In the first post in this series, I looked at the
history of Confirmation in the western Church
before Nicaea (The weird and wacky history of
Confirmation, Part 1: When there was no Confirmation – the western Church before Nicaea). The only firm evidence we have for this
period is from North Africa and we learn that
the pattern there was: baptism in water, anointing, imposition of the
hand. It appears that the baptized were
signed with the cross, but that this may have occurred in different places in
the ordering. Although the Spirit was
believed to be active in baptism itself, both Tertullian and Cyprian were
explicit in saying that the imposition of the hand bestowed the Spirit. In Cyprian we find the first use of Acts 8 to
justify this practice.
At the beginning of the sixteenth century,
Confirmation involved: 1) the use of chrism 2) by the bishop 3) in a second
post-baptismal anointing usually done at a time removed from baptism 4) to
bestow the Spirit in a new and additional way that brought an added benefit to
the believer for living the Christian life.
The data from the pre-Nicene period indicates that at this time
“Confirmation” did not exist as a term.
Confirmation also did not exist at a ritual or conceptual level. We see this in three ways. First, there was no second anointing. Second,
it was the imposition of the hand and not an anointing that was believed
to impart the Holy Spirit. Finally, the
baptism in water and the post-baptismal actions of anointing and imposition of
the hand were understood to be a united whole. There was simply the rite
of baptism and there was no thought regarding any action after baptism that was
not included in baptism itself. There was no speculation about any additional
gift or blessing brought by the Spirit. The blessing received, was the
Spirit received in the rite of baptism through the imposition of the hand.
In order to understand how Confirmation came into
existence, we have to look to Rome
in the fourth and fifth centuries.
Confirmation will arise as the Roman ritual structure (with its second
anointing by the bishop) and her theological emphasis on the bishop cross the
Alps into Gaul and there meet a very different pastoral situation and a
confirmation terminology (“confirmation/to confirm”) which describes how
bishops ratify what has already been done by a local presbyter (an action that
could involve applying the one anointing that had not yet been done for
the baptized or laying on the hand). It
is the fusion of these Roman and Gallic factors during the eighth and ninth
centuries, and scholastic theological reflection upon this fusion, that will
produce Confirmation as it existed in the sixteen century.
I. The development of western
medieval liturgy
It is crucial to understand that the history of the
development of the western liturgy in general is a movement from Rome to Gaul, and then back to Rome.[1] As the prestige of the church at Rome grew the rites of Rome
were taken up by the church in Gaul. Eric
Palazzo observes about Gaul,
“In their eyes, the rites of the Roman Church were models to be imitated, and
this goal necessitated the availability of written descriptions.”[2]
In many places this was not something that needed to
be forced upon the clergy. Palazzo
reports about the Old Gelasian sacramentary (Vat. Regin. 316) that it was “the
earliest agent of the Romanization of the Frankish liturgy before the reform of
Pepin the Short (751-768). It was in use in the presbyterial churches of Rome in the seventh and eight centuries; it must have
reached Gaul in the course of the eighth century through the intermediary of
pilgrims returning from a visit to the Eternal City.”[3] Individual leaders like Chrodegang of Metz
(742-766) embraced and promoted Roman practice.[4] This found official support in Pepin who
caused the Eighth Century/Frankish Gelasian (Gellone Sacramentary) to be
produced.[5] When Charlemagne (768-814) began his program
to foster worship on the Roman model he was not doing something brand new or
completely unwanted.
Roman texts were brought north to Gaul. But once there, they were changed and
adapted to meet the Gallic pastoral situation and sensibilities. The liturgy that was created by this process
was not Roman and it was not Gallic.[6] Instead it was a Romano-Frankish liturgy, and
it spread rapidly. Cyrille Vogel says that, “In the second stage of its
evolution, this mixed liturgy spread with surprising but understandable speed
to all the churches of Northern Europe and, after the Renovatio Imperii
(962), established itself without difficulty at Rome under the patronage of the
Ottonian emperors.”[7] Otto I himself made several trips to Rome “with the intent of remedying the liturgical void
which at that time afflicted Rome along with a
large part of Italy.”[8]
In this post we will look at Roman baptismal practice
up to 800 AD. and consider how it created factors that would help to produce
Confirmation. The next posts will look
at Milan and northern Italy, North Africa, and Spain in order to
demonstrate how their practice was different from that in Rome.
Then, we will look at Gaul
and consider how it contained factors that would help to produce
Confirmation. Next, a post will focus on
the crucial period of the eighth and ninth centuries in order to explore how
the Roman and Gallic factors combined to create the beginning of something new:
Confirmation. We will then consider how this trend was advanced by factors that
separated the bishop from baptism.
Finally, a post will examine how scholastic theology developed
Confirmation into the sacrament that existed at the start of the sixteenth
century.
II. Verona
manuscript of the Apostolic Tradition and Ambrose
We have no specific textual
evidence about Roman baptismal practice in the fourth century. It is only in Innocent I’s 416 AD letter to
Decentius of Gubbio that we have a text to consider. However, there are two non-Roman sources for
which there is a high probability that they provide evidence about baptism in
fourth century Rome.
These two sources are: 1) the Verona
(Latin) manuscript for the Apostolic Tradition and 2) Ambrose’s De
Sacramentis, books 2-3.
In the previous post we have
seen that while the Apostolic Tradition has in the past been used as
evidence for pre-Nicene baptismal practice in Rome, this now seems unlikely. The attribution to Hippolytus is based on
weak evidence and is in no way certain for a number of significant reasons.[9] It seems more likely that the text is a
conflation of several different traditions from a number of periods and that
its final form probably reflects a fourth century setting.[10]
The earliest manuscript for the Apostolic
Tradition is the Verona
manuscript. It is copy of a translation
which itself appears to have been made during the second half of the fourth century
in northern Italy.[11] The Verona
manuscript cannot be connected directly to Rome. However, a key feature in the text
makes it highly probable that if the original autograph is not from Rome itself, then it describes a practice that was very
much like what was present in Rome. This feature is the second
post-baptismal anointing that is done by the bishop (21.22) after the
first post-baptismal anointing has been performed by the presbyter
(21.21). This second anointing is
something that in the available evidence is only found in Rome. This is one of the basic facts that
work with this topic makes apparent. It
is so apparent that Frank Quinn asks the question in a straightforward form:
“Why do we find this second anointing only in Rome during the first eight centuries?”[12]
The second source is Ambrose’s De
Sacramentiis, books 2-3 which is dated ca. 380-390 AD.[13] Ambrose is explaining that after baptism and
anointing, the Milanese baptismal rite includes a foot washing. He acknowledges that this practice is not
found in Rome, but then immediately affirms that
in all other respects Milan’s practice is the
same as Rome. He says, “We are aware that the Roman Church does not
follow this custom, although we take her as our prototype, and follow her rite
in everything. But she does not have
this rite of the washing of the feet” (3.5). Ambrose clarifies that he is not
condemning anyone who does not have the foot washing, but that instead where a
difference of rite has merit, there is no sense in abandoning it just because
it is different. He goes on to say, “I wish to follow the Roman Church in everything: but we too are not devoid of
common sense. When a better custom is
kept elsewhere, we are right to keep it here also” (3.5).[14]
There is little doubt that
rhetorical hyperbole is at play in Ambrose’s statement, as he deals with the
fact that the baptismal rite he inherited is different from Rome.
However, the prayer associated with the giving of the Spirit that
Ambrose describes clearly matches what we will find in the later Gelasian
Sacramentary which was used in Roman practice in the seventh or eighth
century.
The Verona manuscript contains the following
baptismal rite. The catechumen is
baptized in water (21.14-18). Next it
says, “Afterward, when he has come up, let him be anointed by the presbyter
with that oil which was sanctified, saying: ‘I anoint you with holy oil in the
name of Jesus Christ’” (21:19).[15] The individuals dress (they had stripped
naked before entering the font; 21.11), leave the baptistery and enter into the
church (21.20).
Next the Verona text says:
“And let the bishop, laying [his] hand on them invoke, saying: ‘Lord God,
who has made them worthy to receive the forgiveness of sins through the laver
of regeneration of the Holy Spirit, send on them your grace, that they may
serve you according to your will; for to you is glory, Father and Son with the
Holy Spirit in the holy church, both now and to the ages of ages. Amen’
(21.21).
Afterward, pouring the sanctified oil from [his] hand and placing [it] on
the head, let him say: ‘I anoint you with holy oil in God the Father Almighty
and Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit’ (21.22).
And signing [him] on the forehead, let him offer [him] a kiss and let him
say, ‘The Lord [be] with you.’ And let
him who has been signed say, ‘And with your spirit’” (21.23).
In the Verona text it is: 1) the bishop who 2) lays
on the hand 3) as he speaks a prayer invoking God to “send on them your grace”
3) followed by a second anointing 4) and the sign of the cross.
The Ambrose text is found in the
post-baptismal catechetical instruction in which Ambrose has just described
baptism in water, anointing and foot washing. Then he adds: “The spiritual
sealing follows. You have heard about
this in the reading today. For after the
ceremonies of the font, it still remains to bring the whole to perfect
fulfillment. This happens when the Holy Spirit is infused at the priest’s
invocation: ‘the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and
strength, the Spirit of knowledge and piety, the Spirit of holy fear’. These might be called the seven ‘virtues’ of
the Spirit.”[16]
Ambrose’s “spiritual seal” is one
of the great conundrums of liturgical scholarship. It is unclear whether this describes
imposition of the hand, anointing, signing with the cross, some combination of
these or, in fact, no ritual action.[17] A significant problem in interpreting the
phrase is encountered, just as it is almost every time language such as
“seal” and “sign” is used. In his exhaustive study, Lampe calls attention to
the “bewildering variety of meaning” employed by the early Church writers when using the term “seal.”[18] He observes that, “Each instance of its use
has to be considered individually on its merits, for there are few of the many
meanings of σφραγίς, σφραγίζειν, signaculum¸ signare, which are not adopted by
Christian writers to serve as baptismal metaphors and in many cases the
metaphorical application combines more than one of the literal senses of the
term.”[19] Early church writers often use it in a
polyvalent fashion, and synecdoche (a part for the whole) is often involved.
This word of caution must be kept in mind throughout our consideration of
post-baptismal acts in the early and medieval Church.
What is significant for our
purposes is Ambrose’s description of how the Holy Spirit is infused through the
priest’s invocation that is based upon the words of Isaiah 11:2 (“And the
Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the
LORD” [ESV]). The Verona text of the Apostolic Tradition
21.1 speaks about “sending on them your grace,” while Ambrose’s prayer directly
brings the Spirit.
This fact is important because
of what we find in the Gelasian Sacramentary which provides us with the
first full text of baptismal practice in Rome. It describes Rome practice in the seventh/eighth century
(or perhaps slightly earlier).[20] There after indicating that the infant is
dipped three times in the water it says:
Then when the infant has gone up from the font he is
signed on the head with chrism by the presbyter, with these words:
The Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has made you to
be regenerated of water and the Holy Spirit, and has given you remission of all
your sins, himself anoints you with the chrism of salvation in Christ Jesus
unto eternal life. R. Amen.
Then the sevenfold Spirit is given to them by the
bishop. To seal them [ad consignandum],
he lays his hand upon them with these words:
Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has made your servants
to be regenerated of water and the Holy Spirit, and has given them remission of
all their sins, Lord, send upon them you Holy Spirit the Paraclete, and give
them the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might,
the spirit of knowledge and godliness, and fill them with the spirit of fear of
God, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ with whom you live and reign ever God
with the Holy Spirit, throughout all ages of ages. Amen.
Then he signs them on the forehead with chrism saying:
The sign of Christ unto life eternal.[21]
Like Ambrose, the invocation of
the Holy Spirit is based on Isa 11:2.
The post-baptismal ritual ordering is: 1) Signing on the head with
chrism by presbyter 2) Imposition of the hand by the bishop 3)
Invocation of the Holy Spirit based on Isa 11:2 4) Signing on the forehead with
chrism by the bishop. It is immediately apparent that the order of
events is the same as that of the Verona
text (though now it is signing with chrism rather than anointing with
oil). When the three prayers are set
side by side, the resemblance is quite striking:
Verona: “And let the bishop, laying [his] hand on them invoke, saying:
‘Lord God, who have made them worthy to receive the forgiveness of sins through
the laver of regeneration of the Holy Spirit, send on them your grace, that
they may serve you according to your will; for to you is glory, Father and Son
with the Holy Spirit in the holy church, both now and to the ages of ages.
Amen’ (21.21).
Ambrose: “The spiritual sealing follows.
You have heard about this in the reading today. For after the ceremonies of the font, it
still remains bring the whole to perfect fulfillment. This happens when the Holy
Spirit is infused at the priest’s invocation: ‘the Spirit of wisdom and
understanding, the Spirit of counsel and strength, the Spirit of knowledge and
piety, the Spirit of holy fear’. These
might be called the seven ‘virtues’ of the Spirit.”
Gelasian: Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has made your
servants to be regenerated of water and the Holy Spirit, and has given them
remission of all their sins, Lord, send upon them you Holy Spirit the
Paraclete, and give them the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of
counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and godliness, and fill them with
the spirit of fear of God, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ with whom you
live and reign ever God with the Holy Spirit, throughout all ages of ages.
Amen.
Bearing in mind Ambrose’s claim
that Milan takes Rome
“as our prototype” and that we “follow her rite in everything” (De Sacramentiis
3.5), it seems probable that around 400 AD Rome had a very similar prayer in use. It also appears that it may have been a
strengthened version of a prayer like the Verona
prayer (now sending the Spirit and not just “grace.”).
III. Innocent I’s
letter to Decentius of Gubbio
These three sets of text provide
the framework within which we can examine our earliest evidence describing
Roman baptismal practice: Innocent I’s March 19, 416 AD letter to Decentius,
bishop of Gubbio. Innocent I (401-417)
is often overshadowed by the later bishops of Rome, Leo (441-460) and Gregory the Great
(590-604). However, he was instrumental
in establishing Roman claims about the primacy of Rome based upon the link of the apostle Peter
and the Bishop of Rome. He held up Roman practices as the model that other
churches were to emulate.[22]
Connell has called attention to
the need for interpretation of Innoent I’s letters to take the social context
into account. Rome was sacked by Alaric in 410. The western
half of the Roman Empire was crumbling and
would come to a complete end in 476. Connell
comments, “Innocent returns to the occupied city, and the letter reflects his
efforts at stabilizing the Church as
the world in which it lived is falling down around it. Recognizing the social and political
upheavals of Rome
in the time of Innocent’s letter is key in understanding the exigencies in
which the liturgical prescriptions to follow are mandated.”[23] An assumption of Innocent “is that there is
only one way to do the rites. In this
assertion he is erasing, by ignorance or calculation, the diversity of ritual
traditions that are evident in the gospels themselves. The stability of the Church is being rendered as dependent on liturgical
uniformity, and this is a relatively new ecclesiological and liturgical idea.”[24]
Innocent’s
assumptions and approach are demonstrated in the Introduction, Part 2 of
Innocent’s letter to Decentius where he writes:
“For who does not know or who is not aware of what has been
handed down to the Church of Rome
from the prince of the apostles, Peter, or that this has been guarded and
followed by all until now? Nothing
without authority is to displace or be introduced, nor should something from
another place be considered a model.
Unless these have been introduced by the esteemed apostles Peter or his
priest-successors, nothing is to be introduced into churches in all Italy, in Gaul, Spain, Africa and Sicily and the nearby islands.”[25]
Decentius was bishop of Gubbio,
a minor town about one hundred miles north of Rome
on the road to Ravenna
(then the seat of imperial government).
Connell describes how Gubbio would have been within the sphere of
influence of three metropolitan churches: Milan,
Aquileia and Ravenna.[26] Decentius had written to Innocent I’s
predecessor, Damasus, with questions about a number of aspects of church
practice. Most likely his letter had
been prompted by the diversity of practice that Decentius and his church
encountered.[27] Damasus had died, and so the task of
responding to Decentius’ letter fell to Innocent I.
In the letter, Innocent I
addresses the topic of the signing of infants.
He writes:
Regarding the signing of infants (De consignandis vero infantibus),
this clearly cannot be done validly by anyone other than the Bishop. For even
though presbyters are priests, none of them holds the office of pontiff (pontificatus).
For not only is it ecclesiastical custom that shows this (consuetude
ecclesiastica demonstrate) should be done only by pontiffs (pontificibus)
– in other words, that they alone would sign or give the comforting Spirit (ut
vel consignent, vel paracletum Spiritum tradant) – but there is also that
reading in the Acts of the Apostles that describe Peter and John being ordered
to give the Holy Spirit to those who had already been baptized. For whether the
Bishop is present or not, presbyters are allowed to anoint the baptized with
chrism (chrisimate baptizatos unguere licet). But they are not allowed to sign the forehead
with the same oil consecrated by the bishop (sed quod ab episcopo fuerit
consecratum, non tamen frontem ex eodem oleo signare), for that is used by
the bishops only when they give the Spirit, the Paraclete (quod solis
debetur episcopis cum tradunt Spiritum paracletum). I cannot reveal the words themselves, lest I
seem to betray more than is needed to respond to your inquiry.[28]
There are interesting shifts of
vocabulary in this text as Innocent I uses consignare (“to sign
together”), ungere (“to anoint”), oleum (“oil”), and chrisma
(“chrism”). Connell notes this with the
statement, “Perhaps the change of references is tied to the change of the
liturgical minister who does the anointing – i.e., the bishop is ‘marking
together,’ while the presbyter is merely ‘anointing.’ But there are too many
variables to know the reasons for the vocabulary shifts.”[29]
There is often an assumption
because of Innocent’s reference to Acts 8 that he is speaking about the
episcopal hand laying as well as a second post-baptismal anointing.[30] However, Innocent’s emphasis is clearly on
the anointing and Spinks is correct when he cautions, “whether the citation
of Acts 8 allows us to infer also an episcopal hand-laying is less clear.”[31]
Innocent I writes with a sense
of authority and presumed uniformity of practice that does not correspond to
the available evidence (as we will see below).
It is clear that he writes as much about what he wants to be the case
in all places, as what is actually happening.
Kavanagh has argued that, “Given all this in its historical setting, one
must conclude that Innocent’s letter to Decentius, at least on the matter of
consignation, is propaganda rather than a serene and objective articulation of
doctrine – well meaning, understandable in the circumstances, and for high
motives, but propaganda nonetheless.
Based on a selective biblical appeal, it seeks to justify a new
understanding of an old post-chrismational structure in the Roman baptismal
procedure.”[32]
In Ambrose’s invocation of the
Spirit with words based on Isa 11:2 and Innocent’s argument that the second
post-baptismal anointing performed by the bishop gives the Spirit we find an
advance over the mere prayer asking God to “send on them your grace” in the
Verona text. Kavanagh has pointed out
that it is likely that the theological events in the second half of the fourth
century influenced this change.
The creed adopted at Nicaea in 325 AD said
only this about the Holy Spirit: “And in the Holy Spirit.”[33] Kelly reports that beginning in the late
350’s there was discussion about the nature and status of the Spirit, and in
the course of discussions the Pneumatomachians (also called Macedonians)
rejected the divinity of the Spirit. The
extended discussion of the Spirit in the third article of the
Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed in 381 AD is the orthodox response to this.[34]
It is likely that the climate of pneumatological controversy prompted an
increased focus on the Spirit in the rite of baptism and that this is reflected
in the Ambrose text and in Innocent’s letter.[35]
At the same time it is necessary to observe that Innocent I’s position finds no
prior precedent in the material we have looked at, and stands contrary to the
understanding – based on what actually happens in Acts 8 - that the episcopal hand
laying gives the Spirit.
There are four important
observations to draw from this text about Roman baptismal practice in the early
fifth century. First, Innocent’s letter
provides explicit evidence for a second post-baptismal anointing that is
performed only by the bishop. He
describes this as a matter of “ecclesiastical custom” (ecclesiastica
consuetudo) and so presumably, it is not a new development. The same
pattern is found in the Verona text, and so there is good reason to believe
that it was being done in Rome during the fourth century (and perhaps earlier,
though we have no way of knowing). This
will be a defining feature of Roman baptismal practice and will be a key
factor in generating Confirmation.
Second, the letter provides the
first evidence for the giving of the Spirit being linked to the second
post-baptismal anointing. We have seen
in the previous post in this series that both Tertullian and Cyprian attributed
this to the laying on of the hand and that Cyprian was the first to cite Acts 8
in support of this. Because of the Acts
8 text, this will be a dominant understanding. However in a
very strange move, Innocent I uses the handlaying of Acts 8 to explain
the fact that the second anointing by the bishop gives the Spirit. It is unusual for this period. However, it presages the same move that
another Innocent, Innocent III, will make in the thirteenth century.
Third, the letter provides the
first evidence for the different location of the two anointings. The presbyter anoints on the head; the bishop
anoints on the forehead. This will be
maintained as the standard distinction wherever the second post-baptismal
anointing is found.
Finally, Innocent I’s emphasis
on the second anointing prompts us to consider how the first anointing by the
presbyter was viewed. Fisher is surely
correct when he writes, “Since Innocent is here arguing that, on the analogy of
what happened in Acts 8.17, only bishops have the right to confer the Holy
Spirit upon the baptized, the inference is irresistible that the unction which
he permitted presbyters to administer had a purpose other than to convey the
Holy Spirit."[36]
The basic wording of this first
anointing probably used in Rome
during this period can readily be surmised based on the evidence we
possess. Ambrose in ca 390 says about
baptism in Milan:
“So you were immersed, and you came to the priest. What did he say you? God
the Father Almighty, he said, who has brought you to a new birth through
water and the Holy Spirit and has forgiven you all your sins, himself anoints
you into eternal life.”[37]
The Gelasian Sacramentary for seventh/eighth century Rome has:
Then when the infant has gone up from the font he is
signed on the head with chrism by the presbyter, with these words:
The Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has made you to
be regenerated of water and the Holy Spirit, and has given you remission of all
your sins, himself anoints you with the chrism of salvation in Christ Jesus
unto eternal life. R. Amen.[38]
Fisher calls attention to the
statement that Leo I (441-460) makes after quoting 1 Pet 2:9: “Remain firm in
that faith which you have confessed before many witnesses, and in which reborn
by water and the Holy Spirit you received the chrism of salvation and the sign
of eternal life” (Serm. 24.6). He concludes that Leo I “seems to show a
knowledge of the Gelasian formula, which must therefore have formed part of the
Roman rite of initiation as far back as the mid-fifth century.”[39]
Leo I’s quotation of 1 Pet 2:9
is significant because it indicates that he is associating this first anointing
with the Christian’s status as part of the royal priesthood through
baptism. This is the dominant
interpretation provided to the first anointing no matter whether it is the
first of two anointing or is the only anointing. We have already seen in the
previous post that Tertullian interpreted the anointing in terms of priesthood.[40] Ambrose describes the anointing of his rite
in the same way: “It flowed down into the beard – that is, unto the grace of
youth – even unto Aaron’s beard, for this purpose, that you may become a chosen
generation, priestly, precious; for we are all anointed with spiritual grace
unto the kingdom
of God and the
priesthood” (De Mysteriis 30).[41] Writing around 500 AD from Rome, John the Deacon will say, “He is next
arrayed in white vesture, and his head anointed with the unction of the sacred
chrism: that the baptized person may understand that in his person a kingdom
and a priestly mystery have met. For priests and princes used to be anointed
with the oil of chrism, priests that they might offer sacrifices to God,
princes that they might rule their people (5).[42] This interpretation will appear again and
again in the western Church.[43]
IV. John the
Deacon’s letter to Senarius
John the Deacon’s letter to
Senarius (ca. 500) provides the next witness to Roman baptismal practice in
this period.[44] Ultimately, he describes the same rituals
found in the Gelasian Sacramentary.
However, the manner in which he does so raises some questions. In describing the baptismal rite, he says
that after baptism in water there is an anointing that is described in royal
and priestly terms (6).[45] In his discussion of the rite he doesn’t
mention anything else. However it is
clear that John also knows of the invocation of the Spirit and the second
post-baptismal anointing by the bishop.
He writes, “There remains now that question which you thought should be
asked, if a baptized person departs this life without having received the
anointing with chrism and blessing of the bishop, whether this will be to his
loss in any way or not” (14).[46]
John indicates that this chrism
and blessing by the bishop is not necessary for salvation (14).[47] Most likely Senarius’ question pertained to
infants who died after baptism, without having the bishop perform his acts. The
manner in which John describes the baptismal rite without mention of the
bishop’s prayer and second post-baptismal anointing, and his answer to
Senarius’ question about the necessity of these for salvation, seems to
indicate a rather tepid assessment of them.
Johnson appropriately concludes, “Such reluctance on his part to
advocate for these episcopal ceremonies would seem, again, to underscore at the
end of the fifth century, and in spite of past papal directives to the
contrary, that the rites of Christian initiation even at Rome itself had not yet become synthesized
into a single dominant pattern.”[48]
Nevertheless, the single pattern was present and taking root for as Fisher
observes, “Therefore these episcopal acts, as we find them in John the Deacon
and the Gelasianum, must have formed part of the Roman rite before the
time of Gregory I and before the compilation of any sacramentary called after
his name.”[49]
V. Ordo
Romanus XI
The desire of the bishops of Rome to promote this
baptismal practice is apparent in the last piece of evidence from the time
period we are considering. Ordo
Romanus XI provides the rubrical guide for the rite of baptism in seventh
or eighth century Rome.[50] It describes a rite that runs in the same way
as the Gelasian Sacramentary which dates from the same period (a
sacramentary provides the spoken text and an ordo provides the directions for
conducting the rite). It includes the following new information, “And being
vested, they are arranged in order as their names are written, in a circle, and
the pontiff makes a prayer over them confirming them with an invocation of the
sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit” (XI.100).[51]
Then after describing the signing with chrism in the triune name it goes on to
add: “Great care must be taken that this is not neglected, because it is at
this point that every baptism is confirmed and justification made for the name
of Christianity” (XI.102).[52]
Ordo XI uses the word
“confirm” to describe the bishop’s invocation of the Spirit using the words
based on Isa 11:2. The statement in
XI.102 seems to indicate that the prayer and the second anointing may have been
understood as a unit. We will return to this
text later when examining how the language of confirm/confirmation was used in Rome during this
period. For now, it is important to take
note of how strongly Ordo XI emphasizes these post-baptismal acts by the
bishop. Johnson concludes about this:
Since ordines like this, it must be recalled, were designed
especially for those areas outside of Rome
where the Roman rite itself was being introduced, such an emphasis here is
obviously intended to underscore what would have been new, unclear, and, hence,
frequently neglected element as that rite was coming to be adopted. Indeed, rubrics and directives like this are
not normally needed unless something desired is, in fact, not taking place.[53]
VI. Baptism at Rome
The implementation of the Roman
rite of baptism with post-baptismal episcopal invocation of the Spirit and
second anointing would be the major factor in creating Confirmation. We can find evidence of this process
beginning already in this period in areas under the authority of the Roman
bishop that were outside Rome. However, in order to understand how the rite
functioned in Rome
itself it is necessary to understand the baptismal context of the city.
Fisher notes that Ordo XI
almost certainly describes the ritual in the pope’s church of that period, the
basilica of the Lateran.[54] However, he also points out that “there is
incontrovertible evidence that there were other baptisteries in existence in
the city of Rome before the seventh century, and that some, if not all, of them
were used at the Paschal season.”[55] Fisher lays out the evidence in the following
manner:
Without doubt therefore by the seventh century Paschal initiation took
place not only in the Lateran but also in the churches of St. Mary Major, St.
Peter and St. Paul.
What is less certain is how many other baptisteries existed in Rome at this time, and how many of them were
used for initiation in the Paschal season.
According to the Liber Pontificalis, Marcellus, who was pope in
308 and the year following, appointed twenty-five title churches in the city of
Rome for the
baptism and penance of the many who were being converted from paganism and for
the burial of martyrs. While the
historical accuracy of this statement cannot be assumed, it at least shows that
by the early sixth century when this book was published the practice of
baptizing in the title churches was already long established. Each title church it would appear, was used
not merely for performance of scrutinies but also for the actual administration
of baptism. Now whatever may have been
the situation in the early fourth century, there were twenty-five title
churches in Rome
in the time of Gregory I; and there is reason to suppose this number was
maintained until the pontificate of Callistus III (1119-24).[56]
There were multiple locations in
Rome where
baptisms were taking place. However,
there was only one bishop of Rome
- the pope presiding at the basilica of the Lateran (pictured above). How then were the episcopal acts after
baptism carried out in the other sites?
It was “apparently one of the pope’s suffragans, sent to the title
church to ensure that the initiations there administered were complete.”[57]
This use of suffragan bishops on
behalf of the pope had critical implications. Fisher goes on to say:
However, the liturgical evidence, so far as it goes, points to one
conclusion, that, although owing to the numbers involved Paschal initiation
could no longer be confined to one church, baptism in all normal cases was
followed at once by presbyterial unction of the head and the episcopal
hand-laying and signing of the forehead with chrism, and finally by the mass of
the Paschal vigil, at which the candidates were all communicated. That is to
say, except where initiation was required in sudden emergency such as rendered
the presence of a bishop impossible, the Roman rite preserved its primitive
unity during the sixth, seventh and eighth centuries, the period covered by
the Gelasianum, the Hadrianum and Ordo XL.[58]
We have seen that in his letter
Innocent I presents the second post-baptismal anointing by the bishop as if it
an established custom in Rome which all western churches should follow, but
that John the Deacon appears to be less than enthusiastic about the
practice. It is clear that Innocent
exaggerated the situation, because Pope Gelasius (492-496) some eighty years
later writes:
“No less do we also prohibit presbyters from tending
more than their duty—from taking boldly for themselves the things reserved to
the episcopal degree: grasping for themselves the faculty of making chrism and
of applying the episcopal consignation” (Letter 9.6).[59] Clearly there were still more than a few
presbyters who were performing the anointing/congsignation with chrism
(presumably on the forehead, the place reserved for the bishop according to
Innocent I).
More evidence of this is found one hundred years later (and almost two hundred years after Innocent I!) in Gregory the Great’s letter to Sardinia in which he writes: “It has also come to our attention that some people have been scandalized that we prohibite presbyters to trace with chrism those who need to be baptized. And indeed we have done this according to the ancient custom of our church. But if any are at all troubled by this matter, we concede that where bishops are absent, presbyters also ought to trace those needing to be baptized on their foreheads with chrism” (Letter 4.26).[60] Two centuries after Innocent I there were those for whom the practice of reserving an anointing for the bishop was still not considered “normal practice.” What is more, Gregory the Great was even willing to concede the right to presbyters when there was no bishop present.
Gregory’s mention of situations where the bishop was absent brings us to the heart of the pastoral situation that would eventually generate Confirmation. In an age of high infant mortality, there would be many instances where a child received baptism but died before it was possible to receive the episcopal acts (we have seen that this is probably the source of Senarius’ question). These were unavoidable exceptions caused by emergency situations – even in Rome itself.
In the normal situations of baptism in Rome, the pope or his suffragans would be present for the invocation of the Spirit and the second anointing. However, a very different pastoral situation was found outside Rome where bishops cared for larger rural areas. In these settings it was not possible for the bishop to be present for baptisms at every church. The first anointing by the presbyter would take place, but the bishop’s acts would not. It then became necessary for the bishop to go to the various churches in order to carry out what he had not been able to do at the time of the baptism.
Gregory the Great addresses this situation in a letter to Sicily in which he admonishes the bishops not to cause unnecessary convenience to the presbyters when they go out to consign the baptized. He writes:
Moreover, it has
been reported to us that at the time of my predecessor of blessed memory, a
deacon who then took care of an ecclesiastical patrimony had been appointed
through the Servant of God, so that the bishops stationed throughout your
diverse dioceses should be burdened less than usual to go out so often
consigning infants. The completion, which ought to be given by the same bishops
onto the work of the clergy, was added on, as I hear from you in agreement.
And that which was acceptable then, as it is said now, is not at all protected.
For this reason I admonish your fraternity that you not try to become severe
with your subjects, but that you restrain if there are any difficulties,
because you should not deviate from that which was once decided. For you
provide for yourselves both in the future and in the present life, if you keep
from difficulty those who have been entrusted to you (Letter 13.20).[61]
VII. The language of confirm/confirmation
The final subject to examine is the use of the
vocabulary “confirm/confirmation” in Rome
during this period. We can observe at
the outset that there is no evidence in this period that it was ever understood
in a way that corresponded to Confirmation.
The earliest use of this language was applied to reconciliation of
schismatics and heretics and this was “an important factor that influenced
initiation liturgy, and confirmation in particular.”[62]
Leo I wrote: “Those who received baptism from heretics, when they
had not been previously baptized, must be confirmed with the explicit
invocation of the Holy Spirit through the imposition of hands, because they
received only the form of baptism without the strength of sanctification” (Letter
159.7).[63]
The imposition of the hand and its basis in Acts 8 found similar application
here as it did in baptism. Austin
comments about this, “While he probably was not using the term ‘confirmation’
in a technical sense, nevertheless the idea is that reconciliation bestows the
Holy Spirit on those entering into the church, since the Spirit cannot work
outside the church … All this is not to imply that the postbaptismal rites of initiation
were the same thing. One could be distinguished from the other, but they
followed the same lines of development since they both conferred the Holy
Spirit.”[64]
We have already seen a second use of this vocabulary
in Ordo XI which said, pontiff makes a prayer over them confirming them
with an invocation of the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit” (XI.100) and then continued, “Great care
must be taken that this is not neglected, because it is at this point that
every baptism is confirmed and justification made for the name of Christianity”
(XI.102).[65] Fisher notes that here, “Evidently the
bishops hand-laying and anointing are held to confirm the baptism, in the sense
of completing, consummating, and sealing it.
So in Ordo XXXI perficitur is substituted for confirmatur.”[66]
Finally, around the same time as
Ordo XI, “confirm” is used to mean “give communion from the cup.” Thus we find in Ordo I:
The bishops
receive Communion after the archdeacon, and the deacons confirm after them.
For when the
bishop comes to receive Communion, the acolyte goes before him holding against
his bent neck a cloth with which is held the paten with the holy elements. In
the same way they follow the deacons with pitchers and goblets for pouring wine
in the sacred vessels from which the people are confirmed. In doing this they go
from the right side to the left.
But the
presbyters, with the approval of the superior, by order of the bishop, give
Communion to the people and themselves confirm them in turn (Ordo I.114-116).[67]
The development of the language “confirm/confirmation” so that it can be applied to the rite of Confirmation will take place in Gaul.
VIII.
Rome before Confirmation
In
conclusion, I would like to make three observations about this material. The first is to recognize that like the
western Church before Nicaea, there is no Confirmation in Rome at this time. In the post-baptismal ritual structure, we do
see the appearance of the second anointing which will become the focus of
Confirmation in the medieval period.
However, in spite of what Innocent I claims, it is clear that this was
not the uniform practice of the church at Rome
from the beginning. It certainly wasn’t for the churches in the surrounding
areas of southern Italy. It was a practice that Rome had to persuade and pressure other
churches to adopt. Once again, we see
that Confirmation was not instituted by Christ like Holy Baptism, Holy
Absolution and the Sacrament of the Altar and so we do not find the entire
early Church administering it from
the beginning.
Confirmation does not exist in Rome at the terminological level. There is no evidence that the language “confirm/confirmation” was being used in Rome during this period in a way that reflects the later meaning of Confirmation. It did not exist at a conceptual level. Like the pre-Nicaea material, in Rome there was simply the single rite of Holy Baptism through which a Christian received rebirth and the gift of the Spirit. The unique arrangement of the various title churches and the suffragan bishops in the city of Rome, allowed the entire baptismal rite to take place, with both anointings, at one time. It is only in larger outlying areas that a separation of the second anointing from baptism was beginning to take place. The second anointing is the primary source that will generate Confirmation, but it had not yet done so.
IX.
Roman material and the Lutheran Service Book Rite of Holy Baptism
The
second observation pertains to how this early Roman material stands in relation
to the Rite of Holy Baptism found in Lutheran Service Book. We have seen that the Gelasian
Sacramentary says of the first post-baptismal anointing:
Then when the infant has gone up from the font he is
signed on the head with chrism by the presbyter, with these words:
The Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has made you to
be regenerated of water and the Holy Spirit, and has given you remission of all
your sins, himself anoints you with the chrism of salvation in Christ Jesus
unto eternal life. R. Amen.
The language here is the source
for the words in Lutheran Service Book which now are accompanied by a
laying on of hands:
The
pastor places his hands on the head of the newly baptized while saying:
The almighty God and Father or our Lord Jesus Christ, who has given you the
new birth of water and of the Spirit and has forgiven you all yours sins,
strengthen you with His grace to life ╬ everlasting.[68]
We have seen that the standard
interpretation for the first anointing was that of 1 Pet. 2:9’s “royal
priesthood.” There is a rich and valid
biblical symbolism in this anointing and it was retained in Martin Luther’s
1523 Order of Holy Baptism. As I have
described elsewhere (Mark’s Thoughts: The Use of Chrism in the Lutheran Service Book Rite of Holy Baptism), the Lutheran Service Book Agenda makes
provision for its use and this affords a wonderful opportunity to
re-appropriate a practice that has a rich biblical, theological and historical
basis.[69]
X. Roman
material and LCMS Rites of Confirmation
The third observation deals with
how this early Roman
material stands in relation to the Rites of Confirmation found
in The Lutheran Agenda, Lutheran Worship and Lutheran Service
Book. The Gelasian Sacramentary contains
the following for the invocation of the Spirit and second post-baptismal
anointing:
Then the sevenfold Spirit is given to them by the
bishop. To seal them [ad consignandum],
he lays his hand upon them with these words:
Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has made your servants
to be regenerated of water and the Holy Spirit, and has given them remission of
all their sins, Lord, send upon them you Holy Spirit the Paraclete, and give
them the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might,
the spirit of knowledge and godliness, and fill them with the spirit of fear of
God, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ with whom you live and reign ever God
with the Holy Spirit, throughout all ages of ages. Amen.
Then he signs them on the forehead with chrism saying:
The sign of Christ unto life eternal.[70]
Here the words of Isa 11:2 used
as the bishop sends the Spirit upon the baptized. The hand laying and prayer were taken up by
the The Lutheran Agenda in the first of five options for the
Benediction:
Then shall the Minister, laying his hands upon each one
separately, pronounce the name of the Catechumen and the Benediction, adding a
Scripture passage as a memorial of Confirmation, saying:
N., God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, give thee His Holy Spirit,
the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge, of grace and prayer, of power and strength,
of sanctification and the fear of God.[71]
A very similar version is found
in the Lutheran Worship Rite of Confirmation:
The catechumens, in turn, give their right hand and
kneel. The minister lays his hands upon the head of each one and gives the
following blessing. A confirmation text
is then given to each.
Name , God, the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, give you his Holy Spirit, the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge, of grace
and prayer, of power and strength, of sanctification and the fear of God.[72]
It is very surprising that these
were ever included in Lutheran rites.
When we reflect on what is actually being said, the theology of hand
laying and the giving of the Spirit stands in the tradition of Tertullian, Cyprian
and the Gelasian Sacramentary. Yet as the previous post has
indicated, when we look at its ultimate basis in Acts 8 we find that while the
Scriptures speak about the water of baptism and the command and promises
attached to it, they never say anything in regard to the laying on of hands in
baptism in order to give the Spirit.
Moreover, when these words are spoken at Confirmation (an event removed
in time from baptism) they invite the same kinds of questions that medieval
theology generated and answered as it created Confirmation while trying to
explain the second anointing that was now occurring at a time separate from
baptism: What does it mean for the Spirit to be given again? What new or additional gift does this bring?
Why is this necessary?
If there is to be a Rite of Confirmation, then the
wording found in the Lutheran Service Book Rite of Confirmation is a
great improvement because it has removed the language about the giving of the
Spirit and Isa 11:2. There we find:
The
catechumens kneel to receive the confirmation blessing. The pastor places his
hands on the head of each catechumen and makes the sign of the cross on the
forehead while saying:
Name
, the
almighty God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has given you the new
birth of water and of the Spirit and has forgiven you all your sins, strengthen
you with His grace to life ╬ everlasting.[73]
LSB has modeled
these words on those spoken after baptism, and in doing so seeks to ground
Confirmation in baptism itself. If there
is to be Confirmation, this is the approach that is most appropriate.
Next in the series:
Previously in this series:
[1] A helpful introduction to this is: Theodor Klauser, A
Short History of the Western Liturgy: An account and some reflections (2d
ed.; Oxford:
Oxford Univ. Press, 1979).
[2] Eric Palazzo, A History of Liturgical Books: From
the Beginning to the Thirteenth Century (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical
Press, 1998), 45.
[3] Palazzo, A History of Liturgical Books,
45-46.
[4] Palazzo calls attention to the small ivory plaques
attached to the back cover of the Drogon Sacramentary which show, “nine scenes
of the Eucharist celebrated by the bishop in the cathedral of Metz. The different scenes, presented with
meticulous attention to detail (number and placement of officiants, gestures,
liturgical objects, and so on), reflect the historical fact that Metz adopted ordines
romani during the Carolingian period under the episcopacy of Chrodegang
(742-766); this is incontrovertible proof of the romanization of the Gallican
liturgy in one of its bastions, the cathedral of Metz” (A History of
Liturgical Books. 185).
[5] Palazzo, A History of Liturgical Books, 46-47.
[6] On Roman liturgy before these changes, see Edmund
Bishop’s classic essay “The Genius of the Roman Rite” (Edmund Bishop, “The
Genius of the Roman Rite” in Liturgica Historica: Papers on the Liturgy and
Religious Life of the Western Church
[Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press, 1918], 1-19).
On the liturgy in Gaul before large scale Roman influence, see: Yitzhak
Hen, Culture & Religion in Merovingian Gaul,
AD 481-751 (New York: Brill, 1995), 42-153; W.S. Porter, The Gallican
Rite (London: A. R. Mowbray, 1958).
[7] Cyrille Vogel, Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction
to the Sources (Tran. and rev. by William Storey and Niels Rasmussen;
Washington, D.C., 1986), 2.
[8] Palazzo, A History of Liturgical Books, 206.
[9] See the detailed discussion in Bradshaw, Johnson and
Phillips, The Apostolic Tradition, 1-6. See also the summary of the
weaknesses in Paul F. Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian
Worship: Sources and Methods for the Study of Early Liturgy (Oxford: Oxford Univ.
Press, 2002), 81-83.
[10] Johnson, The
Rites of Christian Initiation 101-110;
Bradshaw, Johnson and Phillips, The Apostolic Tradition, 108-125.
[11] Bradshaw, Johnson and Phillips, The Apostolic
Tradition, 7-8. Bradshaw, Johnson and Phillps say it was made “sometime
during the last quarter of the fourth century” (7). Aidan Kavanagh cites a commonly held date
when he says it was done ca. 350 (Aidan Kavanagh, Confirmation: Origin and
Reform [Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1988], 47).
[12] Frank C. Quinn, “Confirmation Reconsidered: Rite and
Meaning,” in Living Water, Sealing Spirit: Readings on Christian Initiation (ed.
Maxwell E. Johnson; Collegeville, MN: 1995, 219-237, 224).
[13] Maxwell E. Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation: Their Evolution and Interpretation (rev.
and exp.; Collegeville,
MN: The Liturgical
Press, 2007), 169.
[14] E.C. Whitaker, Documents
of the Baptismal Liturgy (rev. and ed. Maxwell E. Johnson; Collegeville, MN:
The Liturgical Press, 2003), 180 (hereafter DBL).
[15] All translations of Apostolic Tradition 21
are from Bradshaw, Johnson and Phillips, The Apostolic Tradition, 118.
[16] DBL 181. Ambrose says
something very similar in de Mysteriis 42 which dates to the same
period: “Wherefore, recollect the spiritual seal, the spirit of wisdom and
understanding, the spirit of counsel and strength, the spirit of knowledge and
godliness, the spirit of holy fear, and preserve what you received. God the
Father has sealed you. Christ the Lord has confirmed you, and has given the
pledge of the Spirit in your heart, as you learned from the Apostolic lesson” (DBL
183).
[17] See the discussion in Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation, 170-175.
[18] G.W.H. Lampe, The Seal of the Spirit: A Study in
the Doctrine of Baptism and Confirmation in the New Testament and Fathers (2d
ed.; London:
SPCK), 7.
[19] Lampe, The Seal of the Spirit, 8-9.
[20] Johnson, The
Rites of Christian Initiation, 222. Whitaker/Johnson says that the original of
Vat. Regin. 316
“is an edition of a rite which in its original Roman form was first drawn up in the early sixth century” (DBL 212).
“is an edition of a rite which in its original Roman form was first drawn up in the early sixth century” (DBL 212).
[21] DBL, 235.
[22] Martin F. Connell, Church
and Worship in Fifth-Century Rome: The Letter of
Innocent I to Decentius of Gubbio: Text with Introduction, Translation and
Notes (Cambridge:
Grove Books, 2002), 6-10.
[23] Connell, Church
and Worship in Fifth-Century Rome,
19.
[24] Connell, Church
and Worship in Fifth-Century Rome,
19.
[25] Connell, Church
and Worship in Fifth-Century Rome,
20.
[26] Connell, Church
and Worship in Fifth-Century Rome,
12.
[27] Connell, Church
and Worship in Fifth-Century Rome,
15.
[28] Connell, Church
and Worship in Fifth-Century Rome,
28.
[29] Connell, Church
and Worship in Fifth-Century Rome,
29.
[30] Johnson comments, “This important letter may well be
our first witness to the practice of an episcopal hand-laying and
(second) postbaptismal anointing as parts of the Roman rite, with the
laying on hands inferred from the reference to Acts 8” (Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation, 162; emphasis original).
[31] Bryan D. Spinks, Early
and Medieval Rituals and Theologies of Baptism: From the New Testament to the
Council of Trent (Surrey:
Ashgate, 2006), 62.
[32] Aidan Kavanagh, Confirmation: Origins and Reform
(New York: Pueblo Publishing Co., 1988), 58.
[33] J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (3d ed.;
New York:
Longman, 1972), 216.
[34] Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 338-344.
[35] Aidan Kavanagh, Confirmation: Origins and Reform,
58-62.
[36] J.D.C. Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in
the Medieval West – A Study in the Disintegration of the Primitive Rite of
Initiation (Chicago:
HillenbrandBooks, 2004), 15
[37] DBL 179.
[38] DBL 235.
[39] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the
Medieval West, 15.
[40] “After that we come up from the washing and are
anointed with the blessed unction, following that ancient practice by which,
ever since Aaron was anointed by Moses, there was a custom of anointing them
for priesthood with oil out of a horn” (On Baptism 7) (DBL 9).
[41] DBL 182.
[42] DBL 210.
[43] For example Pseudo-Maximus of Turin writes in a sermon about baptism: “When
the baptism has been completed, we pour chrism, that is the oil of
sanctification, on your head. By this
oil it is shown that the Lord confers on the newly baptized the dignity of
royalty and priesthood. In the Old Testament those who were chosen for kingship
or priesthood were anointed with holy oil, and they received power from the
Lord by the anointing of the head … But in the Old Testament that oil conferred
a temporary kingdom and a temporary priesthood which were to be exercised in
this life and ended after the span of a few years. But this chrism, that is, this anointing
which was administered to you, conferred on you the full riches of the kingdom
and priesthood of Christ, and once conferred it is never brought to an end”
(Gordon P. Jeannes, The Origins of the Roman Rite Vol. 2 [Cambridge:
Grove Books, 1998], 38).
[44] Johnson, The
Rites of Christian Initiation, 164.
[45] DBL 210-211.
[46] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the
Medieval West, 17.
[47] Thomas M. Finn, Early Christian Baptism and the
Catechumenate: Italy, North
Africa and Egypt (Collegeville, MN:
The Liturgical Press, 1992, 89.
[48] Johnson, The
Rites of Christian Initiation, 167-168.
[49] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval
West, 17.
[50] Johnson, The
Rites of Christian Initiation, 222.
[51] DBL 251.
[52] DBL 251.
[53] Johnson, The
Rites of Christian Initiation, 228.
[54] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the
Medieval West, 18.
[55] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the
Medieval West, 18.
[56] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the
Medieval West, 18.
[57] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the
Medieval West, 19.
[58] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval
West, 20 (emphasis added).
[59] Paul Turner, Ages of Initiation: The First Two
Christian Millenia (Collegeville,
MN: The Liturgical Press, 2000),
CD-ROM source excerpts, 3.11. The Ministry of Presbyters.
[60] Turner, Ages of Initiation, CD-ROM source
excerpts, 4.2. Baptism, Anointing, Eucharist: Supplementary Texts.
[61] Turner, Ages of Initiation, CD-ROM source
excerpts, 4.2. Baptism, Anointing, Eucharist: Supplementary Texts.
[62] Gerald Austin, The Rite of Confirmation: Anointing with the Spirit
(New York: Pueblo Publishing Co., 1985), 15.
[63] Turner, Ages of Initiation, CD-ROM source
excerpts, 3.12. Confirmation.
[64] Austin,
The Rite of Confirmation, 16.
[65] DBL 251.
[66] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the
Medieval West, 163.
[67] Turner, Ages of Initiation, CD-ROM source
excerpts, 5.2. “Confirm” as Communion.
[68] Lutheran Service Book (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006),
271.
[69] Lutheran Service Book Agenda (St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 2006), 5, The Rite in Detail 9.
[70] DBL 235.
[71] The Lutheran Agenda (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,
undated), 25.
[72] Lutheran Worship (St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1982), 206-207.
[73] Lutheran Service Book, 273.
No comments:
Post a Comment