?

:pac:

That really would be an ecumenical matter :pac:

Splendour

While I don't agree with the Catholic view of Confirmation in the traditional sense, I firmly believe God fills people with gifts of the Holy Spirit but it is done in His timing not when we decide. I don't think gathering a bunch of similar aged kids together and assuming God will touch them all at the same time is biblically correct.

When I was confirmed at the age of 12, I knew what was happening in the Catholic sense, and it really meant something to me. I didn't expect to be hit by lightening or anything, I think I accepted it as being 'confirmation' of my Catholic faith.

My opinion on Communion and Confirmation is that it should be taken out of schools altogether. If parents want to have their children to receive these sacraments they will have to attend church. I can't understand how or even why priests confirm kids when they know it's hogwash to both the parents and the kids...

homer911

My youngest child goes to a "C of I" Primary School with a large Catholic population. The school/church happily supports the local Catholic priest giving confirmation classes after school, in the school. I find that even stranger - the kids are in a protestant school after all...