Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [liturgy-l] Baptism then Confirmation

Expand Messages
  • Thomas R. Jackson
    ... I can see a case for the Bishop administering Baptism, but I can t see any good reason for arbitrarily delaying Confirmation. Separating the Baptism and
    Message 1 of 116 , May 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      >This morning, three adolescent girls were baptized at the early service (by
      >the Asst Rector) and then were confirmed at the later service with the rest
      >of their cohort by the Bishop (who wasn't present at the earlier service).
      >Am I alone in thinking that a) either the Bishop should have baptized them
      >at the later service; or b) the girls should have waited to receive
      >confirmation until some later date.
      >
      >It seems rather a mockery of the idea of reaffirmation of vows if you've
      >only made those same vows 90 minutes earlier.

      I can see a case for the Bishop administering Baptism, but I can't see any
      good reason for arbitrarily delaying Confirmation.

      Separating the Baptism and Confirmation is in accord with Western
      Tradition, but I don't know that it served any real purpose in this case,
      as the Bishop was available. On the other hand, if Confirmation is merely
      a "reaffirmation of vows" then it probably needs to be scrapped anyway,
      even if you wait a week, month, or some longer time for it. Confirmation
      should be treated as a Sacrament, or not treated at all. For that matter,
      so should Baptism. the Sacrament of Baptism isn't about us and our
      actions, such as some human vow of loyalty or fidelity. It is about God
      and His freely given Grace, His free gift of incorporating us into His Body.

      thomas
    • Cody C. Unterseher
      ... state that ... confirmation ... And this is the attitude of many RC s. One of the historical prayers for confirmation is the prayer that accompanies the
      Message 116 of 116 , May 5, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Dn. Ormonde wrote:

        > But not all bishops believe this craziness. I recently heard one
        state that
        > baptism with chrismation, even if by a presbyter, constitutes
        confirmation
        > for those of all ages.

        And this is the attitude of many RC's. One of the historical prayers
        for confirmation is the prayer that accompanies the chrismation in
        the Roman baptismal liturgy. It was understood that the sealing
        which was accompanied by laying on of hands, was de facto what we
        understand to be confirmation: an act of the whole church praying
        for the impartation of the Holy Spirit.

        Note that the postbaptismal anointing (and its accompanying prayer)
        is omitted when adults are baptized and then immediately confirmed
        (such as at the Easter Vigil).

        The prayer which accompanies the action prays that the effect of
        baptism be confirmed or ratified: "God the Father of our Lord Jesus
        Christ has freed you from sin and given you a new birth by water and
        the Holy Spirit, and has welcomed you into his holy people. He now
        anoints with the chrism of salvation. As Christ was anointed Priest,
        Prophet, and King, so may you live always as a member of His body,
        sharing everlasting life. Amen." or "The God of power and Father of
        our Lord Jesus Christ has freed you from sin and brought you to new
        life through water and the Holy Spirit. He now anoints you with the
        chrism of salvation, so that, united with his people, you may remain
        for ever a member of Christ who is Priest, Prophet and King. Amen."
        (Both translations are used interchangably, though the first appears
        in the Rite for Infant Baptism, and the second in the Rite for Adult
        Baptism apart from Confirmation.)

        The point of the omission in the combined adult rite seems to be that
        it would constitute a redundancy. Which makes one wonder. . . .

        The flip score to Steve's conundrum is that these adolescents may
        have been catechized in a class setting and the intent of the pastor
        was to keep the class together. The baptisms were, hypothetically,
        separated to maintain soldiarity. "Hey, why does she get to be
        baptized and I don't?"

        I think that it would have been increddibly instructive to link the
        two rites in the same liturgy, but sometimes we overlook teachable
        moments in the interest of time or other 'pastoral' concerns.

        Peace,
        Cody
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.