Age Of Confirmation Essay
A controversial issue, the idea of when a child should become Confirmed has been debated thoroughly for awhile. I believe that the Confirmation age should stay the same due to a higher mental capacity, it would cause the church turmoil and trouble, and if received at an early age, children may not want to learn more about their faith. A child does not think the same way or act the same as an adult, but a teenager would be able to empathize with the significance of Confirmation more. In addition, if you changed the age of Confirmation the Church would receive unwanted negativity and be put under fire from non-approvers. Finally, if a child receives the sacrament at an early age, they may not want to learn more about their faith, which does not benefit them in the long run.
…show more content…
The first article written by Michael A.
Marchal, is in favor of moving Confirmation to age seven, where the sacrament of Eucharist is currently received. In Addition, Marchal also writes that as a teenager he felt that Confirmation was not significant. He writes, “Although meeting my first bishop was cool, the ritual by comparison was dull and its purpose unfocused and vague.” Marcal then addresses that Confirmation is framed around one’s physical, emotional, psychological, and moral maturity rather than its connection to the sacrament of Eucharist or Baptism. Also, he thinks it would be beneficial to create a alternative baptismal vow renewal later in life. Marchal says “First, I believe my first Communion would have been more spiritually empowering if I had been confirmed at that same time—and the more passive experience of being confirmed would have made sense even at that age as the welcoming transition to the table. I was ready to “receive the gift,” not just of the Eucharist but of the Holy Spirit.” From this quote one can see that Marchal believes that receiving Confirmation and Eucharist at the same time would have been more spiritually
enriching.
The second article was written by an Archbishop, who disagrees with Marshall's firm stance on the issue of Confirmation. This Archbishop believes that due to a past attempt in integrating the two sacraments together, and it not catching the attention of the children, that he is not for Confirmation at an early age. He disagrees with Marchal’s idea of creating a alternative baptismal vow renewal, saying that, “I doubt that this new non sacramental rite that is referred to would draw more than a few teenagers. I believe that it is important for high school students to have an opportunity to recommit themselves to their faith.” Furthermore, the Archbishop believes that not many students would want to continue their studies after receiving Confirmation.
Overall, I believe the Marchal makes a far-fetched statement. The Church not only would have to change their current policies, but institut a baptismal vow renewal which not only would require a lot of time but funding too. Also, having children receive the sacraments at the same time would not allow them to fully appreciate and understand them. I agree with the Archbishop, and his insight to the fact that students may not want to continue their education if they receive Confirmation early. Finally, Confirmation should stay the same because a teenager is more mature than a seven year old, it could give the Church negative attention, and children may not want to continue their education.
The first article written by Michael A.
Marchal, is in favor of moving Confirmation to age seven, where the sacrament of Eucharist is currently received. In Addition, Marchal also writes that as a teenager he felt that Confirmation was not significant. He writes, “Although meeting my first bishop was cool, the ritual by comparison was dull and its purpose unfocused and vague.” Marcal then addresses that Confirmation is framed around one’s physical, emotional, psychological, and moral maturity rather than its connection to the sacrament of Eucharist or Baptism. Also, he thinks it would be beneficial to create a alternative baptismal vow renewal later in life. Marchal says “First, I believe my first Communion would have been more spiritually empowering if I had been confirmed at that same time—and the more passive experience of being confirmed would have made sense even at that age as the welcoming transition to the table. I was ready to “receive the gift,” not just of the Eucharist but of the Holy Spirit.” From this quote one can see that Marchal believes that receiving Confirmation and Eucharist at the same time would have been more spiritually
enriching.
The second article was written by an Archbishop, who disagrees with Marshall's firm stance on the issue of Confirmation. This Archbishop believes that due to a past attempt in integrating the two sacraments together, and it not catching the attention of the children, that he is not for Confirmation at an early age. He disagrees with Marchal’s idea of creating a alternative baptismal vow renewal, saying that, “I doubt that this new non sacramental rite that is referred to would draw more than a few teenagers. I believe that it is important for high school students to have an opportunity to recommit themselves to their faith.” Furthermore, the Archbishop believes that not many students would want to continue their studies after receiving Confirmation.
Overall, I believe the Marchal makes a far-fetched statement. The Church not only would have to change their current policies, but institut a baptismal vow renewal which not only would require a lot of time but funding too. Also, having children receive the sacraments at the same time would not allow them to fully appreciate and understand them. I agree with the Archbishop, and his insight to the fact that students may not want to continue their education if they receive Confirmation early. Finally, Confirmation should stay the same because a teenager is more mature than a seven year old, it could give the Church negative attention, and children may not want to continue their education.