Peter Kwasniewski, in
Lessons from a Whisky Priest:
The Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation; whatever else God may do in His freedom, He has revealed to us only one path by which we are saved: plunging into the death of Christ and rising with Him. The Church teaches that confession is the only way to be certain of the absolution of mortal sins, and in this sense, it is necessary for those in mortal sin. Extreme unction, as it was once aptly named, prepares the soul for the great passage from death to eternal life, lest it be a passage from death to second death. It fulfills the petition in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy: “For a Christian, painless, blameless, peaceful end of our lives, and for a good account before the dread judgment seat of Christ, let us beseech the Lord.”
There seems no end of dioceses where the faithful are being cut off even from necessary sacraments like baptism and confession—and for what atheistic persecution? Where are the Red Shirts breathing down our necks?
and
Bishops who believe in the Christian faith will seek every creative solution to be with their people and to ensure that the clergy, who in a way represent them, can remain where they are most needed. By contrast, for an indifferentist or a universalist who thinks, Abu Dhabi-like, that many different paths lead to God, or that perhaps no path at all is needed as a merciful God will scoop us all up in the end, baptism would not be necessary. To one who no longer believes in the reality of mortal sin—sin that kills the divine life in the soul—confession would no longer be necessary. It helps, of course, that laymen can baptize their own children in a difficult situation and that one can make a firm resolution to go to confession as soon as it is available again. But will the laity who feel abandoned today by their pastors feel confident in them tomorrow after the crisis has passed? The abuse crisis and the coronavirus response are, in many ways, like a one-two punch.
No mention of the necessity of Confirmation?
Baptism by water and the Gift of the Holy Spirit should never have been separated -- both are part of one baptism into Christ; even now Latins think Confirmation is an "optional" Sacrament and is treated as such by many, even clergy.
The Roman Code of Canon Law on Confirmation:
A most unsatisfactory explanation of the sacrament:
Can. 879 The sacrament of confirmation strengthens the baptized and obliges them more firmly to be witnesses of Christ by word and deed and to spread and defend the faith. It imprints a character, enriches by the gift of the Holy Spirit the baptized continuing on the path of Christian initiation, and binds them more perfectly to the Church.
The gift of the Holy Spirit should be mentioned first, as this explains why the sacrament is a necessary part of initiation.
Can. 883 to 886 reiterate the
Latin emphasis on bishops being the regular or primary (not necessarily "ordinary") minister of the sacrament. This tradition, no doubt linked to a biased view towards the monoepiscopate, needs to be revisited.
The reception of the sacrament is obligatory: "Can. 890 The faithful are obliged to receive this sacrament at the proper time. Parents and pastors of souls, especially pastors of parishes, are to take care that the faithful are properly instructed to receive the sacrament and come to it at the appropriate time."
But it presupposes that the bishop is the regular or primary minister, even if it is not explicitly stated. What other reason for there to be a delay until the "age of discretion," instead of having Confirmation at the same time as Baptism? "The bishop is too busy."
"Can. 891 The sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred on the faithful at about the age of discretion unless the conference of bishops has determined another age, or there is danger of death, or in the judgment of the minister a grave cause suggests otherwise."
No Latin dares ask what the consequences are of an incomplete sacramental Christian initiation, even if they may resort to saying any defect in initiation is made up by God or reception of the Eucharist. Theological speculation but is it warranted by the witness of the early Church and Scripture?
