Confirmation IS NOT the adult acceptance of faith, it IS NOT adult acceptance of God, which your parents did for you at baptism. It IS NOT a coming-of-age ritual in and of itself.
I bring this up because in class today I learned of a new piece of ammunition in arguing against this idea, which is very prevalent.
The Council of Trent, when speaking of confirmation, states:
"If anyone shall say that the confirmation of those baptized is an empty ceremony and not rather a true and proper sacrament, or that in former times it was nothing more than a kind of catechism, by which those approaching adolescence gave an account of their faith before the Church: let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Canons on the Sacrament of Confirmation; emphasis added)Apparently the problem has been around longer than I thought.
Of course, throw in as well the constant practice of the Eastern Churches, where chrismation has never been separated from baptism. The sacrament certainly is not an adult acceptance for them; therefore, it cannot be the meaning of the sacrament.
And, once we've gotten this silly idea out of the way, there is absolutely no reason to be delaying confirmation until high school! In the early medieval west, the bishops were shocked that people were waiting until age 7! There are plenty of examples of clergy reminding people to get their children confirmed.
Now, I am not of the opinion that in the Western Church we should return to giving confirmation to infants at their baptism. By ordinarily reserving this sacrament to the Bishop, we keep a vital link with an ancient and universal tradition- that the bishop ought to preside over the initiation of people into his flock. I think it is very good that the bishop should take a part in our initiation into the Church. The local Church is most fully realized in that liturgy presided over by the bishop. Remember that priests are the helpers of the bishop (thus, ordinarily, they need permission to celebrate the sacraments in another diocese). For adults being initiated at the parish level, I think it is more important that all three sacraments of initiation be celebrated together than confirmation be reserved to the bishop.
As was said in my class today, baptism has taken over the meanings of the other sacraments in a sense. Remember, Christ said that one must be born again of water and the Spirit, but he also said that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood. But certain extraordinary events popped up. What happens when someone dies after baptism but before they can receive communion? Are they saved? Of course. What if they aren't confirmed? Yes, they are still saved. And so on. And so, we began to define the sacrament of baptism as the salvific sacrament- when in reality it was so in extraordinary cases. We shouldn't define the theology of the sacraments by the extraordinary. Rather, we should see it all as part of one coherent whole. And this is the point. All the sacraments of initiation point towards the Eucharist (and indeed, all the other sacraments should do so too!).
The importance of baptism lies not so much in its forgiveness of sins (which is quite important), but rather in its joining us to the Church, to Christ's Body, so that we may participate in the Eucharist. For it is in the Eucharist that our salvation is effected. And not simply at the consecration of the elements; but above all, in the Communion.
Why was the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist so important to people? Because it is through the Incarnation of God as man that we are saved. By coming into contact with Him who is both human and divine. It is only because God took up human flesh that we can be clothed in His divinity. And that is what salvation is: sharing in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). God has not simply returned us to where we were before the Fall. God has made us more than we originally would have been. And this is what our liturgies should celebrate. And this is what our liturgies should convey. We aren't celebrating ourselves as a community. We're not there to merely worship our Creator. We are there to become more and more one with Him. This is the marriage feast of the lamb. This is the wedding of heaven and earth. This should not be banal. We should not be bored. This is the very effecting of the new creation, the very inbreaking of eternity into time. It is beautiful. And should look it.
This is why I say that we should not be looking to engage people in the liturgy. If I may play on the word slightly, 'engagement' is what happens before the marriage. We should instead draw people into the liturgy. Who needs to be engaged by the liturgy when they know what it truly is? St. Elizabeth Ann Seton was converted by the reverence with which she saw people receiving communion. Would most of our parishes allow this sort of experience today? But knowledge about the true nature of the liturgy will help us with this. Knowledge of the liturgy as the marriage feast of the lamb, as the place where we become partakers in the divine nature, as that act through which our salvation is effected- all of this will make the celebrations more reverent, and more reverent celebration will in turn bring this idea more fully to the forefront.
Why was the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist so important to people? Because it is through the Incarnation of God as man that we are saved. By coming into contact with Him who is both human and divine. It is only because God took up human flesh that we can be clothed in His divinity. And that is what salvation is: sharing in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). God has not simply returned us to where we were before the Fall. God has made us more than we originally would have been. And this is what our liturgies should celebrate. And this is what our liturgies should convey. We aren't celebrating ourselves as a community. We're not there to merely worship our Creator. We are there to become more and more one with Him. This is the marriage feast of the lamb. This is the wedding of heaven and earth. This should not be banal. We should not be bored. This is the very effecting of the new creation, the very inbreaking of eternity into time. It is beautiful. And should look it.
This is why I say that we should not be looking to engage people in the liturgy. If I may play on the word slightly, 'engagement' is what happens before the marriage. We should instead draw people into the liturgy. Who needs to be engaged by the liturgy when they know what it truly is? St. Elizabeth Ann Seton was converted by the reverence with which she saw people receiving communion. Would most of our parishes allow this sort of experience today? But knowledge about the true nature of the liturgy will help us with this. Knowledge of the liturgy as the marriage feast of the lamb, as the place where we become partakers in the divine nature, as that act through which our salvation is effected- all of this will make the celebrations more reverent, and more reverent celebration will in turn bring this idea more fully to the forefront.
No comments:
Post a Comment