Another Thought on Confirmation

Earlier the Rad Trad posted a quick reflection on the meaning of the Sacrament of Confirmation (or Chrismation in some rites). Beyond the meaning there is also a practical aspect of Confirmation to be considered, a very nugatory consideration at that.

 

Pius X, a canonized saint yet not wise in all his dealings, altered the age at which Roman Catholics may begin to receive Holy Communion from the time of Confirmation to age six or seven. In previous times one could only communicate from the time of Confirmation onward because Confirmation completes what Baptism begins: one is baptized into the new creation and anointed into the new priestly people at Confirmation. The two were once done together. In Apostolic times most people being received into the Church were adults, with infant Baptism usually only coming with an entire family's conversion. As Baptism became more regularly an infant's affair the Roman Church reserved Confirmation for the age of reason (usually the early teenage years) and the Eastern rite Churches kept the two together, even in the cases on infants. There is some wisdom to the Roman practice, as it ensures that every cradle Roman Catholic will receive a Sacrament from his bishop at some point in life. Despite the interim of several years without Confirmation, the order or the Sacraments was preserved. Enter Papa Sarto.

 

Papa Sarto had a strong devotion to the frequent reception of Communion and desired that even the youngest be able to participate in this practice. In the United States—I cannot speak for Europe and the other continents—this had no resonance in practice of the faith among Catholics. When the Catholic culture of the United States went into decline in the 1960s baptized Catholics, who had been receiving Communion for years, began to see Confirmation—given during the hormonal period when one begins high school—as the exit from the childish years of youth and an entrance into the world of drugs, sex, and rock 'n' roll. In all seriousness Confirmation has become a sort of "Congratulations, your childhood is over!" and that childhood includes religion. Another problem, aside from the social context, that engenders this lapsing after Confirmation is that Confirmation began one's reception of Communion, investing the Confirmed's future in the Church. The later date of Confirmation does the exact opposite. So what can be done about this?

 

I can see three potential solutions:

1. Least likely: restore the pre-Pian practice and merge first Communion and Confirmation again. This would probably be very unpopular at the parish level, as a great multitude of people would go absolute bonkers at the thought of one less family party and gift giving opportunity.
2. More likely, but improbable: make Confirmation part of the Baptismal rite again. This would be a restoration of the most ancient of practices, but it still unlikely given that most so many theologians equate Confirmation with the "age of reason."
3. Most doable and socially acceptable: restore the old order of Baptism-Confirmation-Holy Communion, but leave the time of administration at the discretion of the pastor. I heard of one pastor so tired of the poor state of religious education he instituted a parish policy that "If you want a Sacrament, you need to meet with me and be able to explain to me what it is." Aside from keeping the order of the Sacraments proper, it would not upset families (even though their disturbance would be for material purposes) as much as the other two options and gives pastors some influence in investing their faithful in a personal knowledge of the Sacraments.

Do I expect Pope Francis to call me for a full paper on the matter? No, but I do think this is an important issue for the future of the Catholic Church in the Western world.

Quick Word on Confirmation

 

A friend recently asked what the Byzantine perspective on Confirmation was. I thought I would share my reply since the perspective might differ a little from what we all learned in religious education at the hands of a lay catechist (or in my case, a Jesuit).

We often think of Baptism as "washing away Original Sin" and Confirmation as a "strengthening" (confirmo in Latin means "I strengthen") in the Church Militant. 

Baptism is actually prefigured in the Great Flood and in the Parting of the Sea by Moses. It is the washing away of sin, to be sure, but it is, more importantly, the crossing over into a new and renewed creation, the new promised land and the new Jerusalem which is the Church (and which the old covenant and the old Jerusalem anticipated). We enter the Church in Baptism ("baptism" means "plunging" in Greek, hence when one is "baptized into Christ" one is plunged into the body of Christ, the Church) we enter into something pure and our sins are washed away as a consequence. 

Confirmation, or Chrismation, is a similar story. The anointing with oil is actually an Old Testament style anointing to the priesthood. In this case it is the anointing into a priestly group of people (1 Peter 2:9—that passage Luther so abused). In the ancient days the priests came from the Levites. Christ has transformed all members of the Church into members of a new type of people that has this priestly charism, that is, the power and ability to spread the Gospel, which is of course not the same as Holy Orders. It is perhaps a very small participation in Christ's priesthood in spreading the Gospel. The priests and bishops in Holy Orders have a much stronger participation since they have the power to confect the Sacraments. Either way it is a very real participation in the Divine Life. Because it is a joining to a new people, Confirmation was always done in tandem with Baptism: one entered into the new creation and the new people of God at the same time. As infant Baptism (which was always done) became the norm the Byzantines Confirmed infants and the Romans reserved it for the bishop to do. There is, in both the traditional and Novus Ordo Roman books, a remnant of Confirmation of infants: the priest anoints the baptized child with Chrism saying nothing. Thankfully we do confer Confirmation after Baptism with converts now.

Also at Confirmation one receives the Holy Spirit. Because one enters into a priestly people one must receive the Holy Spirit to be guided in truth (1 John 2:20). The traditional Roman rite loses sight of this. The form in the Roman rite is "I sign you with the sign of the Cross and strengthen you with the chrism of salvation in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The Byzantine rite, which the new Roman books copied in this case, is far clearer "Be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit" which really means "Be sealed with the gift that is the Holy Spirit."

Makes me wish I appreciated my own Confirmation more!