Reviewed Book: Kavanagh, Aidan. Confirmation: Origins and Reform. New York: Pueblo Pub, 1988

Nevile, Donald C.

English

Scholars Commons

Confirmation: Origins and Reform

Wilfrid Laurier University

ConsensusVolume 16Issue 1 Hermeneutics: Theory and Practice Article 145-1-1990Confirmation: Origins and ReformDonald C. NevileFollow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensusThis Book Reviews is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by anauthorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationNevile, Donald C. (1990) "Confirmation: Origins and Reform," Consensus: Vol. 16 : Iss. 1 , Article 14.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol16/iss1/14Book Reviews 117backed by solid primary research and much literary talent, should stim-ulate a fundamental re-assessment of conventional social gospel wisdom.Richard Allen’s monumental work The Social Passion highlighted “the pro-gressives”, as he called them, both Methodist and Presbyterian. Usingextensive quoted material he praised effusively such men as S.D. Chown,T.A. Moore and J.G. Shearer, and he did so at the expense of such radicalsas J.S. Woodsworth and William Ivens. For his part, Fraser goes beyondthe public rhetoric to underlying values (with their limitations) and so-cial analysis. Fraser recognizes and acknowledges that words have theirincarnation in programmatic and social reality, and he demonstrates quiteclearly the middle-class tunnel vision of his protagonists. In this respect,his book is superior to and more nuanced than the earlier work of Allen’s.Fraser has pushed the social gospel debate forward in a most significantway, and for that, both the ecclesizistical and academic world owe him adebt of gratitude.Oscar L. Cole ArnalWaterloo Lutheran SeminaryConfirmation: Origins and ReformAidan KavanaghNew York: Pueblo Publishing Company, 1988xi-h 137 pp. $18.75When the king heard the book being read, he tore his clothes indismay... (2 Chronicles 34:17, TEV).This is an important book. Although Lutherans who read it will notlikely tear their clothes in dismay, those from traditions where confirmationis considered a sacrament, if they accept Kavanagh’s thesis, may be soinclined.Kavanagh claims to have made a radical and far-reaching discovery.What we now call “confirmation”, he proposes, originated simply as a dis-missal blessing which concluded the early Christian baptismal liturgy. Thisblessing adds nothing to baptism, but only completes this part of the ini-tiation rite. The episcopal “confirmation prayer” which we know mostcommonly from the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, paragraph 21, isnot an epiclesis but only a dismissal. This, Kavanagh claims, shifts theemphasis on the imparting of the Holy Spirit in baptism away from theacts of consignation and imposition of hands, keeping it in the liturgies ofbaptism and eucharist where it belongs.The fact at issue, he says, is whether there can be, or is, such a dismissalas a “liturgical unity in the evolution of Christian worship” (4). Kavanagh118 Consensusbelieves that such is the case, and refers to a number of other such dismissalsrecorded in early Christian writings. As examples, he cites the Council ofLaodicta (345-365), the Apostolic Constitutions (370-380), the Travels ofEgeria (381-384), Augustine, Ambrose, monastic practises, and the 4th-5th century Prayers of Inclination from Gaul and North Africa, concludingthat the Apostolic Tradition’s rite for dismissal of catechumens represents“an early instance of the Christian instinct to ‘seal’ a unit of worshipfulactivity by a final address to God in prayer, and by physical contact withthe Presiding Minister” (8).Much of his argument focuses on Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition (AT)^paragraph 21. This is the earliest account there is of what we now knowas confirmation. Kavanagh suggests that AT 21 is speaking about themovement from font to table. The impact of his argument hinges on the factthat there are two versions of this episcopal prayer. In the older “Verona”text, there is no epiclesis of the Holy Spirit, but a simple association of theSpirit with Baptism.This is not an entirely new suggestion, and was made a number of yearsago by Lampe in his book “The Seal of the Spirit”. Other scholars, amongthem Dix and Botte, disagree with Kavanagh and Lampe, who say thatthis prayer is simply part of the dismissal rite, through which the newly-baptized are set into the public ministry of the whole people of God. Assuch, they say, it imparts no special gift of the Holy Spirit, but is a sealingrite.Kavanagh explains how AT 21 has influenced the subsequent Romanrite of initiation through the 8th century Gelasian Sacramentary, which intime came to be interpreted as the authoritative source for the sacrament ofconfirmation. He lays the blame for this at the feet of Pope Innocent I (d.417), who began the process of regularizing all European liturgies accordingto the Roman rite, and demanded that post-baptismal anointings alwaysbe conducted by a bishop. Kavanagh speculates that, sometime betweenAT 21 (215 c.e.) and the death of Innocent I, the “Lord God” prayer wasaltered to become an epiclesis of the Holy Spirit. Thus, where the Veronaversion has “send upon them your grace”, the Gelasian Sacramentary has“pour upon them, Lord, your Holy Spirit, the Paraclete”.Kavanagh believes this happened between 350 c.e. and 416 c.e. forseveral reasons: the threat of Arianism, the rising frequency of presbyteralpresidency at the sacraments, and the concern over the role of the Spirit inbaptism, led to this transference to the bishop of the exclusive power to signthe Spirit over to the baptized individual. He interprets this as an exampleof bending liturgy to meet theology and pastoral need, and observes that“in the history of liturgical development, structure often outlives meaning”(63).On the basis of this argument, he calls into question some of the presup-positions that have been made about confirmation, and claims to establishthese points:1 What is called confirmation in the Eastern Rite is NOT confirmationat all, but simply a post-baptismal chrismation: there is in fact NOCONFIRMATION RITE in Eastern usage.Book Reviews 1192 There was no dismissal structure in the non-Roman, Mozarabic, andGallican baptismal liturgies', but only a post- baptismal chrismationsuch as the Eastern Rite had.3 Modern confirmation shows a three-stage development, from the AT21's episcopal missa^ to Innocent I’s expansion of this, to the mergingof this Roman practise with the Spanish and Gallican concern withepiscopal oversight in the 6th to 9th centuries.In the second part of the book, Kavanagh explores the implications ofhis argument for the reform of confirmation in the Roman church today.Vatican II reaffirmed that all three initiatory sacraments (baptism, confir-mation, and eucharist) are related in this sequence, and are necessary forinitiation: this normal order should not be violated. There should be noseparation of baptism from confirmation, but also no eucharist offered be-fore confirmation. Any other arrangement is abnormal, and gives an alienvalence to whatever step in the sequence is changed. An implication of this,Kavanagh points out, is that presbyters must now normally confirm.Commenting on Paul VPs Apostolic Constitution (which, he claims, waswritten largely by Botte), Kavanagh observes that here, anointing/sealing isidentified as the essence of confirmation, and NOT the imposition of hands.This, he says, implies a radical change in the rite of confirmation: “Thematter and form of Roman confirmation have been Byzantinized, cls hasconfirmation’s place in the baptismal liturgy for adults and older children,and its usual minister, a presbyter. . ..confirmation structurally has beengiven up in all but name in the case of adults and children of catecheticalage, but is retained as a separate structure for those baptized as infants”(93).If this present practise continues, he sees the danger of confirmationbecoming almost two different sacraments: a baptismal/transformationalpattern and an educational/prophylactic pattern. This would violate theCouncil’s intention to re-unify the three sacraments of initiation. He thensuggests three possible scenarios for the future:1 Baptism and eucharist could be seen as the main sacraments, withconfirmation as simply the Roman way of linking these two.2 Confirmation could be altogether abolished as a “confusing mistake”( 112 ).3 Confirmation could be brought back into close proximity with baptism,making it like the Byzantine post-baptismal chrismation, and perform-ing it even on infants.It is challenging to evaluate Kavanagh ’s arguments from a Lutheranperspective. His proposal that confirmation is simply a post-baptismal dis-missal hinges largely on textual criticism of AT 21, and on his assumptionthat the Verona prayer is the authentic and original of the two versionsgiven in all critical editions. This raises to prominence what we all know,but in practical terms have ignored; that the Apostolic Tradition of Hip-polytus as we have it today is a synthetic document, and ought not to berelied upon as heavily as it is by liturgiologists for teaching that “this is120 Consensusthe way Romans worshiped, baptized, and ordained in the second century”.All three critical editions in use today, those of Botte, Dix, and Cuming,make this point evident. With this in mind, we conclude that the jury isstill out with regard to Kavanagh’s interpretation of AT 21.Should Kavanagh’s thesis eventually be proved correct and accepted bythe churches, then traditions in which confirmation is considered a sacra-ment will truly rend their theological and liturgical garments. For Ro-mans, Anglicans, and the Orthodox, the theology of initiation will changesignificantly. However, in the Reformed churches, where confirmation isa utilitarian rite which can be taken or left and which bears no essentialrelation to initiation or salvation, Kavanagh’s suggestions will not be soearth-shattering.Still, at this time when Lutherans are placing their own sacramentalpractises under close scrutiny, sooner or later we will be forced to examineconfirmation as well. In the early 1970s, we accepted the definition ofconfirmation as “a pastoral and educational ministry of the church thatis designed to help baptized children identify with the life and mission ofthe adult Christian community, and that is celebrated in a public rite.”But we gave little thought to the nature and significance of the “publicrite”. Then, in 1977, the Lutheran Book of Worship removed the Prayerof Epiclesis from the Rite of Confirmation and placed it within the Riteof Holy Baptism, without actually calling this confirmation, or eliminatingthe Rite of Confirmation. (It is interesting that the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’s 1982 Lutheran Worship retained the earlier Lutheranpractise, and is thus closely aligned with the pre- Vatican II practise of theRoman Church!) And so we Lutherans are not so far outside this discussionas we might think.Kavanagh has helped clarify and bring into prominence one of theperennial problems in our theology and liturgies of initiation. And his as-sertion that Orthodox “confirmation” is not confirmation at all, but simplypost-baptismal anointing, may help to clear the ecumenical air somewhat,especially when the debate turns to who confirms whom, and how. Forwhen churches today begin to reform their own practises, they inevitablycompare what they are doing with what other churches have done and aredoing. And if we can agree to stop calling the Orthodox post-baptismalanointing “confirmation”, as Kavanagh suggests, then we have clarifiedsomething important in ecumenical discussion.In all of this, however, it is still not clear what confirmation is or means.There are many definitions of what confirmation is, and many of these areinaccurate and misleading. We use the word, cis Humpty-Dumpty said toAlice, to mean what we choose it to mean. And, as Alice responded, “Thequestion is, whether you can make words mean so many different things!”Book Reviews 121Whether happily or unhappily, Kavanagh’s book represents one more stepin the erosion of our traditional views regarding confirmation.Donald NevilePeace Lutheran ChurchMeletius, sive De iis quae inter Christianos conveniuntEpistolaHugo GrotiusCritical edition with translation, commentary and introductionby Guillaume H.M. Posthumus MeyjesLeiden: E.J. Brill, 1988XX -|- 191 pp. U.S. $42.50It is hardly a common occurrence when a long-lost work by a famousauthor is recovered and presented to the scholarly world. The publicationof the Meletius by Hugo Grotius is just such an event. The existence of thework had been known to modern scholarship since the publication in 1928of the first volume of Grotius correspondence, but the Meletius had neverbeen published and the manuscript was presumed lost. Posthumus Mey-jes’ introduction recounts not only the origin and purpose of the work butalso intrigues the reader with the scholarly detective story of the recoveryand identification of the work, which had been preserved under its originaltitle, but without attribution to any author, in a set of Remonstrant doc-uments deposited in the Amsterdam University Library toward the end ofthe nineteenth century.The Meletius, written at the time of the Remonstrance and before theSynod of Dort, is an irenic document, named after the Greek patriarch,Meletius Pegas (1541-1601), himself an irenicist devoted to the reconcilia-tion of Christians. The work stands as an important document in the lifeof Grotius and as a valuable introduction to the thought of this scholarlyfigure, respected by his century for his work on jurisprudence and for hislearned annotations on the Greek New Testament, remembered still for histheory of the atonement and for his apologetic treatise On the Truth of theChristian Religion.In many ways, the unpublished Meletius can be regarded as a prologueor preparation for the later apologetic. Posthumus Meyjes argues convinc-ingly that Grotius cissumed the capacity of human reason for divine truthand, therefore, the possibility of rational agreement concerning the contentand substance of the Christian religion. In order to lead his readers towardthis conclusion, Grotius discusses first the existence, character, and purpose

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1967&amp;context=consensus

Confirmation: Origins and Reform

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholars Commons

Wilfrid Laurier University