(Death, Heaven, Purgatory, Hell)
Links to Churches and Religions
Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults
|
|
A Review of Confirmation: Reexamining the Tradition
Dana G. Pelotte, SSS
After reviewing how the West (Roman Rite) celebrates Confirmation today, what implications are there for Eucharist? This is a question that the church is wrestling with today. Here is a review of an issue in the church today.
This paper was first written for a class at Catholic Theological Union at Chicago, IL Dana G. Pelotte is a member of the Congregation of the Blessed Sacrament and a third-year student of theology.
Introduction:
A few years ago, a pastor of one of our community parishes experienced tremendous opposition involving a basic issue surrounding the sacrament of confirmation. The issue was about the"age" one is to be confirmed. That experience not only divided the parish but left behind many hard feelings in the community.
As I reflected, I realized the limited knowledge that I and others have concerning the sacrament of confirmation. It is my opinion that many Catholics don't really understand what the sacrament of confirmation is all about. Little wonder since the sacrament's theology remains so ambiguous and not clearly stated or ritually performed well and more. Space does not allow an in-depth presentation of my findings, thus my goal will be to focus on key questions and concerns:
What is confirmation, and what effect does it have on those receiving the sacrament?
Is the Holy Spirit active in both the sacraments of baptism and confirmation or just confirmation?Often, confirmation is administered as a separate sacrament apart from baptism and eucharist. Why was it taken out of it's original context as part of the initiatory rite and now administered separately?
Why is the age factor so significant an issue in this sacrament?
Is confirmation a sacrament that "begins" one's journey in a Christian way of life or is it an "ending" point in one's Christian experience?
Why is this sacrament so misunderstood and unappreciated in today's church?
A separate issue relating to the topic needed an answer as well. It centers around the issue of anointing with oil within the sacramental process. What symbolism does oil have in the initiation rites?
Use of oil in the sacramental process:
The use of oil in the Christian initiation process dates way back to the second and third centuries. Two kinds of oil have been associated with the baptismal part of the initiation: the plain kind which today is used before the water baptism, and the chrism (perfumed oil) which is used after the water ceremony. The oil before baptism has had other names such as the "oil of exorcism," but today it is called the oil of catechumens. It's origin dates back to the anointing of those who were preparing for baptism. This oil is closely associated with the prayer of exorcism used in the ancient rite and in the present rite and has a purifying element in its expressions. It strengthens the catechumen in his or her challenges as they proceed to a new Christian way of life in the church.
The oil of chrismation is clearly distinct from the oil of catechumens. While the oil of catechumens is the oil of exorcism symbolic of strengthening, the oil of chrismation, the perfumed oil is one of thanksgiving and signifies faith building and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit. One is consecrated with the use of this oil. Anointing with chrism proclaims Christ. The oil mixed with balm (chrism) and consecrated during the Chrism Mass at the Cathedral is used in all of the sacramental initiation rites: baptism, confirmation and orders. The third oil used for anointing is for the sacrament of the sick. It has a healing effect. This oil is blessed, like the oil of catechumens at the Chrism Mass.
What is confirmation?
The use of the term confirmation is first encountered in the mid - fifth century (Council of Riez, 18 Nov 439), canon 3, confirmare neophytos; and at the Council of Orange, 8 November 441), canon 2, in confirmatione). (1) At this point in its history, confirmation does not have any connotation of strengthening, (this happens soon after) but that association becomes a main theological point as church history unfolds. Its immediate reference is to a bishop's personal involvement in a baptism over which he has not presided. In other words, the baptism preceded his "confirming" the neophytes by a longer or shorter period and was done by others.
There are many definitions for this sacrament. Richard McBrien describes confirmation as "The second sacrament of initiation, known in the East as chrismation by which the recipient is sealed with the gifts of the Holy Spirit." (2) Others, like McBrien, see this sacrament as a second stage of initiation (Confirmation) and in the sacred rite one is anointed with chrism and with the words of the bishop, the Holy Spirit comes in a special way upon the baptized Christian. As we see clearly, this sacrament makes explicit the presence of the Holy Spirit in the person confirmed.
Confirmation does not at first so much refer to a specific rite but illumines the personal involvement of the bishop himself with those being "confirmed." Before examining the reasons why confirmation evolved into it's own rite, I would like to touch on the effects of the sacrament of confirmation. It is much easier to present the various theological viewpoints concerning the effects of confirmation than to define what the term confirmation really means. We now move on to the effects of the Sacrament.
Effects & Spirit's Presence:
Vatican II identifies the effects of Confirmation as follows:
Bound more intimately to the church by the sacrament of confirmation, the faithful are endowed by the Holy Spirit with special strength. Hence they are more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith both by word and by deed as the true witness of Christ. (3)
The Apostolic Constitution on the Sacrament of Confirmation states:
The faithful are born anew by baptism, strengthened by the sacrament of confirmation, and finally are sustained by the food of eternal life in the Eucharist. (4)
In the General Introduction to Christian Initiation (excerpt from the Roman Ritual) confirmation is:
In this sacrament they receive the Holy Spirit whom the Lord sent upon the apostles on Pentecost. This giving of the Holy Spirit conforms believers more fully to Christ and strengthens them so that they may bear witness to Christ for the building up of his Body in faith and love. (5)
The emphases on "special strength" and witnessing become familiar beginning with the fifth century and this theology is used over and over again to justify a separate sacrament of confirmation, especially during the scholastic period. In the fifth century, a person by the name of Faustus, who became the Bishop of Riez in 458 delivered a homily which was to have a profound effect on the theology of confirmation at the time, even influencing the understanding of confirmation as a separate sacrament. He says:
that in baptism we are regenerated to life; after baptism we are confirmed for battle. In baptism we are washed; after baptism we are "strengthened." Baptism is what is passively received, while confirmation stresses human effort and involvement. (6)
His viewpoints stressing growth and strength had widespread bearing on the church of the West, and those views have filtered down right into modern times both in conciliar teaching and in modern thought. His theology is seen in the works of many writers who refer to the effects of the sacrament as a special strength of the Holy Spirit, a special power for one's growth and journey through life with an added obligation to spread the faith by word and action.
Adding to Faustus' theological viewpoints was Thomas Aquinas, (1225-1274). He came to see the sacrament as one of "spiritual growth" which provided strength in spiritual combat and boldness in professing the faith. (7) "Thomas' theology of Confirmation has been in use with little change since the thirteenth century, and remains at the heart of Paul VI's Apostolic Constitution." (8)
Even with all the theological viewpoints put forward so far in church history, a lot remains unclear to this day. The true theological significance of the sacrament remains illusive and ambiguous. There are many, many opinions. Karl Rahner says:
the difficulty of distinguishing between Baptism and Confirmation and of considering them as two different sacraments still persists to this day. For we must all understand both Sacraments are the communication of the Spirit. Our present day sacrament of Confirmation was not originally considered separate from Baptism, as is evident in the acts of the apostles. (9)
To dismantle the bridge of sacred chrism which has its proper place between baptism and eucharist is to abort the second initiatory rite from within its true "context" and only invites serious misunderstanding both sacramentally and theologically. Unfortunately, that's just what happened and as we have seen resulted in a confusion which still exists within the Christian community over the matter of confirmation. What further complicates the theological misunderstanding when this separation takes place is that in both sacraments, baptism and confirmation, the Holy Spirit is received. The Holy Spirit is not exclusive to confirmation, and can not be claimed as such.
Confirmation as a separate sacrament:
Two passages in scripture are often used to identify the confirmation rite as a distinct rite separate form baptism (Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19: 1-6). Whether that assumption is correct or not is a matter of one's own opinion and interpretation. We know that in the first centuries of our church the rites of initiation were so closely bound together in one whole ceremony that it was very difficult to distinguish between baptism and confirmation. Those accepted into the church, primarily adults, but children as well, were initiated into the community receiving baptism, confirmation and eucharist celebrated all at the same ceremony. That was the community's initiatory process. It was a single process, and Christian initiation included what is later called confirmation (the second sacrament). This second sacrament was the link or anchor between the baptismal font and the eucharistic table. (10)
Why did this disjointing or fragmentation of the Christian initiation process take place unlike the Eastern Church who retained their initiation rites together? There are many reasons why these changes came about beginning in the fourth and fifth centuries. As I mentioned earlier, Bishop Faustus was most influential in creating a new understanding of confirmation and his views were ultimately responsible for creating a separate sacrament. Those views continued to snowball from century to century. Also, Emperor Constantine (fourth century) had declared the Christian church as the official church of the Roman Empire. In light of this, Christianity began to spread rapidly. Churches multiplied!
Next on the scene is Augustine's theory on Original Sin in response to Pelagianism. Also infant baptisms increased significantly in the West. As the numbers grew bigger, the bishop (the only authorized presider over the rite of confirmation) could not longer be present in all the parishes to "confirm." In order that at least the "confirming" be the sole prerogative of the bishop, the administration of this sacrament was separated from that of baptism. At first, the separation of the two rites was not considered normal and less than ideal. Eventually the separation became accepted. During the scholastic period (thirteenth century) the opposition to the separation of rites began to relax and official allowances were made for concrete pastoral situations. Also, at this time, a specific theology was developed in order to justify the new rite carried out only by the bishop.
While the medieval theologians seem to have had no difficulty in accepting confirmation as one of the sacraments of the church, they did have difficulty explaining it. Another key moment came during the Protestant Reformation period when the sacrament of confirmation became questionable as a sacrament itself. Martin Luther and John Calvin claimed that confirmation was purely of ecclesiastical origin and that it had no warrant in Scripture. (11) The Council of Trent (1545-63) responded and condemned those who questioned the sacrament of confirmation, in response to Luther, Calvin and others. In 1566, the catechism of the Council of Trent stated that confirmation could be given to any baptized Catholic, but it was not necessary to receive the sacrament until age seven, though it should not be postponed beyond age twelve. (12)
Following the Council of Trent, confirmation was generally administered not before age seven and not later than twelve. Through the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, confirmation was still given before communion because the age for first communion came to be older, even beyond that of confirmation. Later on in the twentieth century, another significant change took place which further cemented confirmation as a separate rite. Through the actions of Pope Pius X in 1910 the age of first communion moved to age seven. In view of this, the traditional order (baptism, confirmation, eucharist) was further disturbed. (13) First communion would generally be received before confirmation and normative.
As I reflect back on the development through the centuries which eventually extracted confirmation from its original initiatory context, I've often wondered what part church "politics" played in the matter. Why were the bishops so intent on reserving the rite of confirmation to themselves? Was this decision truly based on scripture? Pastoral needs to visit the young people? It is not clear why the bishops in the West did not deligate the "power" to confirm as did the Eastern Rites. Because the Eastern Rites always maintained the sequence of confirmation by delegating the minister to baptize, confirm and give communion, there was never the separation as in the West. Whatever the answer, generation upon generation have felt the impact of the action of the Church in the West separating the sacraments of initiation and personal views held by church councils and famous theologians like Augustine, Lombard, Aquinas and Rahner.
Age:
Two schools of thought and practice exist which are intertwined with two different and somewhat opposing theologies. The two approaches are termed "confirmation as initiation" and "confirmation as commitment." If one accepts a theological standpoint from which confirmation is seen as a sacrament of initiation, the age of administration would be earlier. If however, one adopts a more pastoral pedagogical standpoint whereby the catechesis connected with the sacrament receives more emphasis, than a later age would be considered.
Two theologies follow these approaches as well. One theology highlights the initiation process which culminates in full participation in the ecclesial assembly climaxed at the celebration of the Eucharist. (14) Thus, confirmation is either seen as process of initiation (the method first used in the early church), or as a commitment moment, a call to mission and to accept and witness the gospel of Jesus Christ. Whatever method is chosen determines whether Confirmation is a beginning or an end.
If one chooses the initiation process Confirmation is seen as a new beginning. If however, the celebration is delayed until the young Christian acquires a certain maturity level, this process marks the end of one's religious education period. (15) The ritual promulgated after Vatican II seems caught in between two theologies and attempts to highlight both methods as reflected in two rites; both the Rite of Confirmation (1971) and the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (1972) show the ideal of giving to adults all three initiation sacraments together: baptism, confirmation, and Eucharist. Within the Rite of Confirmation it allows special provisions for children. The document states:
For pastoral reasons, however, especially to strengthen in the life of the faithful complete obedience to Christ the Lord in loyal testimony to him, episcopal conferences may choose an age which appears more appropriate so that the sacrament is conferred after appropriate formation at a more mature age. (16)
Conclusions?
When I first began writing, my tendency was to choose the initiatory process as the method I most favored. That has not changed, in fact, with the new found knowledge that I have acquired I am convinced more than ever that the church should attempt to re-anchor confirmation back to its initial position. First, it does not displace its initial position anchored in-between baptism and eucharist. It retains its Trinitarian concept with all three elements clinging into one "unit." With this approach, eucharist becomes the climax of the initiatory event. Further, eucharist is the sustaining force that propels and nourishes the new Christian in his or her journey through life. It's a beginning, not an end.
One's commitment can not survive long without being nourished by food, and that food is the eucharist. When confirmation is delayed after eucharist, then the true value of the eucharist in one's faith life is at risk of dissolving permanently. In my involvement with parochial ministry, I have witnessed the strengths of the Catechumenate and the impact that this has on the lives of those becoming Catholic Christians.
I believe, too, that confirmation remains so misunderstood and unappreciated because that sacrament remains hanging in "limbo" waiting to be re-anchored to its proper place. If re- anchored, its theological misunderstandings would be resolved and better catechesis could surface. It is my hope that we might follow the lead of the Eastern Churches and Orthodox leaving intact "one" rite in the initiation process.
End notes:
1. Fink, The New Dictionary of Sacramental Worship, 277.
2. McBrien, Catholicism, 1236.
3. Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 11, 361.
4. Rite of Confirmation, 7.
5. Bouley, Catholic Rites Today: Abridged Text for Students, 170.
6. Austin, New Dictionary of Theology, 222.
7. Martos, Doors to the Sacred, 220.
8. Quinn, Living Water, Sealing Spirit:, 234.
9. Rahner, Confirmation Today, 14.
10. Fink, 271.
11. O'Shea, Sacraments of Initiation, 48.
12. Martos, 224.
13. QL: Confirmation: Status Quaestionis with an Overview of the Literature, 17.
14. Smolarski, Sacred Mysteries: Sacramental Principles and Liturgical Practice, 54-55.
15. Smolarski, 55.
16. Rite of Confirmation: General Introduction, 11.
Bibliography
Bohen, M., O.S.U. The Mystery of Confirmation: A Theology of the Sacrament. New York: Herder and Herder, 1963.
Bouley, A. Catholic Rites Today: Abridged Texts for Students. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992.
Cunningham, J.L. Confirmation: Pastoral Concerns. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1973.
Fink, P., S.J. The New Dictionary of Sacramental Worship. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1990.
Flannery, A., O. P. Vatican II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Vol 1, 1992.
Johnson, M. E. Living Water, Sealing Spirit: Readings on Christian Initiation. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1995.
Komonchak, J., Collins, M., Lane, D. The New Dictionary of Theology. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988.
Lause, J. The Continuing Question of Confirmation: Suggestions for Pastoral Approaches. Chicago: CTU, 1990.
Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Cathecism Of The Catholic Church.. Dubuque: Brown-ROA, 1994.
Maloney, D.A. The New Catholic Encyclopedia 4. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967.
Martos, J. Doors To The Sacred. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1981.
McBrien, R.P. Catholicism. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1994.
McCormack, A. Christian Initiation .50. New York: Hawthorn Books, 1969.
Milner, A., O. P. Theology of Confirmation.. (Theology Today Series #26). Fides, 1971.
Murphy Center for Liturgical Research. Made, Not Born: New Perspective on Christian Initiation and the Catechumenate. University of Notre Dame, 1976.
National Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Rite of Confirmation. Washington: USCC, 1972.
O'Doherty, M., S.T.L. The Scholastic Teaching on the Sacrament of Confirmation. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1949.
O'Shea, W. Sacraments of Initiation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1966.
Paul VI. Rite of Confirmation: Apostolic Constitution on The Sacrament of Confirmation. Collegeville: Pueblo, 1971.
QL70. Confirmation: Status Quaestionis With An Overview of the Literature, (1-21), 1989.
Rahner, K., S. J. Confirmation Today. Dennville, NJ: Dimension Books, 1974.
Smolarski, D. Sacred Mysteries. New York: Paulist Press, 1995.
Stravinskas, P. Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 1991.