Re: [liturgy-l] Baptism then Confirmation
>This morning, three adolescent girls were baptized at the early service (byI can see a case for the Bishop administering Baptism, but I can't see any
>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.
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.
- Dn. Ormonde wrote:
> But not all bishops believe this craziness. I recently heard onestate that
> baptism with chrismation, even if by a presbyter, constitutesconfirmation
> 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.