Welcome to An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the RSS feed to keep up to date with what I'm writing. Alternatively, if you want to contact Peter in relation to issues of human sexuality, please use the contact form here. Thanks for visiting!
John H has picked up a fantastic post by All the Fullness on how confirmation snuck into our churches by the backdoor and ended up confusing the whole “who’s in and out” issue on communion.
In the early Church, baptism, confirmation, and first communion were always done together, in a single rite of Christian initiation. The unified rite of baptism/confirmation was understood to effect regeneration and to bestow the gift of the Holy Spirit. They were not thought of as two “different” sacraments (if for no other reason than that the term “sacrament,” and the whole taxonomy of sacraments and sacramentals had not been invented yet); but since the Son and the Holy Spirit have distinct, but complementary, roles in the economy of salvation, the two actions of being united to the Son and receiving the Holy Spirit may properly be distinguished, even though they happened in the same rite.
…
The connection between confirmation and first communion was, I think, originally due to the notion that baptism without confirmation was somehow incomplete. If a person has not been fully initiated into the Church (by having received the gift of the Holy Spirit), how can that person receive Holy Communion? But if baptism is rightly understood as full initiation, both in the Christological and pneumatological dimensions, then what more needs to happen to enable a person to receive communion? You’re either in Christ or you are not. If you aren’t, you daren’t approach the altar; but if you are, the priest ought not to turn you away.
Why, then, do our pastors not commune infants and young children? The usual explanation, I think, is that children do not have the understanding necessary for the faith to “discern the body” in the sacrament of the altar. As John H said in a comment on the thread that started this, 1 Corinthians 11 [show]1 Corinthians 11 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife(1) is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife(2) who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.(3) Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God. But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part,(4) for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for(5) you. Do this in remembrance of me."(6) In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.(7) But if we judged(8) ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined(9) so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brothers,(10) when you come together to eat, wait for(11) one another-- if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home--so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come. (ESV) Footnotes 1. [11:3] Greek 'gun&emacron;'. This term may refer to a 'woman' or a 'wife', depending on the context 2. [11:5] In verses 5-13, the Greek word 'gun&emacron;' is translated 'wife' in verses that deal with wearing a veil, a sign of being married in first-century culture 3. [11:10] Or 'messengers', that is, people sent to observe and report 4. [11:18] Or 'I believe a certain report' 5. [11:24] Some manuscripts 'broken for' 6. [11:24] Or 'as my memorial'; also verse 25 7. [11:30] Greek 'have fallen asleep' (as in 15:6, 20) 8. [11:31] Or 'discerned' 9. [11:32] Or 'when we are judged we are being disciplined by the Lord' 10. [11:33] Or 'brothers and sisters' 11. [11:33] Or 'share with'
:27ff … strongly implies that some degree of understanding and belief is *ordinarily* necessary … “faith in these words” … implies some understanding of those words.
But I do not think we want to identify faith with understanding, or worse, to make faith dependent on understanding — Credo ut intelligam and all that. As soon as we do that, we cut the ground out from under infant baptism. Faith is, of course, a gift of grace, through Word and Sacrament - not the product of our intellect and thus dependent on our understanding. He has faith in those words who has received that faith through Word and Sacrament, not just he who understands the words (shall we turn the mentally retarded away from the altar?).
Preach it brother!!! Baptism by water (not confirmation) is a signifier (but no guarantee) of entry into the visible church, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (not confirmation) is the only sure and certain way to enter into the invisible church. Since we cannot ultimately rule on the second we should happily accept the first as the doorway to the Eucharistic Table.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Thank you for your kind words about my post.
Unfortunately, I must say that you are reading things into my post that are not there. I would not say of baptism (or of any sacrament) that it is “a signifier (but no guarantee)”. Quite the contrary: a sacrament is precisely a promise of God, the objective effect of which is absolutely to be relied upon. I was at pains in my post to affirm that the Holy Spirit is objectively bestowed through the sacramental ministry of the Church; not through some uncovenanted event (”baptism in the Holy Spirit”) unconnected with the public ministry of Word and Sacrament. I am, after all, a Lutheran; and our public confession clearly states that it is through the public, external means of grace, and through them alone, that God brings about our conversion, justification, and sanctification. For example:
“Therefore God, out of His immense goodness and mercy, has His divine eternal Law and His wonderful plan concerning our redemption … publicly preached; and by this (i.e, through public preaching) collects an eternal Church for Himself from the human race, and works in the hearts of men true repentance and knowledge of sins, and true faith in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. And by this means, and in no other way, namely, through His holy Word … and the holy Sacraments … God desires to call men to eternal salvation, draw them to Himself, and convert, regenerate, and sanctify them.” (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration II.50)
I am surprised by your attitude towards confirmation as something “snuck in through the back door”. I should have thought (having been raised (and confirmed) as an Anglican myself) that as an Anglican priest, part of your duty is to catechize children in preparation for confirmation, and to present them to the bishop for confirmation (as the Book of Common Prayer requires). How do you reconcile this with your negative attitude towards confirmation?
October 4th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Hi Chris,
Firstly, I hope it’s clear that the final paragraph (i.e. where I don’t quote you) is my opinion on baptism not yours.
I’m quite happy to catechise anybody in preperation for baptism. For me the difficulty is whether I think theologically confirmation (or lack of it) should be the gateway to Communion. I just can’t see any justification for it in Scripture. I’m actually a huge fan of Lutheran theology (my Grandfather was a Lutheran Superintendent in Austria) though I am cautious whether the act of Baptism in any way guarantees the gift of the Holy Spirit, for if so then we would, given that to receive the Spirit is to enter into the body of the elect, be essentially preaching Baptismal Regeneration. I think rather that Baptism signifies (and to do so is vitally important) the work of the Spirit in all those whom are regenerated. Whether the child I baptise receives Christ and the Spirit at some later (or earlier) point is not contingent upon them having been correctly baptised previously (afterwards?). Likewise, the significatorial laying on of hands and imploration of the Spirit’s activity in confirmation does not necessarily guarantee that activity, but it does very importantly indicate what he (the Spirit) may well do.
In summary:
i) The visible actualities point to the invisible possibilities
ii) The limiting of Eucharistic membership to those confirmed seems to negate the visibile actuality of Baptism