I did some reading of Trullo

Just confirm with you that the EO are not friends with and/or go to any Jewish Doctors right?

"Let no one in the priestly order nor any layman eat the unleavened bread of the Jews, nor have any familiar intercourse with them, nor summon them in illness, nor receive medicines from them, nor bathe with them; but if anyone shall take in hand to do so, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off."

I'm curious how you maintain this? Do you ask everybody if they are specifically Jewish when you meet them? And leave if they are?

To be clear. Your proposal is that we should accept and follow the councils we like and dismiss the ones we don't.

I could probably get on board with that logic.

Our criteria are different. You rely on EO exclusively; I rely on Scripture.

----------------
This conversation actually reminds me of this video from Fr. DeYoung

Here’s the clip. They were discussing original guilt. pic.twitter.com/HEMWighi9y

— CatholicPrimer (@CatholicPrimer) February 9, 2026

--------------
Don't read Scripture. Don't read the Fathers (except when they agree with us), Just follow your bishop.

Of course, we are still left with the question of what do we do when the ecclesial groups disagree with each other. You are left to use our own judgment to decide who you think is right.

Quote:

---

Don't read Scripture. Don't read the Fathers (except when they agree with us), Just follow your bishop.

---

This is so far from what he said in that video that its laughable, for one.

For two, the great irony here is that the parody version of what he said is still preferable to what you're teaching.

Your reductio approach here assumes that "if you affirm Trullo you must affirm each and every cannon in an identical way". But this is wrong - false equivalence due to a category error, with a tiny accusation of hypocrisy.

A canon is a standard, not dissimilar to how various laws function in different ways. Just like there are different kinds of laws, there are practically different kinds of canons. There are irreformable ones like dogmatic definitions, for example those on the Trinity. There are moral canons rooted in scripture and tradition, which are universally binding - like the prohibition against eating blood, sexual immorality, idolatry, abortion. And then there are disciplinary, prudential, and pastoral canons.

The prohibition against blood is the the second category, and explicitly grounds itself in scripture. Canon 11 is the third.

The authority structure of councils and canons doesn't mean that any canon ever at any council is applied woodenly and literally and identically in every circumstance, in every century, throughout all time. The authority structure is that the Church, through the bishops who have authority, both determine canons as normative standards AND they determine the correct judgment and application of those standards in various circumstances. Sometimes that is strict application, sometimes that is relaxed (economy).

The original point was that Lutheran's don't really follow the ecumenical councils, and Luther specifically didn't accept even Jerusalem. The point was made that even canons which are explicitly rooted in scripture and apostolic tradition are handwaved away because reasons.

"You don't literally follow every canon from Trullo" doesn't address why Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10-14, Acts 15:20, 28-29, and subsequent reaffirmations in Apostolic tradition are not binding on Christians today, much less who has the authority to make such a decision.

The lurking evil here is that the same vague appeal to cultural circumstance (not even to scripture in this case because scripture says clearly you shouldn't eat blood, this is literally just an appeal to culture) could absolutely be used to justify homosexual relationships. Or basically anything else you like.

Ah. So canons are important except when you don't want them to be?

It's not a category error. Your exact words are:

Quote:

---

This isn't how it works, though - and you know that. A random homily isn't the same thing as the judgment of a bishop or the application of a canon.

That judgment, or canon, from Jerusalem is still very much in force.

---

In fact, you made sure we knew that other councils affirmed Trullo

Quote:

---

So, these canons are very much still applicable to Christians, and if you affirm the Nicaea II as an ecumenical council, then you also by definition affirm the canons they inherit, which include the above.

---

I went and looked. Nicaea 2 starts with this in Canon 1:

Quote:

---

Seeing these things are so, being thus well-testified unto us, we rejoice over them as he that hath found great spoil, and press to our bosom with gladness the divine canons, holding fast all the precepts of the same, complete and without change, whether they have been set forth by the holy trumpets of the Spirit, the renowned Apostles, or by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, or by our holy Fathers.

---

No caveat there. Nicaea accepted ALL of Trullo under your reasoning above. So you must too.

-------------
You or someone else realized the problem, and so you invented categories so you can simultaneously claim Trullo while also ignoring what you want. To be clear, Trullo doesn't differentiate canons. You did.

---------------

Which is honestly my biggest frustration with eccelsial groups. You accuse Protestants of ignoring things, such as canons and councils, while you do the EXACT same thing. You and Rome just hide behind bishops and magisteriums.

My opinions on the relative importance of any particular canon is irrelevant to the question. I don't have the authority to judge or apply a canon. Neither do you. Neither did Luther. Everything else is downstream of that.

Still haven't explained why Christians should eat blood when scripture says not to. So forget canons not even scripture binds your conscience.

////

Imagine how bad this argument would sound if you were applying it to laws and saying that every law ever promulgated by any legal authority were the same level of force and endurance, had to be applied the same way in all circumstances, and could be ignored or reasoned by any person. No difference between city ordinance or the constitution. No need to have legislature or judges. Similar level of sophisticated reasoning going on here.

And yet it's not the council itself that gives you, or anyone else, authority to modify what it said. Which is exactly what you and/or someone else is doing. Re-interpreting the council to parse out canons you agree or disagree with under the cover of ecclesial authority.

I also need to correct myself. Nicaea 2 would not have affirmed Trullo because the West was there, and the West never affirmed Trullo.

--------------------

As for Acts 15. my defense is Paul, Chrysostom, Augustine, and I'll even add in Thomas Aquinas.

Summa Theologiae (I-II, Q.103, Art.4)

Quote:

---

Objection 3. Further, the commands of the apostles did not lead men into sin. But it was commanded by apostolic decree that the Gentiles should observe certain ceremonies of the Law: for it is written (Acts 15:28-29): "It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication." Therefore the legal ceremonies can be observed since Christ's Passion without committing mortal sin.

---

Quote:

---

Reply to Objection 3. Some have held that this prohibition of the apostles is not to be taken literally, but spiritually: namely, that the prohibition of blood signifies the prohibition of murder; the prohibition of things strangled, that of violence and rapine; the prohibition of things offered to idols, that of idolatry; while fornication is forbidden as being evil in itself: which opinion they gathered from certain glosses, which expound these prohibitions in a mystical sense. Since, however, murder and rapine were held to be unlawful even by the Gentiles, there would have been no need to give this special commandment to those who were converted to Christ from heathendom. Hence others maintain that those foods were forbidden literally, not to prevent the observance of legal ceremonies, but in order to prevent gluttony. Thus Jerome says on Ezekiel 44:31 ("The priest shall not eat of anything that is dead"): "He condemns those priests who from gluttony did not keep these precepts."

But since certain foods are more delicate than these and more conducive to gluttony, there seems no reason why these should have been forbidden more than the others.

We must therefore follow the third opinion, and hold that these foods were forbidden literally, not with the purpose of enforcing compliance with the legal ceremonies, but in order to further the union of Gentiles and Jews living side by side. Because blood and things strangled were loathsome to the Jews by ancient custom; while the Jews might have suspected the Gentiles of relapse into idolatry if the latter had partaken of things offered to idols. Hence these things were prohibited for the time being, during which the Gentiles and Jews were to become united together. But as time went on, with the lapse of the cause, the effect lapsed also, when the truth of the Gospel teaching was divulged, wherein Our Lord taught that "not that which entereth into the mouth defileth a man" (Matthew 15:11); and that "nothing is to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving" (1 Timothy 4:4). With regard to fornication a special prohibition was made, because the Gentiles did not hold it to be sinful.

---

----------------

When I'm in the company of those 4 on an issue, Scripture and the tradition of the fathers, I'll stand firm on that. For what else is Sola Scriptura than that?

And to really button this one up.

Even our brothers from Rome, in a council that they also call Ecumenical, have opinions on this.

I believe you are familiar with the Council of Florence.

https://www.vatican.va/content/eugenius-iv/it/documents/bulla-cantate-domino-4-febr-1442.html

Quote:

---

The Church firmly believes, confesses, and proclaims that everything created by God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving (1 Tim 4:4); for, according to the Lord's expression, not what goes into the mouth makes a man unclean (Mt 15:11) , and she affirms that the difference in the Mosaic Law between clean and unclean foods concerns the prescriptions for ceremonies, which were superseded and annulled by the proclamation of the Gospel. Even the apostles' command to abstain from food offered to idols, from blood, and from strangled animals (Acts 15:29) was appropriate to that time when from Jews and Gentiles, who previously lived according to different rites and customs, a single church arose. It was therefore fitting that Jews and Gentiles should have common observances and the opportunity to agree in one worship and one faith in God, thus eliminating the matter of dissension, since to the Jews by ancient tradition blood and strangled animals seemed abominable things and they might think that the Gentiles were returning to idolatry by eating sacrificed things. But when the Christian religion had spread so far that there was no longer any Jew in it according to the flesh, but rather with the transition to the Church, all shared in the same rites proposed by the Gospel, convinced that " to the pure all things are pure" (Titus 1:15), the reason for that prohibition having ceased, its effect also ceased. The Church, therefore, declares that no food in use among men is to be condemned, and that no one, man or woman, should make a distinction between animals, however killed; However, for the health of the body, the exercise of virtue, and the discipline imposed by ecclesiastical rules and norms, many things, even if not prohibited, can or must be omitted. According to the Apostle, in fact, everything is permitted! But not everything is useful (1 Cor 6:12; 10:22).

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

And to really button this one up.

Even our brothers from Rome, in a council that they also call Ecumenical, have opinions on this.

I believe you are familiar with the Council of Florence.

https://www.vatican.va/content/eugenius-iv/it/documents/bulla-cantate-domino-4-febr-1442.html

Quote:

---

The Church firmly believes, confesses, and proclaims that everything created by God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving (1 Tim 4:4); for, according to the Lord's expression, not what goes into the mouth makes a man unclean (Mt 15:11) , and she affirms that the difference in the Mosaic Law between clean and unclean foods concerns the prescriptions for ceremonies, which were superseded and annulled by the proclamation of the Gospel. Even the apostles' command to abstain from food offered to idols, from blood, and from strangled animals (Acts 15:29) was appropriate to that time when from Jews and Gentiles, who previously lived according to different rites and customs, a single church arose. It was therefore fitting that Jews and Gentiles should have common observances and the opportunity to agree in one worship and one faith in God, thus eliminating the matter of dissension, since to the Jews by ancient tradition blood and strangled animals seemed abominable things and they might think that the Gentiles were returning to idolatry by eating sacrificed things. But when the Christian religion had spread so far that there was no longer any Jew in it according to the flesh, but rather with the transition to the Church, all shared in the same rites proposed by the Gospel, convinced that " to the pure all things are pure" (Titus 1:15), the reason for that prohibition having ceased, its effect also ceased. The Church, therefore, declares that no food in use among men is to be condemned, and that no one, man or woman, should make a distinction between animals, however killed; However, for the health of the body, the exercise of virtue, and the discipline imposed by ecclesiastical rules and norms, many things, even if not prohibited, can or must be omitted. According to the Apostle, in fact, everything is permitted! But not everything is useful (1 Cor 6:12; 10:22).

---

---

Far be it from me to wade into a Zobel discussion. But if you've read anything he's posted, you'll realize there's a difference between a rando and a College of Bishops.

Explain to me why the episcopate cant do what you so readily ascribe to Luther, and I will explain to you why the episcopate can do what Luther can't, or Pat Robertson can't, or Jimmy Swaggart, or anyone else who is not a Bishop.

AgLiving06 said:

---

And yet it's not the council itself that gives you, or anyone else, authority to modify what it said. Which is exactly what you and/or someone else is doing. Re-interpreting the council to parse out canons you agree or disagree with under the cover of ecclesial authority.

I also need to correct myself. Nicaea 2 would not have affirmed Trullo because the West was there, and the West never affirmed Trullo.

--------------------

As for Acts 15. my defense is Paul, Chrysostom, Augustine, and I'll even add in Thomas Aquinas.

Summa Theologiae (I-II, Q.103, Art.4)

Quote:

---

Objection 3. Further, the commands of the apostles did not lead men into sin. But it was commanded by apostolic decree that the Gentiles should observe certain ceremonies of the Law: for it is written (Acts 15:28-29): "It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication." Therefore the legal ceremonies can be observed since Christ's Passion without committing mortal sin.

---

Quote:

---

Reply to Objection 3. Some have held that this prohibition of the apostles is not to be taken literally, but spiritually: namely, that the prohibition of blood signifies the prohibition of murder; the prohibition of things strangled, that of violence and rapine; the prohibition of things offered to idols, that of idolatry; while fornication is forbidden as being evil in itself: which opinion they gathered from certain glosses, which expound these prohibitions in a mystical sense. Since, however, murder and rapine were held to be unlawful even by the Gentiles, there would have been no need to give this special commandment to those who were converted to Christ from heathendom. Hence others maintain that those foods were forbidden literally, not to prevent the observance of legal ceremonies, but in order to prevent gluttony. Thus Jerome says on Ezekiel 44:31 ("The priest shall not eat of anything that is dead"): "He condemns those priests who from gluttony did not keep these precepts."

But since certain foods are more delicate than these and more conducive to gluttony, there seems no reason why these should have been forbidden more than the others.

We must therefore follow the third opinion, and hold that these foods were forbidden literally, not with the purpose of enforcing compliance with the legal ceremonies, but in order to further the union of Gentiles and Jews living side by side. Because blood and things strangled were loathsome to the Jews by ancient custom; while the Jews might have suspected the Gentiles of relapse into idolatry if the latter had partaken of things offered to idols. Hence these things were prohibited for the time being, during which the Gentiles and Jews were to become united together. But as time went on, with the lapse of the cause, the effect lapsed also, when the truth of the Gospel teaching was divulged, wherein Our Lord taught that "not that which entereth into the mouth defileth a man" (Matthew 15:11); and that "nothing is to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving" (1 Timothy 4:4). With regard to fornication a special prohibition was made, because the Gentiles did not hold it to be sinful.

---

----------------

When I'm in the company of those 4 on an issue, Scripture and the tradition of the fathers, I'll stand firm on that. For what else is Sola Scriptura than that?

---

But only on issues you actually agree with. I doubt you'd hold their beliefs on the necessity of human cooperation with grace or the necessity of good works for salvation.

I'm sure like most Lutherans you view works as a fruit of faith, and not necessary for justification nor salvation.

Secondly, I doubt that you'd agree that baptism removes the stain of original sin. Lutherans believe that concupiscence is a sin itself not merely a weakness

What sola scriptura is: "I'll use the fathers when they agree with I can nuance excerpts to support my eisegesis and then discard them when they disagree"

All you do is kick the can to "I decide". This is why you have 6,000,000 popes and not 1

Quote:

---

And yet it's not the council itself that gives you, or anyone else, authority to modify what it said. Which is exactly what you and/or someone else is doing. Re-interpreting the council to parse out canons you agree or disagree with under the cover of ecclesial authority.

---

I don't even understand what this means. The council is the expression of authority, not the authority itself. Explanations of how that authority functions (meaning, how different canons have been treated in history) is not me parsing out canons I agree or disagree with. My obedience is not to the canons in a vague sense, it is to my bishop in a particular sense. If your bishop says you can eat blood, then go for it.

You're so caught up in the minutiae about Trullo that you've ignored the Apostolic canons and, worse, the scriptures. Nevermind the long list of references to this chapter specifically as binding both by saints and other writers who just represent historical witnesses: Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, St Clement of Alexandria, St Justin Martyr, St Irenaeus, the Didascalia Apostolorum, St Athanasius of Alexandria, St Basil the Great. It isn't until St Augustine that you see a (western) shift. If you'd like me to say that St Augustine is wrong, ok. He's wrong. They're holy fathers, not Holy Spirits. And if St Augustine's error led Thomas into subsequent error, ok. It wouldn't be the first time St Augustine had an opinion that was at odds with the teaching of the Church.

I don't know why you think St John Chrysostom is in your side here - he says (you quoted it) "even these (the Jews) need observe no more (than these necessary things)" meaning necessary things include: avoiding idolatry, not eating blood, not committing sexual immorality. He also says "For these, although relating to the body, were necessary to be observed, because they caused great evils." Add St John to my list, not yours.

Scripture says don't eat blood - first to Noah, then to Israel AND the foreigners dwelling among them, then by the Apostles to gentile Christians. There is no scripture that permits eating blood.

If you want to rest on (quite literally here) the tradition of men against explicit scriptural teaching, you do you dawg.

///

And all of this still doesn't address the point, which is to say, it's stupid to say that Lutherans follow the councils when they simply don't. They follow the councils as long as it agrees with (their interpretation) of scripture and reject things that don't. That's not the same thing.

Just for argument's sake, what prevents a modern person from applying the exact same logic to sexual immorality as applied here to blood?

The Torah is loosed, it doesn't bind gentile Christians. So anything in the Law is right out. Even applications of the Law by the Apostles in the NT is temporary. Eating blood was prohibited because it gave the Jews the ick, not because it was displeasing to God (no matter what Genesis says). Same same with sexual immorality - that stuff is in Leviticus, who even needs the Law? They just said that because gay gentiles made based Jews uncomfortable - the Apostles themselves were woke, for sure. So lesbians can totally get married.

First question: Does anywhere in Scripture

In the previous case, we had clear evidence that it was not a command, and Paul also spoke in multiple letters that it's not food that makes someone impure.

Next question: What about the fathers?

We then see this confirmed throughout church history through the writings of the fathers and even through councils.

--------------
To the topic of sexual immorality...

To ask the obvious question. Does Scripture ever speak about sexual immorality in this way? Do Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc, ever speak of sexual immorality in a positive manner? Do they claim sexual immorality is now acceptable?

The next follow-up: Which Church Fathers wrote that sexual immorality was permissible?

I'm caught in the minutiae?

This entire back and forth started because you made a vague claim about Luther that has now fallen apart. You spent this entire time claiming Luther alone believed he could ignore the Council of Jerusalem and its canons.

We had to get into the minutiae because of your claims. You tried to make Luther an outlier.

Only it turn out that both the eastern and western church held his view. And now we find out that the EO also ignores canons they deem worthy of ignoring. Oh...they don't ignore it...they just seemed them "category 3" or whatever you called it.

It's in the very minutiae that we see that the EO does the very thing you accuse other of.

Just to be clear - Christ upholds every jot and tittle of the Torah. St Paul says he affirms the Torah. The burden of proof here is for you to show why we should ignore the Torah - both in Genesis and Leviticus.

I didn't say anything about making you impure. Genesis doesn't say this is makes you unclean, it says you can't eat it, because the life is in the blood.

Does that change somehow? No.

And this is.. contra your position.. affirmed in councils, not denied.

This is a waste of time though, because you will say "but Augustine" and it doesn't matter, because Luther doesn't say "but Augustine" he says quote -

Quote:

---

Let anyone who will start to bring the Church into obedience to this council; I shall follow him very gladly. Otherwise, I want to be excused from listening to this cry of "Councils! Councils! You do not keep the councils and fathers!" Or I will cry back, "You yourselves do not keep councils or fathers, because you treat this highest council and the highest fathers, the apostles themselves, with contempt! Why do you think that I ought or must keep councils and fathers, when you yourselves will not touch them with a finger?" I would say, as I said to the Sabbatarians, that they ought first to keep their Mosaic law, and then we, too, would keep it; but when they themselves do not and cannot keep it, it is laughable when they ask us to keep it. You say it is not possible to introduce the rules of this council because opposite practices have become too widespread. That is no answer, for we have undertaken to govern ourselves according to the councils, and here it says, "The Holy Ghost has decreed." Against the Holy Ghost the plea that things have gone too far or taken too deep a hold, has no force, and that kind of excuses leaves no conscience sure of what to do. If we would be conciliar, we must keep this council above all others; if not, then we may keep none of the other councils and thus be free from all councils. For in this council there were not simple bishops, as in the others, but the apostles themselves, who were the Holy Ghost's certain and highest fathers.

---

So, I mean... the Orthodox church passes Luther's test. We keep this council - we still teach that Christians are not to eat blood. You shouldn't eat blood.

This was my vague claim - "Luther didn't even consider the council of Jerusalem as binding in his own words. " "In other words, you agree that Luther not only felt he could ignore ecumenical councils but councils in scripture itself."

Quote:

---

Only it turn out that both the eastern and western church held his view. And now we find out that the EO also ignores canons they deem worthy of ignoring. Oh...they don't ignore it...they just seemed them "category 3" or whatever you called it.

---

This is worth starting a new thread - because this is not the case. There is no ignoring.

I'm kind of curious if you're just using chatgpt for arguments? You've now gone 180 and said "well Luther would have followed it, so he can now with the EO. Reads as if you're just quote hunting.

In this case, Luther is clearly making a reductio ad absurdum argument. It's very easy to see:

Quote:

---

Let anyone who will start to bring the Church into obedience to this council; I shall follow him very gladly. Otherwise, I want to be excused from listening to this cry of "Councils! Councils! You do not keep the councils and fathers!" Or I will cry back, "You yourselves do not keep councils or fathers, because you treat this highest council and the highest fathers, the apostles themselves, with contempt! Why do you think that I ought or must keep councils and fathers, when you yourselves will not touch them with a finger?" I would say, as I said to the Sabbatarians, that they ought first to keep their Mosaic law, and then we, too, would keep it; but when they themselves do not and cannot keep it, it is laughable when they ask us to keep it.

---

You posted this part, but let's continue to see the absurdity.

Quote:

---

Besides, it is not so impossible to avoid blood and things strangled! What would it be like, if we had to eat corn, herbs, beets, apples, and other fruits of the earth and the trees, as our ancestors did before the Flood, when it was not permitted to eat meat? We should not die of hunger, even if we were to eat neither meat nor fish. How many people, even today, have to live, eating fish or meat very seldom. Thus the plea of impossibility does not help to strengthen our conscience against the Holy Ghost, because without injury to body or soul, we could go back to living, not only without eating blood and things strangled, as Moses teaches, but also without fish and meat, as before the Flood. I am surprised that, with all the many spirits of disorder of these days, the devil has not brought up these beautiful ideas, which have such fine precedents of Scripture on their side.

---

The point is that, even today, unless we eat kosher, we really don't have any idea how our food is prepared... and that's modern times. Not the times of the church past.

But more to the point. If the church, throughout history did not treat this canon as law, but as pastoral, then what is really being claimed here?

Quote:

---

I say all this about this council, because it is the first and the highest, so that we may think the matter over before we allow that the Church should live, or be ruled, according to the councils. If this council causes us so much confusion, what will it be like when we take up the others? It is true, I admit, that the word "Council" is easy to say, and a sermon about keeping the councils is easy to preach; but what attitude to take in order to put the councils in force again, what about that, my dear friend? The pope and his followers are clever; they get off lightly by saying that he is above all councils and may keep what he will and allow others to keep them as far as he will. Yes, if the problem can be solved that way, then let us stop using the word "Council" and stop preaching that the councils shall be kept, and cry, instead, "Pope, pope! The pope's doctrine should be kept!" Thus we all get off easy and are fine Christians, like them! For what good will the council do us, if we cannot and will not keep it, but only boast the name or the letters that compose it?

---

Which gets to the very point you've tried to use to avoid canon 11 of Trullo. If the Church treats it as pastoral, it's pastoral. To try and "unring the bell" because we want to make a point is the wrong solution.

FIDO95 said:

---

At Texas A&M University, 400 Students are currently preparing to become Catholic. pic.twitter.com/TCUen1XFdP

— Catholic Quotes (@CatholicQuote12) March 16, 2026

This is amazing!! As active and on fire St Mary's was in the '90s, I believe it would pale to this. Obviously I'm biased that this is going on at a Catholic Church but I would be praising this if it was going on at any Christian church that recognizes the Trinity. We often hear so much about kids going off to college and getting lost. It fills me with joy knowing so many attending A&M are being found.

---

This is a great story but I have a question. How many of these students are Protestants (or other) becoming Catholic, vs how many are cradle Catholics who are finally going through the confirmation process?

I don't know the answer to that question but there are a few things to consider. The images presented are of students getting baptized. The Catholic church recognizes the baptism of protestant denominations so presumably these are individuals new to the Christian faith. There would not be a need to repeat baptism. "Cradle Catholics" should have already been baptized as infants or children. That sacrament is not repeated during Confirmation. Confirmation is a laying of hands and anointing of oil by a Bishop.