Katholish

I had started a Catholic Q/A topic some time ago that had more than a 100 posts fairly quickly, and was involved in a similar topic that I didn't start several months ago. To many people who are not Catholic, the Catholic Faith sometimes seems confusing. There is usually at least some point in which a non-Catholic may ask, Do they really believe that? Well, I wish to give you an opportunity to ask. It has also been my experience that most non-Catholics have some misconceptions of what Catholics believe, sometimes rather serious ones. So, please feel free to ask if you had any questions. Or wanted to know why the Church believes as she does. Also, in the interest of keeping this easy to follow and keeping answers concise and readable, I ask that my fellow Catholics refrain from answering the questions posed. If you want to further comment or to even disagree with me, please start another topic in this forum.

I am also Catholic, so my vote in this poll is obvious.

Just one of many reasons why women can not be priests in the Catholic Church.

Perhaps you are unaware of the difference in biblical canons. The book of Second Maccabees is in the Bible. Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox have slightly different canons for the Old Testament. This is a subject that I am fairly familiar with, and has such I can go into it at length if you would like, but sufficieth for now to say that the Old Testament that the Apostles used (the Septuagint translation) included the Second Book of Maccabees, and the very first printed Bible (the Gutenberg Bible) included it as completely canonical. It wasn't until after the destruction of Jerusalem that the Jews wrote it out of their biblical canon, and it wasn't until the Reformation that Luther and Protestants refused to included it, but Second Maccabees has been regarded as inspired Scripture since the beginning of the Church and nearly unanimously after the settlement of the canon around the end of the 4th Century. This difference in canons does lead to some of the differences between Catholics and Protestants, but generally it is a symptom of those differences and not the cause. Sola Scriptura is the cause. Regarding the question of salvation in the Church, I just made a big post on it before writing this one.

My simple answer would be no. Luke also writes: Luke 1: 41 And it came to pass that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? Mary is blessed in the manner that Christ refers to in Luke 11, she heard the Word of God and kept it. Christ hear makes that point that mere human relationships do not reflect blessedness in their own right. Just because a person was a cousin or uncle to Christ does not mean that they are going to have an easier time getting into Heaven. If Mary had sinned, she could have been damned like anyone else.

I know countless, and I am one who goes daily. I get on my knees and ask God's forgiveness daily, for He alone has the power to forgive my sins. I will address this out of turn to quickly clarify my meaning. I was referring to sacramental Confession, properly called the sacrament of Penence. I myself say an act of Contrition daily, which is more akin to what you mean. In that sense, than yes, the practice is very common in the Catholic Church and encouraged on a daily basis. However, sacramental confession is a slightly different, though related, matter. I assumed that Irene was referring to sacramental confession.

Irene, I was not familiar with this document before you brought it up, but to give some context, it was written in 1891 by Pope Leo XIII on the subject of the Rosary. Paragraph 4 seems to have been slightly taken out of context, and I think it might be helpful to supply what came immediately before the text that you quoted. Thus the context is Mary's participation in the Divine Plan, that she gave her consent for the Incarnation to occur in her own body, etc. Paragraph 6 likewise benefits from seeing the whole paragraph. The context here is praying to God, but doing so in a "manner in which they may give to their prayers the greater power", namely the power of being joined with the prayers of Christ's own mother. This passage does not indicate that all prayers must be said "though" Mary though. It is interesting that you bring up this document though, because I do think that the first part of paragraph 4 contributes much to the dicussion introducing that manner in which Mary's role at the Announciation was so important, that she essentially represented all humanity in giving her consent, just as Eve represented all humanity in giving her consent to sin.

Irene, I hadn't missed your question, I am just a week behind in answering them. Well, we can agree that only God is deserving of latria, worship considered in the sense meant here, but I would not consider it a Christian position to claim that no honor should be given to any other person or thing accept for God. Honoring thy father and mother comes to mind right away. We honor the saints because of their heroic virtue. I am of course aware that individuals experiences with religious will differ because nuns and priests are themselves different individuals, but in the above incident, I honestly find hard to give the benefit of a doubt. That a nun physically hit you, while an unfortunate incident, and perhaps one that the nun in question was very much in the wrong, I can believe without problem. That you were forbidden from going to Mass I find much harder to believe, especially in light of the fact that all Catholics must go to Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation. I have never heard of a person being prohibited from going to Mass by a religious (though if such a command were given, it is my understanding that it would not be binding on the individual in the circumstances given above) in the last 3 centuries. Also, being made to go to confession everyday for six months is likewise difficult to believe. If such a thing were known to happen, or the prohibition from Mass for that instance, it would be frontpage news on many of the Catholic publications. Daily confession is an extremely rare practice to begin with, I cannot say that I person know anyone who goes to confession daily. The Catholic Church has always taught that "Outside the Church there is no salvation". Now, that phrase can be easily misinterpreted so I will explain exactly what we mean. But first of all, why do we say this phrase to begin with? As Christians, we know that Christ is the Way the Truth and the Life, and that no one comes to the Father except through Him. The Acts of the Apostles has a great quote. Acts 4: 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said to them: Ye princes of the people and ancients, hear. 9 If we this day are examined concerning the good deed done to the infirm man, by what means he hath been made whole: 10 Be it known to you all and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God hath raised from the dead, even by him, this man standeth here before you, whole. 11 This is the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. 13 Now seeing the constancy of Peter and of John, understanding that they were illiterate and ignorant men, they wondered: and they knew them that they had been with Jesus. St. Cyprian of Carthage explains the way in which the Early Church always believed the Church to be necessary for salvation and explains why. St. Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise on the Unity of the Church, 251AD: The question thus becomes, who according to the Catholic Church, is part of the Church that they may be saved? It is by Faith and Baptism that a person enters into communion with the Church. A validly baptized person is made a child of God and heir to Heaven, and the Sanctifying Grace lost by Adam's sin is restored. Baptism is absolutely necessary to be part of the Church. All of those who are unbaptized are lost. However, there are three kinds of Baptism, of water (the sacrament) but also by blood or desire. Thereby even the Incas before the arrival of Christopher Columbus had a chance to be saved, even if it wasn't a good chance. Just as Christ desires all men to be saved, He has esblished means by which all men have that chance. (You you wanted, I could go into this issue of Baptism more. I know that I am not explaining it much at all and it is important to the discussion.) There are three bonds with which a person is tied to the Church, and we can us these and apply them to different groups to understand the Church's relationship with them. 1) Unity of Doctrine (Profession of One Faith received from the Apostles) 2) Unity of Worship (The common celebration of Divine worship and the sacraments) 3) Unity of Governance (Apostloic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family.) Only members of the visible Catholic Church under the leadership of Christ and His vicar on earth fully meet all three of these bonds of unity. The Eastern Orthodox churches share Doctrine and Worship, but not Governance (They have apostolic succession, but do not recognize the primacy of Peter's successor among the bishops). Thus they share an imperfect communion with the Church and lack little in restoring their relationship to full communion. The Protestant groups mostly share Doctrine, but there are significant differences in some cases, so this is not fully shared. Worship and the sacraments are only partially shared as the Protestants maintained Baptism (the most critical) and marriage among the sacraments, but deined the other 5 (for the most part, there maybe certain exceptions). There is almost no sharing of governance, the only possible thing that might pass as shared authority is the acknowledgement of the Holy Scriptures among all Protestants. Validly baptized Protestants thus share some communion with the Church by nature of Baptism, but it is a vastly imperfect communion. A member of the Church, or a person sufficiently in communion with her though, while being a requirement, is not the same as being saved. Catholics can go to Hell just like anyone else can. What is essential to the issue is being in the State of Grace when a person dies. This state is entered into at Baptism, but can be lost by any grieviously sinful act (Technically, a Mortal Sin has three requirements, grave matter, full consent, and sufficient knowledge). No one can rightly jugde the state of another's soul, so a precise statement of who is saved and who is not is not possible, but whomever dies in the State of Sanctifying Grace (in communion with God and His Church in other words) is saved.

Actually, the title of "Co-redemptrix" is not approved by the Catholic Church, though some Catholics do use it. There was a very short news clipping that contains a very good quote from the head of the Congragation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, on the topic.

Wilburnh, To my knowledge, there is no explicit mention in the Sacred Scripture of a person asking one who as died in the Lord to intercede for them. That is true. However, there is referrence to them interceding though not the asking for intercession. There is a strong referrence to that effect in the Second Book of Machabees, however, we come to the problem that Protestants do not accept that book as Scripture, whereas the majority of Christians do. Thus while I understand that is doesn't serve the purpose of supplying Scriptural proof that you would accept, I would be remise in not mentioning it. 2 Machabees 15: 11 So he armed every one of them, not with defence of shield and spear, but with very good speeches, and exhortations, and told them a dream worthy to be believed, whereby he rejoiced them all. 12 Now the vision was in this manner. Onias, who had been high priest, a good and virtuous man, modest in his looks, gentle in his manners, and graceful in speech, and who from a child was exercised in virtues holding up his hands, prayed for all the people of the Jews: 13 After this there appeared also another man, admirable for age, and glory, and environed with great beauty and majesty: 14 Then Onias answering, said: This is a lover of his brethren, and of the people of Israel: this is he that prayeth much for the people, and for all the holy city, Jeremias, the prophet of God. 15 Whereupon Jeremias stretched forth his right hand, and gave to Judas a sword of gold, saying: 16 Take this holy sword, a gift from God, wherewith thou shalt overthrow the adversaries of my people Israel. Now, your question as to whether the early Church could have been wrong in this matter is of somewhat more interest. I will concede from the beginning that it is possible for individual Church Fathers to err on just about any matter. However, more to the point in this discussion is whether or not all of the early Church Fathers could have been wrong, and to that I would venture to say no. It is not possible for all of the early Church to be wrong on a matter of doctrine. If it were the case, then we would essentially be a different Church than was the early Church, because we have a different doctrinal basis than they do. It would not merely be a matter of having a deeper understanding of some doctrinal point, but a wholesale rejection of doctrine that they held. Christ promised that He would be with us always, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. However, if the entire Church were to acept heretical treachings, they would no longer be in communion with the Aposltes and the Church that Christ established, and hence the gates of Hell would certainly have prevailed. If it had just been one or two of the Church Fathers, than perhaps it could have been misplaced zeal on their part, but it was not just one or two, but was accepted by the entire early Church. As a disciplinary requirement (not doctrinal) Catholics must go to sacramental confession at least once a year, so if they did not "go to a priest" they would be in a state of mortal sin, likewise, Catholics are bound to go to Mass at least once a week on Sunday. I could see on the otherhand a Catholic going some time without asking the intercession of the saints, though I would think it misguided, and if it resulted from a denial of the Church's teaching on the intercessary power of the saints, than yes, it would be "looked down upon". Catholics are obliged to accept the Church's teaching on that matter, as on many others as the Church authoritatively teaches and interprets the contents of Divine Revelation as found in the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition.

Arthur Durnan, No, we do not forget. Purgational suffering would not even be possible but for the merits and graces won for us by Christ. I am unclear as to why you claim that Romans 14:12 gives explicit evidence of what you are saying. Romans 14 (verse 12 bolded): 10 But thou, why judgest thou thy brother? Or thou, why dost thou despise thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written: As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 Therefore every one of us shall render account to God for himself. 13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more. But judge this rather, that you put not a stumblingblock or a scandal in your brother's way. I also have no idea what is meant by "Bema Judgment Seat". Perhaps you could explain the term for me. Purgatory is ultimately not a third place that a soul can go, but rather all who would go to Purgatory would go to Heaven, it is just a purification that Heaven may be entered into purely. It is not a place where people are given a chance to "earn" Heaven, nor is it a place that people can go instead of Heaven. There are only two destinations that a person can ultimately end up, Heaven or Hell.

Irene, It obviously depends upon the church as to the number of statues that can be found. Usually what is more striking are the stained glass wondows, often of saints or biblical scenes. All Catholic churches will have a crucifix though, which technically counts, and most have taken up the custom of having a statue or other image of Mary on the left side (looking at the altar from the back), and one of St. Joseph on the right, uoften holding the child Jesus. In the older churches, there are usually more images including statues than can easily be counted, in more "modern" designs, there are few. (I am an opponent of "modern" church architecture and interior design.) Catholics developed the great Gothic cathedrals of Europe, and some of the structures today are stains on that record, but I digress. No, these do not seem like, nor are they idols. First of all, let's define the term. Wordnet from Princeton University gives a good working definition of idol:"a material effigy that is worshipped as a god." In regards to images, there are two different questions, 1) whether they are to be admitted, and 2) how they are to be treated. The first is the easier as it is very easy to prove the acceptability of sacred images. The only real arguement against images in general is the wording of the first Commandment, yet we find that this is against false gods and not all images altogether even by the use of graven angels on the Ark of the Covenent itself by command of Almighty God. Furthermore, even in the earilest days of Christianity, the catacombs of Rome were decorated with images from our Lord's life along with other sacred images. There is the question then of how that are to be treated. I will here copy the pertinent portion of the decree of the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 787AD (the Seventh Ecumenical Council) which fought what was known as the Iconoclast Heresy: Even the Council here makes quite clear the distinction between giving worship which is due to God alone and venerating an image because it represents a holy person. This is exactly the distinction that the Catholic Church makes in venerating holy images like statues. The Catholic Church does not "worship" Mary in the sense that you mean it. There are differing levels of respect, praise, etc. Due to persons based on their position in the Heavenly hierarchy. For instance, St. Michael the Archangel is deserving of more honor then the angel formerly known as Lucifer (I hope that is obvious). Catholics differentiate three different levels of honor, veneration, and worship called dulia, hyperdulia, and latria. Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia's definition of Dulia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm I wouldn't say that you are bowing to the image, no. The image is just a representation, and does not have power through itself, though some images may be used as instruments of healing, etc. I often "bow" (more along the lines of the original usage, not like a nod of respect to someone you pass on the street or a thing that you might do after a performance) when praying or at Mass, but that is not for anyother purpose than to show humility before God. The saints have very close relationships with God, particularly now that they are with Him in a more profound way than we one earth. They were also among those who more closely followed His law and led virtuous lives. James 5 (emphasis added): 16 Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.

*this is just a copy of the response I gave you in PM* Mary DID NOT have physical relations with the Holy Spirit. You are certainly right in saying that this would contradict the perpetual virginity, and it would even contradict the virgin birth which is so explicitly stated in the Scripture. We say that Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit, but that is because of the Holy Spirit's role in the Incarnation and that Mary preserved herself for God alone (but that in no way implies that God had physical relations with any person, which I can most vigorously deny.)

As far as the dead are concerned, those in the Old Testament would not have interceded because the Gates of Heaven were not opened until the Death of Christ, so the comparison is necessarily going to be off. However, since those that have died in Christ are still living in Him and are part of the Mystical body as we are who are Baptized and part of the Church, then there doesn't seem to be any reason that those who are in Heaven cannot hear us, for they have eternal life. As members of the Mystical Body, they are concerned for its wealfare and that of its members just as much as anyother human is, why could they, who are closer to Christ then are we, not petition him on our behalf? There is no reason against their being able to intercede and it seems fitting and right that they are able to. I think that it seems somewhat clear from the Scripture that you referred to concerning Saul, that the prohibition against "consulting" the dead is for purposes of divination, that is trying to gain knowledge about the present life, or more specifically, fore-knowledge, astrology, fortune-telling and the like. In praying for the dead, or asking the intercession of the saints, we are not seeking a two-way interaction, we are not seeking knowledge that is not meant for us to have. However, this does not prohibit the Tradition passed on from the Apostles of praying for the dead, or asking the dead to pray for us, for in both instances, the actions are Christ centered, and not seeking to seek knowledge or favors by going around His power as with those who act as spirit mediums and divinizers who draw on demonic powers. St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures 23 (circa 350AD) In fact, Cyril of Jersusalem in the 4th Century is hardly alone amongst the leaders of the early Church in supporting this practice. Here is a link to a good listing of referrences in the Early Church of the invocation and veneration of saints. You will find it covered by Tertulian (211AD), St. Cyprian of Carthage(250AD), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (350AD), St. John Cyrsostom (374AD), St. Basil (375AD), St. Gregory Nyssa (380AD), St. Augustine (400AD), St. Jerome (404AD), St. Cyril of Alexandria (444AD), and many others. And the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea even addressed the veneration of the images of saints. http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/saints.htm I know that citing the beliefs of the Early Church is not as strong a support for you, but I provide this quote from St. Jerome of the late 4th and early 5th Centuries not so much because of his authority, but because of his summary of one of the strongest arguments in favor of the intercession of the saints. St. Jerome, Against Vigilantius, Chapter 6:

I am not familiar with the book or author, but the idea that priests tried to quantify salvation in some sense to give the people assurance of salvation doesn't seem to move in line with what the Church teaches. It is the Protestants sects that offer "assurance", the Catholic Church has always said that we cannot say without special private revelation that we are among the elect, and hence no absolute assurance exists, nor has the Church ever taught that it does. I don't mean this to sound like an accusation, but my your argument, it would be the sect that offers assurance that would be the one that invented it to comfort the masses.

Shane, I have been pretty good in providing citations and even quotations for all of the biblical verses that I refer to. I ask the same from you. Where in the Sermon on the Mount do you claim this is? As might be obvious, I do not accept Matthew Henry, an 18th Century Protestant minister, as an authoritative source in this matter of dispute between Catholics and Protestants. As Protestants denied the idea of mortal sin from the beginning of the Protestant revolt, he had cause to mold his commentary around his positions. Furthermore, Henry only lived to see up to Acts of his commentary completed, the rest was compiled, though based on his notes, by other non-conformists. Thus, I will procede in answer the quote as if you had personally argued these things. I am perfectly fine with that. It is unclear to me what is meant by this section. On the one hand, there seems to be a recognition that some sins are like capital crimes, and those are mortal, yet those that are not capital crime sins are not mortal. If that is the understanding, I find it likewise acceptable. However, there seems that there might also be a notion that sins not unto death are some how necessary in the human nature, and that god is somehow involved in them too. Perhaps he is equating this with physical evils, but I am unsure. Either way, if this is what he was thinking, there seem to be problems with it insofar as it describes something that is not sin at all, and hence it would be incorrect to call it so. The topic of sins resulting in physical death really has nothing to do with the topic at hand, so I will leave it alone. John is clearly referring to mortal sins in a spiritual sense because refers to the people that commit them as still living, so physical death cannot be what is therein implied. Well, I didn't expect Mr. Henry to take up a position against "once saved always saved" but I am pleasently surprised to find it here. I actually don't really have an objection to this section, though I would include more sins than he lists here. He lists mortal sins against Faith and against Hope, but does not mention the mortal sins against Charity which I would include. I am surprised because most Protestants object to the idea of mortal sin altogether.

Yes, it is a good point that you bring up that nothing with any sin whatsoever can enter Heaven. However, at the same time, the Epistle of John explicitly states that there are some sins that are not "Mortal" or "unto death". Thus we hold that if someone is free from mortal sin in a state of grace, he is saved, even if he has venial sins. However, it is because nothing impure can enter Heaven that the doctrine of Purgatory explains how both positions do not contradict.

I think that the answer can be found in the quote from Hebrews that I presented: Hebrews 12: 5 And you have forgotten the consolation which speaketh to you, as unto children, saying: My son, neglect not the discipline of the Lord: neither be thou wearied whilst thou art rebuked by him. 6 For whom the Lord loveth he chastiseth: and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 Persevere under discipline. God dealeth with you as with his sons. For what son is there whom the father doth not correct? 8 But if you be without chastisement, whereof all are made partakers, then are you bastards and not sons. 9 Moreover, we have had fathers of our flesh for instructors, and we reverenced them. Shall we not much more obey the Father of spirits and live? 10 And they indeed for a few days, according to their own pleasure, instructed us: but he, for our profit, that we might receive his sanctification. 11 Now all chastisement for the present indeed seemeth not to bring with it joy, but sorrow: but afterwards it will yield to them that are exercised by it the most peaceable fruit of justice. 12 Wherefore, lift up the hands which hang down and the feeble knees: 13 And make straight steps with your feet: that no one, halting, may go out of the way; but rather be healed. The point is the Purgatory is not a punishment for its own sake though, but is a necessary refinement as gold is refined in the fire. As had been said by another poster here, nothing impure can entire Heaven, even one little small sin cannot come with us there, but if we die still with that small sin (yet not with any mortal sin) we are at one time saved, yet still need purifying. True love desires the perfection of the beloved. Just so God desires us to be as perfect and free of sin before we may enter Heaven. I had used Moses as an example before, of how true forgiveness, even complete eternal forgiveness, does not necessarily mean that there are not some small "punishments" due for those sins though. I asked the question, because it is partly our differences here that lead you to think the baptism of infants so odd. Having Original Sin though prevents one from entering Heaven, and even infants who have not yet attained the use of reason still have Original Sin from Adam. It is not something that they are reasponsible for, but is a true condition that they start out in. Original Sin must be removed for even an infant to enter Heaven. With a mainstream Protestant belief that having Faith alone can free one of Original Sin, technically all infants who die before the age of reason would go to Hell, or at least not automatically go to Heaven. We baptize our infants to free them from Original Sin, so that from the very beginning, they might be brought up in the grace of God and in possession of the theological virtues. Now granted that the Church does not teach that infants who die without sacramental Baptism cannot go to Heaven, but what does happen to them is a speculative matter. They might go to a place of perfect natural happiness known as the Limbo of Infants, or they might be given use of their reason at a certain time (in which case a concept called Baptism of Desire might come into play), but from the information that we have from Divine Revelation including the Scriptures does not lead one to hope that they are all automatically taken to Heaven. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that all we can do is leave them in the merciful hands of God. (though that does not imply universal salvation)

Irene,

Irene, Good question. In fact it is the one answered by numerous Church Fathers when this issue became big bach in the 4th Century. The answer is that they are Baptized so that they can partake of the graces that are given by Baptisim, and that they may be saved if they die. What do you beleive happens to a child if they die before the age that they are capable of making a rational profession of faith?

"Really big sins" has nothing to do with it. No where did I imply that mortal sin could not be forgiven. Both venial and mortal sins though have temporal punishment due them that is technically a different thing than forgiveness. When sins are forgiven, that are entirely forgiven, just as Moses was entirely forgiven. Temporal punishment is a different matter though. Our difference is in application. You say "and Blood covering it is either good enough or not". I am not sure entirely what you mean by that phrase. Do you believe that the sin remains after it is forgiven put is "covered" or do you think that the sin is removed from the soul?

Yes, I understand that it is different in most Protestant churches, though I am also under the impression that some do practice infant baptism. I would suspect that many Anglicans do, but I am not entirely positive. As for Second Maccabees and the other six books (and parts of others), here is an online Catholic bible with them. http://www.scriptours.com/bible/

Anne, I seem to forgot your last question there. The Beatific Vision is the direct perception of God, perfect beatitude. It is technically what Heaven is. Because God is goodness Itself, when we experience Him directly, we are prefectly happy, by perfect, I mean in the absolute sense. There would be no possible way to be more happy.

You are right that we agree on Christ's sacrifice as the perfectly sufficient cause of Salvation. What we differ on is the application of Christ's merits to the individual soul, or as you say, the "how" salvation is attained for us. I am a little at a loss as to how to explain it differently than I have been trying to do when speaking about Baptism and Sanctifying Grace, but it is worth another shot. In St. Paul's epistles, he refers to the Church as one body, the Mystical Body of Christ, which all of the members are a part. He uses the example to explain that we all have different functions in the Church, not all are called to be priests or prophets. In order for man to attain Salvation, he must become a living member of this Body. Now, the Body is the Church, so a person must become a living member of the Church. By "living" I am referring back to the idea of Sanctifying Grace, but what it really means is sharing in the Life of God or in other words, being an active part of the Body. The sacrament of Baptism is how we become members of that Body, and join the Church.

Serotta, In the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, the sacraments are given at about the times that you mention. First confession and communion are received generally around second grade when the child has use of their reason, and Confirmation around highschool or junior high with emphasis on the person joining the ranks of the Church militant and being soldiers for Christ. However, these sacraments do not require the use of reason, and indeed in the eastern or Byzantine Catholic rites these sacraments are all given at the same time to an infant. I believe that this is also the custom of the Orthodox Churches.