Saturday, September 13, 2014

Mark's thoughts: The weird and wacky history of Confirmation, Part 5 - Spain

(St. Isidore of Seville)
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.  In this post I will consider the evidence from Spain in the time after Nicaea.  This region of the Church yields the same picture as was found in the previous posts that looked at northern Italy and North Africa.  In Spain there was no second episcopal anointing, and so no claim can be made about the existence of Confirmation as it was known in the sixteenth century. 

I. Background of the Spanish Church
Spain’s unique history had a strong impact on the liturgical development of the church there.  During the fifth century, the Arian Visigoths had conquered the Iberian peninsula and imposed their customs on the area.  This process continued even into the sixth century. In 563 the Council of Braga adopted the Roman order of baptism which Profuturus had received from Rome for use in Galicia, however it was suppressed twenty years later when the Visigoths took control of the region.[1]  In 589 king Recared converted to the Catholic faith, and this offered the opportunity for Roman influence.  However the Arab invasion of 712 then cut off the Spanish churches once again and they developed in independent ways.  The period 589 to 712 was a time when Roman influence was possible, and texts available from this time appear to demonstrate this.[2]

II. Spain prior to the seventh century
The canons of the Council of Elvira that met in 305 AD are the earliest evidence from Spain.  There we find:

          Canon 38. That in cases of necessity, even the faithful may baptize
[It was agreed] that a faithful man, who has held fast to his baptism and is not bigamous may baptize a sick catechumen at sea, or where there is no church at hand: provided that if he survives he shall bring him to a bishop so that he may be perfected (perfici) through the laying on of a hand.[3]

Canon 77. Concerning baptized people who die before they have been confirmed
It was agreed that when a deacon who has charge of faithful people (regens plebem) baptizes some of them in the absence of a bishop or presbyter, it shall be the duty of the bishop to perfect (perficere) them: but if any depart life before confirmation, he will be justified by virtue of the faith in which he has believed.[4]

Similar statements by church councils will be seen when we look at Gaul.  As Johnson points out, both canons deal with exceptional circumstances, rather than the normal ritual pattern. It is quite likely that this “perfecting” of a baptism performed by someone other than a bishop or priest occurred through a blessing, with perhaps, the imposition of the hand.  Johnson concludes, “Hence, it is quite possible these fourth and firth century councils were directing bishops to ‘perfect,’ ‘complete,’ or ‘confirm’ baptisms done by presbyters or deacons as a matter of pastoral oversight rather than regular sacramental ministry.”[5]

The fourth century bishop, St. Pacian of Barcelona draws a link to the apostles and maintains that from them “power of the washing and chrism” (lavacri et chrismatis potestas) has come down to bishops.  He draws a parallel between the power to give the Spirit (Spiritum sanctum dare) and the power of the chrism (chrismatis potestas) and so Mitchell reports that, “In both cases the phrase is conjoined to the mention of baptism, and we have here our earliest evidence for the baptismal anointing in the Spanish Church, together with an explanation of its meaning as ‘to give the Holy Spirit.’”[6] 

Additional evidence of this is found in a sermon of Pacian in which he says, “These things cannot be accomplished except by the sacrament of washing (lavacri), chrism, and the high priest (antistitis): by washing sins are cleansed; by chrism the Holy Ghost is poured upon him; and both of these things are effected by the hand and mouth of the high priest; and thus the whole man is reborn and renew in Christ.”[7]  The same picture is found in Prudentius who wrote, “Worshipper, of God, remember that thou has been washed in holy water and marked with holy oil.”[8]  It does not appear that there was any hand laying  known to these authors, for as Fisher notes, “If these writers know of a post-baptismal hand-laying, it is hard to see why they failed to allude to it.”[9]  Instead, as we saw in Augustine, the chrism itself is viewed as the means by which the Holy Spirit is given.

The emphasis on the importance of chrism in the baptismal rite and the link it provided to the bishop is found in the First Council of Toledo in 398.  It states in Canon 20:

Although the custom is almost everywhere preserved, that none but the bishop blesses, yet because in some places or provinces the presbyters are said to bless chrism, it was agreed that none but the bishop shall henceforth bless chrism: and he shall send it into his diocese in such fashion that deacons and sub-deacons shall be sent from each church to the bishop before Easter, so that the chrism which the bishop has blessed shall arrive in time for Easter.  While the bishops have the undoubted right to bless chrism at any time, presbyters may do nothing without the knowledge of the bishop: it is decreed that the deacon may not give chrism but the presbyter may do so in the absence of the bishop, or in his presence if he commands.[10]

This canon indicates several significant points.  First, generally speaking church bodies only command or forbid actions in cases where the opposite is currently taking place.[11]  It is quite clear, therefore, that presbyters were blessing chrism and that deacons were administering it. The canon seeks to centralize the authority to bless chrism in the office of the bishop.  Second, the text explicitly states that presbyters were permitted to baptize and apply chrism as long as this was done under the bishop’s supervision and using the chrism he had blessed.  Third, there is only a single anointing that takes place in the Spanish rite of baptism.  This stands in marked contrast to the Roman practice (a practice in which only a bishop could perform a second anointing).

The same situation is found in the sixth century in the letter of St. Braulion, Bishop of Saragossa to Eugene, Bishop of Toledo. Braulion wrote to answer Eugene’s questions and stated:

Your prudence certainly knows that the traditions of the canons had been established that a presbyter should not dare to chrismate. But we know that all of Italy and the East keep doing it to this day. Later, however, it was agreed that presbyters might chrismate, but with chrism blessed by bishops. In this way it did not seem that this was the right of presbyters when they consecrate the people of God from that holy oil, but the right of bishops, with whose blessing and permission they may thus perform the offices of this kind, as it were by the hand of the bishop.[12]

Braulion says that in the normal order of things, presbyters baptize using chrism blessed by the bishop, and that by doing so they become an extension of the bishop’s ministry.  Further evidence for this arrangement is found in the work of Martin of Braga. Martin came from Tours to Braga during the sixth century at the request of a Suevic king.[13]  He organized two councils in Braga in 561 and 572.[14]  These councils make clear that, “The gift of the Spirit is associated with the chrism, whether administered by presbyter or bishop – although the bishop certainly ‘confects’ the chrism.”[15]

The available evidence indicates that prior to the seventh century, baptisms in Spain consisted of: 1) baptism in water[16] and 2) anointing with chrism.  Baptisms could be performed by presbyters using chrism blessed by the bishop, and the chrism was believed to be the means by which the Holy Spirit was given. The emphasis on the chrism necessitated later warnings against selling the chrism blessed by the bishop.[17]  In his unpublished dissertation, Baptism in Visigothic Spain, McConnell has concluded that there is no evidence for the imposition of the hand until the seventh century.[18]

III. Isidore of Seville
Isidore of Seville’s episcopate (599-636) took place after king Recared’s conversion to the Catholic faith in 589.[19]  The Spanish church was able to come into close contact with the church at Rome and we find the influence of Roman baptismal practice.  Isidore drew deeply upon the fathers of the Church before him.  He therefore shows the same diversity found in North Africa when it comes to how the Holy Spirit is present and at work in the rite of baptism.  Like Cyprian, Isidore can associate the Spirit with the water itself. He wrote, “The Holy Spirit is identified in the gospel with the water when the Lord says, ‘If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink.’”[20]  Isidore draws heavily upon Augustine, and so he also associates the giving of the Spirit with both the chrism and the imposition of the hand. At the same time, he also interprets the chrism with the royal priestly interpretation based on 1 Peter2:9.

This latter interpretation is found in his De Ecclesiasticis Officiis when he explains the chrism.  There he writes: 

But now, after our Lord, true king and eternal priest, was anointed by God the Father with a heavenly and mystical anointing, not only bishops and kings but the entire church is consecrated by the anointing with chrism, because of the fact that the church is a limb of the eternal king and priest.  Therefore, because we are a priestly and royal people, after the washing of baptism we are anointed so that we might be called by the name Christ (26.2).[21]

At the same time, Isidore’s own language sets up an analogy between the Holy Spirit poured out on Christ and the chrism placed on the one baptized.  And so it is not surprising to find that like Augustine, and the tradition we have already seen in Spain, Isidore says elsewhere that the Spirit is given through the chrism:

The sacraments are baptism and chrism, and the body and blood. . . . For as in baptism the forgiveness of sins is given, so through the anointing the sanctification of the Spirit is added. This comes from an ancient tradition in which people used to be anointed in the priesthood and royalty of which Aaron was anointed also by Moses. While the anointing happens physically, it profits spiritually—as in the very grace of baptism, the action is visible (that we are immersed in water), but the effect is spiritual (that we are cleaned from sins).[22]

In De Ecclesiasticis Officiis, after dealing with the chrism Isidore then proceeds to discuss “The Imposition of Hands or Confirmation.” He writes, “Because after baptism the Holy Spirit is given through the bishop with the imposition of hands, we remember that the apostles had done this in the Acts of the Apostles” (27.1).[23]  Isidore cites the examples of Paul in Acts 19, and Peter and John in Acts 8. Then in a very telling statement, he goes on to add:

Let me add, however, by whom this is done most especially, as holy Pope Innocent wrote.  He stated that it is permitted by a bishop and not by any another.  For presbyters, although they are priests, nevertheless do not have the summit of the episcopacy.  It is obligatory that only bishops do the sealing and hand on the Holy Spirit.  Not only does ecclesiastical custom demonstrate this, but so also the above-cited reading from the Acts of the Apostles, which asserts that Peter and John were those who were directed to hand on the Holy Spirit to the already baptized.  Although it is permitted to priests either without a bishop, or with a bishop present, to anoint the baptized with chrism when they baptize, they may do so only with chrism that has been consecrated by the bishop.  Nevertheless, they are not to sign the forehead with that oil, because that ought to be done only by bishops when they hand on the Holy Spirit (27.3-4).[24]

Isidore’s writings are often encyclopedic in nature as he seeks to draw upon all of the Catholic tradition that had proceeded him.  Akeley notes, “Isidore’s motives, as pastoral as intellectual, seem to have led him to deliberate ambiguity, witnessing to, as well as allowing for, varied traditions.”[25]  And so when it came to baptism, “he clearly could not reconcile all the variant traditions to which he himself was heir, and rather than discard any of them he allows himself to sound self-contradictory.”[26]

Isidore refers to Innocent I’s letter to Decentius that was considered in the post dealing with Rome.  There Innocent had written:

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.[27]

As we have seen, Innocent describes the expectation that: 1) the bishop alone 2) will do the second anointing 3) on the forehead.  He uses the text from Acts 8 that describes the giving of the Spirit through the imposition of the hand in order to justify the fact that the second anointing by the bishop gives the Spirit in the baptismal rite.

However in Spain at the beginning of the seventh century 1) presbyters performed the entire baptismal rite; 2) there was only one anointing; 3) and there is no evidence that any distinction had ever been made regarding what part of the head the presbyter was allowed to anoint. And returning to Isidore’s explanation, there is also no evidence that there had even been an imposition of the hand in the Spanish rite. Instead it was believed that presbyters bestowed the Spirit through the use of chrism consecrated by the bishop.

Isidore’s description was formally enacted at the Second Council of Seville in 619, at which he presided. Canon 7 states:

Nor indeed is it allowed for presbyters to consecrate a church or an altar, to bestow the paraclete Spirit through the imposition of a hand on the baptized faithful or on converts from heresy, to make chrism, to sign the forehead of the baptized with chrism, and not to publicly reconcile any penitent in the dismissal, nor to send composed epistles to anyone. All these things are illicit for presbyters because they do not have the perfection of the episcopacy, which is decreed by the authority of the canons to be due to bishops alone. . . . It is not permitted to presbyters in the presence of the bishop to enter the baptistry nor to baptize or sign infants in the presence of the bishop.[28]

It becomes clear, therefore, that Isidore is not describing Spanish practice as it existed but instead was trying to bring it closer in line with that of Rome.  Fisher concludes regarding this evidence:

When, however, the Second Council of Seville (619), presided over by Isidore himself, forbade presbyters to consecrate chrism or to sign with chrism the foreheads of the baptized – a clear indication that they had been doing so – a deliberate attempt was being made to bring the Spanish rite into closer conformity with that of Rome, by introducing the episcopal consignation of the forehead and hand-laying, and by removing from presbyters the right to impart the Holy Spirit.[29]

In considering Isidore’s statements about baptismal practice and the canon from the Second Council of Seville, it is important to recognize the diversity that continued to exist during this period of the Spanish liturgy.  Regional variation was the norm, and the mechanism for bringing about large scale liturgical change was simply not in place, especially since liturgical works had to be produced  by hand at scriptoria (institutions that themselves were inclined to preserve the liturgy of their own location).  Akeley cautions: “It has often been suggested that a complete regularisation of liturgy has been the effect of Toledo iv’s [633] extensive liturgical legislation.  We have earlier suggested that this is extremely unlikely; and it will do no harm to point out that councils two generations after Isidore will still be taking notice of liturgical variety and urging at least provincial uniformity, at least in the major morning and evening offices.”[30]  

About this period, he further observes:

We find ourselves in fact in a period of important doctrinal transition and development.  As in the case of Galicia and the rest of the peninsula, so all over the Mediterranean world doctrines and practices were undergoing, about AD 600, new juxtapositions and confrontations.  The comparative understandings of initiation and the Holy Spirit, of the presbyterate and the episcopate, having undergone somewhat different development in different places, had not in every Church evolved to the same extent, and ad hoc decisions were made at this time in Spain for reasons, primarily, of practical discipline.[31]

IV. Ildefonsus of Toledo
The other major source of evidence for this period is Ildefonsus, bishop of Toledo from 657 to 667.[32]  Ildefonsus drew heavily upon the writings of Isidore and presents the same basic view.  Like Isidore, Ildefonsus provides an interpretation of the post-baptismal anointing that is based on 1 Peter 2:9.  He says in De Cognitione Baptismi, “not only priests and kings but the whole Church is consecrated with the anointing of holy chrism, because it is the most holy member of the eternal king and priest” (c. 123).[33]  However, like Isidore and the Spanish tradition in general, he clearly states the Holy Spirit is given through the chrism: “After the washing at the font, after the renewal of life, after the unction of the Spirit, the person is taught to pray with the words of truth” (c. 132).[34]  In fact, Fisher judges that he does so “even more clearly than Isidore.”[35]

Yet like Isidore, Ildefonsus also attributes the giving of the Spirit to the imposition of the hand.  He writes, “After baptism the Holy Spirit is aptly given with the imposition of the hands.  For this the Apostle is shown to have done in the Acts of the Apostles” asthe proceeds to cite the examples of Acts chapters 19 and 8 (c. 129).[36]  However, at the same time he also describes the hand laying as a kind of blessing that recalls Jesus’ blessing of the children: “It is therefore wholesome that after the example of Christ a hand in blessing is placed upon the faithful by the priest” (c. 127).[37]  As Mitchell notes:
Certainly there is some confusion in Ild. about the meaning of the laying  on of hands.  It seems almost as if he is giving two alternative interpretations of the rite.  In the first the unction is identified with the royal and priestly calling of Christians and the Spirit is given by the laying on of  the priest’s hand.  The second interpretation speaks of the anointing of the Holy Spirit, and of the hand of blessing laid on the faithful by the priest,  following the example of Christ, who said, ‘Suffer the little children to come unto me.’[38]
Ildefonsus also cites Innoncent I’s letter: “But this anointing may become most powerful in this way, as the holy Pope Innocent witnesses; thus he says it is not permitted to be done by anyone other than a bishop” (c. 136).[39] Yet Akeley points out that it is quoted without comment and he concludes, “I cannot think that the latter was operative, save in cathedrals on the Paschal Vigil, For, as we have seen, there is too much evidence for common presbyterial baptisms, evidently sufficient unto themselves, to take the papal letter in any other sense.”[40]  In Ildefonsus we see more of the Roman influence.  Yet because they are changes to a rite already considered to be complete and whole, the  picture is now confused.[41]

V. Liber Ordinum
The final piece of evidence to consider is the Liber Ordinum which is known from a manuscript of 1052 and is almost a pontifical as it provides the liturgy for the bishop.[42]  As in Isidore and Ildefonsus the giving of the Spirit is linked to both the imposition of the hand and the anointing.  In the blessing of the water before baptism the prayer is spoken:  “Grant that those who take from this laver a new life and set aside the record of the old and are accorded the gift of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands may both put away their present faults and lay hold of eternal gifts, happy in your continual and everlasting succour.”[43] 

After the baptism the priest anoints with chrism on the forehead making the sign of the cross and says, “The sign of eternal life which  God the Father Almighty has given through Jesus Christ his Son to them that believe unto salvation.”[44] Then the priest lays his hand on the one baptized and speaks a lengthy prayer that confers the Holy Spirit:

O God, who in this sacrament wherein men are reborn send your Holy Spirit upon water, in such fashion that the Creator commands his creature and by its office cleanses those who are washed thereby, whom you would perfect [confirmaret] with your bountiful gift; you who by water would take away the stain of sin and by your own self would complete the grace of the sacrament, and therefore has commanded that the unction of chrism shall follow the ministration of baptism: we therefore pray and ask you, O Lord, following your commandments according as we are able, to pour your Holy Spirit upon these your servants. Amen.

          The spirit of wisdom and understanding. Amen
          The spirit of counsel and might. Amen.
          The spirit of knowledge and godliness. Amen.
Fill them, both men and women, with the spirit of your fear [Isa. 11.2], who inspires men to follow your saving commandment and breathe upon them a heavenly gift. And so grant that being strengthened in the Name of the Trinity, they may by this chrism be accounted worthy to become Christs, and by the power of Christ to become Christians.[45]
The Liber Ordinum dates from the time when the Arab invasion had again cut off Spain from Rome, and so it bears witness to independent development.  The prayer is “unparalleled anywhere” and is unique in the way it holds together the twin emphases of the Spirit through chrism and the Spirit through imposition of the hand, for while prayer about the Spirit occurs during the imposition of the hand “it is to the chrism already administered that the prayer repeatedly refers.”[46]

The Liber Ordinum follows the same order as Ildefonsus.  However it is explicit in saying that a presbyter can use this rite at any time.  We see this in the fact that the:
Liber Ordinum also includes an Order of Baptism which is to be used by  the Paschal vigil, and in which a bishop, accompanied by presbyters and deacons, take part.  Hence as late as the eleventh century, to which the MS. of the Liber Ordinum belongs, a bishop still presided over the Paschal initiation of the church. But this order of initiation was no longer considered  the norm, because it breaks off after the bishop has said two prayers at  the font, the reader being referred back to the first rite, used at any time, for all that follows.[47]
The fact that the Liber Ordinum allows presbyters to perform the whole rite leads us to doubt “whether the second Council of Seville (619), in insisting that only a bishop might lay his hand upon the forehead, met with more than a very limited success.”[48]  Instead bishops “customarily delegated presbyters to act for them using chrism consecrated by them for the anointing, and, as long as the minister was a sacerdos, they considered that they were complying with the ancient and apostolic custom.”[49]

The eleventh century marked the end of Spanish isolation as Moorish control lessened.  In 1074 Gregory VII wrote to Alphonso of Castille and urged him “to accept the Roman use instead of that of Toledo or any other Church, and Alphonso, influenced by his French wife, imposed on his kingdom Roman law and Roman customs.”[50]

VI. Conclusion
The evidence from Spain indicates that there was no Confirmation in Rome prior to the eleventh century when it came back within the Roman sphere of influence. There is no evidence that the language “confirm/confirmation” was being used during this period in a way that reflects the later meaning of Confirmation.  There was no second anointing, and a presbyter commonly performed the entire rite as he used chrism blessed by the bishop.

Prior to 800 AD Confirmation did not exist anywhere in the western Church.  However, in Gaul the geography and nomenclature existed that, when combined with the requirements of Roman baptismal practice, would generate Confirmation.  It would create a pastoral situation that demanded a theological explanation.  Practice would generate new theology based on spurious sources.

[1] 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), 99.
[2] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West, 99.
[3] E.C. Whitaker, Documents of the Baptismal Liturgy (rev. and ed. Maxwell E. Johnson; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2003), 154 (hereafter DBL). 
[4] DBL 155.
[5] Maxwell E. Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation: Their Evolution and Interpretation (rev. and exp.; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2007), 182-183.
[6] Ep. I.4, 6; Mitchell, Baptismal Anointing, 131.
[7] Sermo de Baptismo, 6; Leonel L. Mitchell, Baptismal Anointing (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1966), 132.  Mitchell forces the evidence when he tries to see a hand laying indicated here.  The most natural reading is that the bishop (“high priest”) is the one speaking the words and applying the water and the chrism with his hand.
[8] Liber Cathemerinon, VI, 125-128; Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West, 103.
[9] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West, 103-104.
[10] DBL 155.
[11] The frequency with which the LCMS in convention has affirmed closed communion illustrates this point.
[12] Ep. Ad Eugenum 2.4; Paul Turner, Ages of Initiation: The First Two Christian Millenia (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2000), CD-ROM source excerpts, Ch 3, 11. The Ministry of Bishops and Presbyters.
[13] T.C. Akeley, Christian Initiation in Spain c.300-1100 (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1967), 45.
[14] Akeley, Christian Initiation in Spain, 46.
[15] Akely, Christian Initiation in Spain, 46.  Canon 52 of the Second Council of Braga (572) says, “It is not permitted to a presbyter to chrismate when the bishop is present. A presbyter may not sign infants when the bishop is present, unless perhaps it was commanded him by the bishop” (Turner, Ages of Initiation, CD-ROM source excerpts, Ch 4, 10. Ministry of Bishops and Presbyters).
[16] The manner in which water was applied in Spain is an interesting example of the diversity that existed in western liturgical practice.  Martin of Braga engaged in a dispute with a neighbor, Boniface, about the fact that some Catholics on the Spanish peninsula had adopted the practice of a single immersion.  Traditionally this has been seen as a way that they distinguished their practice from that of the Arians (Akeley, Christian Initiation in Spain, 47).  More recently, McConnell has argued that there is no reason to believe it was not instead an earlier tradition in Spain (Christian McConnell, Baptism in Visigothic Spain [Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 2005], cited by Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation, 236-237).  In Canon 6 of the Fourth Council of  Toledo (633) the Spanish church declared single immersion to be the method of baptizing (DBL 155-156).
[17] “It is decreed in a similar way that when chrism is given to diocesan presbyters for the sake of confirming neophytes, nothing may be taken as payment for the liquid, lest the grace of God produced as the payment of a blessing join the condemned simoniac to the buyers and sellers” (Canon 2, Second Council of Barcelona [599]); “This decision, which is worthily observed in our province, remains appropriate for us in all of them. It is agreed that whoever receives the holy chrism from the bishop in power to distribute to the presbyters at the appropriate time should presume to ask or to take nothing from them for this benefit” (Canon 9, Council of Merida [666]) Turner, Ages of Initiation, CD-ROM source excerpts, Ch 4, 10. Ministry of Bishops and Presbyters).
[18] Christian McConnell, Baptism in Visigothic Spain, cited by Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation, 237.
[19] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West, 99.
[20] Akeley, Christian Initiation in Spain, 65.  Akeley does not provide the reference.  It is unfortunate that Akeley’s book, still considered the standard work on this topic and one of immense erudition, lacks specific textual references.
[21] Isidore of Seville, De Ecclesiasticis Officiis (Translation and introduction by Thomas L. Knobel; New York: The Newman Press, 2008), 112.
[22] Isidore 20 Books of Etymologies 6:19,39.51-54 (Turner, Ages of Initiation, CD-ROM source excerpts, Ch 4, 9. Confirmation); so also Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West, 102.
[23] Isidore of Seville, De Ecclesiasticis Officiis, 112.
[24] Isidore of Seville, De Ecclesiasticis Officiis, 112-113.
[25] Akeley, Christian Initiation in Spain, 59.
[26] Akeley, Christian Initiation in Spain, 66.
[27] 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), 28.
[28] Turner, Ages of Initiation, CD-ROM source excerpts, Ch 4, 10. Ministry of Bishops and Presbyters.
[29] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West, 104.  Mitchell comments about Isisore’s position that it “was not the customary interpretation of the Spanish Church, nor was the injunction of Innocent which he quotes observed in the Mozarabic rite.  Isidore is here reproducing what he believes he believes to be the ancient tradition of the Western Church on the basis of the writings of its acknowledged doctors” (Mitchell, Baptismal Anointing, 135).
[30] Akeley, Christian Initiation in Spain, 76-77.
[31] Akeley, Christian Initiation in Spain, 67.
[32] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West, 99.
[33] Mitchell, Baptismal Anointing, 140.
[34] DBL 164.
[35] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West, 104..
[36] Mitchell, Baptismal Anointing, 140.
[37] DBL 164.
[38] Mitchell, Baptismal Anointing, 140-141.
[39] Turner, Ages of Initiation, CD-ROM source excerpts, Ch 4, 10. Ministry of Bishops and Presbyters.
[40] Akeley, Christian Initiation in Spain, 86.
[41] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West, 104-105.
[42] DBL 164.
[43] DBL 169.
[44] DBL 170.
[45] DBL 171.
[46] Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation, 237 (emphasis original).  Mitchell comments that, “The anointing is here taken in the closest possible connection with the laying on of hands” (Mitchell, Baptismal Anointing, 141).
[47] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West, 109.
[48] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West, 109.
[49] Mitchell, Baptismal Anointing, 143.
[50] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West, 110.

No comments:

Post a Comment