Monday, May 30, 2016

Noses in ecclesial tents?

A week or two back Pope Francis made affirming and (for some) provocative noises about investigating the possibility of women deacons in the Roman Catholic church. A post on Euangelion, here, includes a line
"Our aspiring women deacons view the female diaconate not as a historical revival, but as a camel’s nose in the clerical tent.
That is as may be. In all churches there are quests for power or at least a greater share in the (perceived) power of the institution. But I suggest Pope Francis is less interested in sharing the power and more interested in sharing the load of responsibility. He always strikes me as a realist, not an idealist. He knows only too well that a huge "manpower" [sic] problem exists because of restriction of the priesthood to (a) men (b) celibate men (in the Western Catholic church). Here in NZ we see that shortage expressed in some parishes which are being run by female pastoral leaders. Francis is also realistic about the possibility of introducing women priests to his church = zero for a long time to come. And the time will only come if a start is made roundabout now. So, yes, in a sense Francis is trying to get the camel's nose in the clerical tent, but not  motivated by power and concern to share the power but by responsibility and concern to share the load with the 50% who are canonically unavailable to take it up. (Incidentally, Bosco Peters has also posted on women deacons here.)

Closer to home there was another camel's nose sniffing about an Anglican tent (literally re the tent, because that is what #gsthw16 met in).

This nose sought to nudge one of the time-honoured, traditional but "what's my theology?" sacramental actions of the church out of the tent, replacing it with, well, pretty much the same thing but with a new name.

Previously here I drew attention to a proposal to change "Confirmation" to "Affirmation." The more I thought and heard about this proposal, the less happy I became. Notably, I was less than persuaded that "Affirmation" was a better name than "Confirmation" and I was less than persuaded that much substance was actually going to change from what we already have in the NZPB if the change was approved.

Bosco Peters notes the situation (along with other #gsthw16 motions) here. Taonga reports here and it is worth citing in full to get a feel for how the debate went, which ended in the motion being booted to the touchline for some physiotherapy on it:

"The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia has decided to broaden its conversation on confirmation after changes to the rites of baptism and confirmation were let lie on the table at General Synod/Te Hīnota Whānui in May.
The bill presented to synod proposed new formularies for the baptism of adults, baptism of children, and a new rite that would replace confirmation, to be known as The Laying on of Hands for Affirmation, Renewal and Reception.
The proposed formularies came in response to local research that outlines how confirmation has lost its pivotal role for many Anglican churches in Aotearoa New Zealand.
An accompanying report explains how the change in understanding and status of confirmation has mainly occurred since baptism became the sole rite required for Christians to receive communion in Anglican churches, going back as far as the 1970s.
Rev Michael Wallace (Dunedin) thanked Assistant Bishop of Auckland Jim White, who had completed the research on behalf of the house of bishops, but asked for a response that did not unnecessarily break with tradition,
 “This work on confirmation has identified a crisis in our church,” he said.
“But I believe the crisis is not with the rite of confirmation itself, but with our church’s approach to catechesis and formation.”
Bishop Apimeleki Qiliho agreed on behalf of Tikanga Polynesia,
“It is the teaching behind confirmation that helps candidates to live out their baptism,” he said.
The Anglican Schools Director, Rev Anne van Gend, opposed any shift from confirmation.
Joined by Kim Duxfield, chaplain of Nga Tawa Diocesan School, Ms van Gend asked for school chaplains to be invited into the conversation before any change went ahead.
She also reminded synod that school chaplains are responsible for the largest number of confirmation candidates throughout the church.
“Confirmation is an important rite of passage for our students,” she said.
“And I am loathe to see anything that would weaken that.”
Te Aute College Trustee Maui Tangohau also favoured keeping confirmation as is.
 “One reason parents send their children to Te Aute or Hukarere (Māori Anglican Colleges), is to maintain their Anglican faith,” he said.
“When you leave these schools, you will be baptised or confirmed or both.
“And that is valued.”
Rev Jay Behan reported Christchurch diocesan synod heard many voices in support of confirmation, while the Bishop of Waikato Helen-Ann Hartley spoke of the rite’s long-standing, worldwide role.
“I would hate to see it go,” she said.
“There are deep historic and pastoral aspects to confirmation.”
Bishop Jim White replied there was little in the concerns and questions that suggested a present-day rationale for confirmation.
“’That is our tradition’ is not sufficient answer, nor that ‘it is in the Book of Common Prayer’,” he said.
“We have jettisoned other parts of the Book of Common Prayer.
“We no longer hold to the same view (or doctrine) on baptism and that is key.
“There is nothing to ‘confirm’.”
He also said speakers had confused failures or successes in catechesis with confirmation.
“We must improve our catechesis, but that is separate and distinct from the use of an archaic rite.”
He finished with a challenge: “I hope that hui amorangi and dioceses will engage in the substantive matters set out in the report on baptism and confirmation and respond to the Common Life Liturgical Committee over the next two years.”"

I am very disappointed with the reported words re "tradition." Tradition in this context is not only about tradition (the enduring presence of the past in the present and future life of the everliving body of Christ) but about catholicity: confirmation is a sacrament or sacramental action of various branches of the episcopal churches of the globe. To ditch this tradition is to fray - once more - the (somewhat stretched) fabric of catholicity binding these churches together. It is a worry that few in ACANZP seem to (a) understand catholicity as a mark of the church (b) hold any great commitment to catholicity.

On Confirmation itself, I am all for the service. It was and remains important to me that I have confirmed the faith which my parents had in bringing me to baptism. Not just affirmed that faith but "con"firmed it ("con" resonating with the togetherness of being a family of God). And, frankly, it does not worry me too much at all that "Confirmation" is perceived as a "completing" of baptism. Yes, baptism is complete in itself, nothing can add to it or take away from it as a rite. But the poor infant being baptised and having no memory of it might like the opportunity to complete for themselves what they could not contribute at the time of baptism, "Yes, this is my chosen faith too." Complete, that is, the shift from faith expressed "on behalf of" to faith expressed directly by the baptised person.

Meantime, however, all such matters of arcane church life are put in perspective by this sobering editorial in the Guardian, here.

47 comments:

Father Ron Smith said...

Dear Peter, this is one matter about which I find myself in perfect agreement with you and the other defenders of our current traditional attitude towards the necessity of Confirmation - especially for those who were baptized in infancy, and for whom preparation for their access to the Sacrament of Holy Communion may not have been sufficiently informative of the grace that is conferred in both of these basic Sacraments of the Church.

Whereas some people regard Confirmation as a sort of rite of passing out from the Church (and, let's face it, this sometimes must have appeared to be the case with inadequately taught school-leavers); when properly educated through a well-ordered catechetical process the prospect of Confirmation becomes the logical next step in which a person is taught about the grace available to understand what is involved in being a fully-functioning member of the body of Christ.

Confirmation is not a new bestowal of the Holy Spirit gifted at Baptism. It is, rather, the apostolic 'stirring up' of a gift already received.

Bryden Black said...

Well Peter; it is certainly a fun liturgical read - referring to “A Recommended Revision of the Liturgy ...”. I was surprised however to see no mention of (alongside such worthies as Geoffrey Cummings, JDC Fisher, and Bryan Spinks, who do rate mentions) Geoffrey Lampe’s The Seal of the Spirit (SPCK, 2nd ed. 1967). True; he too confirms [sic] the view that water baptism alone is the original initiation rite - which is the centre of gravity of the entire report. Yet his work also raises the necessary question of anointing. For what might we make of such biblical references as for example 2 Cor 1:21f, Eph 1:13f, 4:30, 1 Jn 2:20,27, and Rev 7:2ff, 9:4, all of which allude to sealing and/or anointing?

In this respect, the report lamely has this to say, among its headings:

“This [The Laying on of Hands for Affirmation, Renewal and Reception] is a rite of hand-laying and, optionally, anointing (emphasis added)

“Anointing with oil and the laying on of hands are ancient and significant rites of the church. It is our desire that both be used more widely than they are now, and become seen in a wider sense than just initiation, ordination and healing. More work is required on the question of anointing, and specifically which oil should be used. It is not appropriate that this be chrism (used at baptism) but the oil of healing may be an option, or perhaps a third, more general, oil.”

I’d highlight therefore that “more work” is seriously needed, since the report simply avoids crucial engagement with an entire segment of the Church—that of the Greek East, for whom chrism is not a mere option. True; the revised baptismal liturgy raises the use of oil - “The sign of the cross after baptism may be made with oil”. Hence, it also has the rubric, “marking the forehead with the sign of the cross, preferably using blessed oil”. But such pointers are merely such: preferences or options, and so just “lame” in the end.

All in all, in light of the major schism between East and West - and with nowadays the desire in Roman quarters for the Church to breathe again with both lungs (JP2) - as well as our own Anglican need to remain truly Catholic - something you emphasize strongly too - I sense this delay is most providential. Not only must we examine the role of schools and the entire dynamic of genuine “formation”, but we must also address what the fulness of Christian Initiation really entails. For how can we dismiss that singular movement of the Holy Spirit of the 20th C, first in the rise of the Pentecostal Churches and then from the 1960s in the Charismatic Renewal?! Ask any missiologist (or those western Christians engaged in the Majority World) and they will report the truly ongoing significance of this movement. Tinkering with liturgies seems to be the last vestige of western decline (you do well to tag the Guardian article), while the reality is erupting elsewhere!

Andrew Reid said...

Hi Peter,

Just to give a broader catholic perspective, I might remind you that our Orthodox brothers and sisters do not require a separate confirmation rite (to be completely accurate, it is performed directly after baptism). So, there is a variety of practice, even within the non-Protestant churches.

Like you, I think that some form of public declaration of Christian faith is
helpful for those baptised as infants. I'm not convinced that having the Bishop lay on hands is necessary, nor that the inference that the Holy Spirit comes on the confirmee at this point is helpful either.

Another point where we get into trouble is when those baptised as adults are required to be confirmed. I have seen frankly ridiculous situations where someone wishing to be a vestry member, ordained minister or a similar leadership position has to be confirmed after being baptised as an adult. This basically tells them, "Your own promises at your adult baptism aren't sufficient, you need to confirm them."

I agree this whole area could do with some theological clarity and if ACANZP could help us on the way, it would be very helpful.

Andrew

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Andrew
Yes, that is Orthodox practice, but that does not demur from the broad catholicity of "baptism and confirmation" being a both/and, whatever the separation between them chronologically.
I would be quite happy with adults who are baptised being confirmed at the same time (as Roman Catholics do) and for that confirmation to be via a priest/presbyter rather than a bishop (as Roman Catholics do).
I certainly think we Anglicans are in a nonsensical position when we accept (say) an adult baptised Baptist into our church, discern for ordination and then require Confirmation as a form of extra hoop to go through.
One positive feature of the change proposed at our GS was a liturgically explicit possibility for the proposed "Affirmation" to be connected to formal reception into the Anglican church. Again, I see possibilities for Confirmation to be a formal means of receiving (say, as above) an adult baptised Baptist into the Anglican church.If then discerned for ordination there is then no sense of Confirmation being an extra hoop to go through.

Brian Dawson said...

Hi Peter,

There is much I could say given I was one of the prime architects of the proposed revision. I would briefly note to Bryden that the brief paper provided (and some wanted even briefer) does point to other sources, including my own thesis and other work on the subject which certainly covers off the likes of Geoffrey Lampe.
Two other points I would make:
1) Yes, lots of denominations have something called 'confirmation' - and very few of them bear much resemblance to each other. A BIG part of the problem is the same name is used to cover a multitude of different practices and understandings.
2) You along with many others talk about the great value of having an opportunity to confirm / affirm your faith in such a setting. The proposed replacement liturgy provided precisely that, in a much more lucid way than the current confirmation liturgy (in which it should be noted it is God who is meant to be doing the confirming, not the candidate). Looking over your argument I am quite convinced what you want is what we are offering, not what is currently provided via confirmation.
As I have said elsewhere, there is no conspiracy here. I have spent more than two decades listening to what people are looking for from confirmation, and for the most part we have been trying to force a round peg into a square hole. What we have offered is simply a round hole.
My hope is that over the next two years there will be some genuine engagement with the questions raised here, rather than just appeals to 'tradition' followed by arguments that don't actually support it. Of course we could just ignore it, pass yet another somewhat meaningless motion calling on us to pay more attention to formation and confirmation (because of course only confirmation offers the opportunity for formation) followed by no actions whatsoever. We've done that for 30 years and seen a 90+% drop in the number of confirmations (in tikanga pakeha) over that time. I would prefer a more radical response.
Brian Dawson

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Brian
I agree with you that what has been proposed offers some improvements on what we do have, but I take issue with the change of name from "Confirmation" to "Affirmation" because - no matter how many differing varieties of "confirmation" there are - I see virtue in using a title for the "thing" which is recognisable across the global churches.

Something more radical?
- see my comment above to Andrew Reid: I would like to see the possibility that confirmation is not the sole prerogative of the bishop (that would be quite a change for us Anglicans!); but I would go further: I think there is virtue in holding back on children receiving communion and making the "first communion" a significant occasion in the life of the child and of the church. (I think one can do this without diminishing baptism = full initiation). Now, that would be a radical step for NZ Anglicans to (re)take. We could even associate Confirmation with that step, or not - something to discuss. Final radical notion: I would like to see Confirmation as mandatory for being able to take office in the church (Vestry, Licensed Lay Ministry, etc): without such a step we will continue to get people holding office who have not really fronted up to what it means to be an Anglican kind of Christian.
So, yes, would look forward in the next two years to some engagement with what has been and is to be proposed!

Bryden Black said...

Thanks Peter & Andrew for your contributions so far. Apart from my more provocative promptings, what might you make of these questions?

1. What is chrism? And what if any might be its role in initiation rites?
2. What do you consider to be the substantive differences between Eastern and Western initiation rites?
3. Initiation in the Book of Acts seems to take a threefold form: repent + be baptized + reception of the promised Gift of the Holy Spirit (ala the formal summation of 2:38-9). Nor is the order in which these occur seemingly important in those stories of various conversions told by Luke. Curiously, these three seem to be able to be aligned with three subsequent Christian traditions, each seeking to put their own centre of gravity upon a single feature (to the detriment of the other two??) = Evangelicals, Sacramentalists, Pentecostals. A conjecture - albeit useful.
4. A compilation of the texts in the Gospels, the Acts, and Epistles may be constructed to establish the following overall picture: Jesus baptizes x,y,z with/in (en) the Holy Spirit into (eis) His Body/His Person - and so into his mission, and notably its climax of death, burial, resurrection, and ascension - and gives to drink one Spirit. (Cf. too the OT picture presented in 1 Cor 10:1-5) What therefore of the relationship between elements: Water + Spirit/Spirit + Water???
5. Nowhere in the entire NT does it declare that the rite itself is regenerative and/or conveys itself the Holy Spirit. Rather, the NT establishes the complex interaction among: converts who “repent and believe”; those other humans who are Christians who perform a rite (with water - and possibly oil; we’ll come to this); and God - specifically, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, who together are the Father’s twin emissaries [one might anticipate Irenaeus’s “two hands” here perhaps]. Thereafter, Christians are exhorted to walk in the Spirit, to become in the Spirit who they are in Christ Jesus, as the Fathers wld later summarise (to put off, put on, etc, ala the NT Catechetical form, surfacing in many of the Epistles).
6. Where the language of “sealing” and/or “anointing”is employed (2 Cor 1:21f, Eph 1:13f, 4:30, 1 Jn 2:20,27, and Rev 7:2ff, 9:4), it seems to suggest ownership, and such ownership furthermore in an eschatological context (so again 2 Cor 5:5, the final text), so that both parties - God and Christians - are covenantally implicated. I gather even that arrabōn (deposit or guarantee) may be used in contemporary Greek for an engagement ring. And so, is the language “metaphorical”? And if so, of what/how so exactly?
7. True; oil is additionally taken up in a healing context, as per the practice of the day (Lk 10:34, Jas 5:14). For it too symbolizes clearly the activity generally of the Holy Spirit in both OT & NT - so that specific contexts become vital (e.g. priestly assignation, injury).

QED: what to conclude from all this? I have my own ideas as we interact with the history of various Church practices and traditions down the centuries. The problem for me is that our own church, in its present Report and liturgical proposals, is just not robust enough nor bold enough. In fact, as I concluded, it’s merely tinkering ... For it fails to drill down to bed-rock; and so perhaps suffers the consequences (Matt 7:24ff).

How to access the thesis Brian; thanks!

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Bryden
I am not going to answer your questions directly - I don't have the time or the knowledge.
But I would like to make these observations:
- in our human practices of baptism, chrism, laying on of hands, recalling with words the role of water in the history of the people of God and invoking through words the life-giving and life-changing work of the Spirit of Jesus our Saviour and Lord, all in the name of the God we know as Father Son and Holy Spirit, we are attempting to give outward, physical, date-stamped recognition and expression of the inward, spiritual and continuing "process" (rather specific-date-in-a-calendar) of God's work on, in, around, before and ahead of us as his children.
- I suspect it matters little to God when Confirmation occurs (at baptism, so the East, separated from infant baptism, so the West, with adult Baptism, so Rome, but no always Canterbury, etc) but it matters enormously that God gives us the Spirit and that we have assurance of receipt thereof! Ditto, where Confirmation expresses our commitment to serve God: it matters not when that service begins, but it matters to us that we are publicly recognised and affirmed (!) in that service.
Etc/

Father Ron Smith said...

And there is that other 'problem', Bryden, that "the Spirit blows where it wills" - not necessarily, even, through the agency of the Church. There is even scriptural reference that the Spirit was given to some people in a way that led an Apostle to say" Why should we withhold Baptism from these people". All very sobering, really. What really matters is that hearts should be encouraged to be open to the God who redeems. The charismatic movement did not provide all the answers, but it gave some of us a better understanding of the 'ways in which God's mercy works'. "Not by might, not by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord".

Brian Dawson said...

Hi Peter,
Before I respond to your points, a quick word about Eastern orthodox practice and anointing. Firstly, let's note that confirmation is a Western phenomenon and the Orthodox would not describe anything in their initiation rite as such. Secondly, anointing / chrism is associated with baptism, not confirmation. Laying on of hands is the traditional action for confirmation. The use of oil is a very recent addition and just adds to the baptism/confirmation confusion.
Now, to your points. The problem with using a well known title is everyone thinks they know what it means when actually everyone is doing something different! Having studied confirmation for 25 years I have more than a little skin in the game, but I have become convinced that the amount of baggage it carries - largely because people keep using the title but doing what they want - makes it beyond much redemption.
I agree completely with removing the episcopal monopoly on whatever takes its place. Suffice it to say the proposed liturgy being an episcopal service is for reasons of expediency.
I have never liked the idea of separating communion and baptism - certainly if tradition is your thing, there is much more tradition involved in children receiving communion than not. I want to see communion being given from the point of baptism (actually to be honest I believe in an open table, but that's another subject :)), which doesn't mean we can't do some educational stuff later. To delay communion is akin to not letting your children eat until they learn table manners!
Your final point betrays another issue with confirmation. At no point in history has confirmation been about learning about or committing to a specific denomination. To argue for confirmation for office holders (would that make it a political rite?) on the basis of education about Anglicanism flouts every traditional aspect of the rite.
Finally, the major point that people keep missing is confirmation is unrepeatable (despite bishops using reaffirmation as a liturgical panadol that can be doled out without much thought or reason). However the kind of opportunity for claiming faith (especially with young people) that keeps being used as an argument for confirmation actually betrays the need for something repeatable. That's what we have tried to offer.
Bryden, my thesis can be found in the Otago Uni online collection, or email me and I can send a copy vicar@stpetersonwillis.org.nz
Cheers, Brian

Bryden Black said...

Thanks Brian for both options. I shall dig around and if failing, will get back to you if I may. Re your responses to Peter.

Taking the proposed draft rite as a start, in order to interact with something specific and available to all, I personally would like to see however:

1. A renewal of baptismal vows clearly associated with the annual celebration of the triduum. If our emphasis is going to be liturgical, then at least let us drill down to what is both traditional and what works well. For a simple, single reference that would assist us (apart from my days attached to the Province of Central Africa where we did this), I’d offer James Farwell’s This is the Night: Suffering, Salvation, and the Liturgies of Holy Week (T&T Clark, 2005).
2. I agree wholeheartedly that baptism and admittance to Holy Communion go hand-in-hand. The one initiates while the other maintains or renews (the Johannine menein from Jn 6:56 comes to mind, and which is used in the Prayer of Humble Access - even if it is lessened in its impact by other, parallel views). And so what is needed is a fuller appreciation of What HC is/does and How it renews, and notably in covenantal terms. I am far from convinced that Peter’s basically Augustinian responses (May 31, 2016 at 2:17 PM) are actually the most helpful, and are in fact a real part of the overall problem we face. See chapter 8 of my The Lion, the Dove, & the Lamb.
These two points together would address most of what this newly created liturgy (LHARR) is seeking, and therefore obviate its need.
3. This leaves only the matter of Admission or Reception, which in all likelihood does not need all the foregoing of the first half of the proposed draft. It may be greatly simplified ...

Well; there’s my tuppence worth - agreeing with the nature of the issue re ‘confirmation’ mostly, but approaching it from a radically different angle and so solution.

Bryden Black said...

Brian; I have it; many thanks.

Jean said...

Hi All

I am commenting in part ignorance as I have not read the new proposed liturgy.

Purely from personal experience. I chose not to be confirmed when I was younger as I felt I couldn't make that committment so I did so as an adult. When I did I was not affirming the vows made for me at Baptism I was confirming my belief in Jesus in a public setting. After this came a definite turning point in regards to an increase in the knowledge and workings of the Holy Spirit in my life.

The people I know of whom I consider to possess a genuine faith (admitting my own bias) have had experience of the holy spirit and possessed a desire to learn from the word of God. For some first came the experience of the Holy Spirit, for others first biblical understanding but ultimately both with Baptism or Baptism/Confirmation at somepoint in their journey. Re: "worship in Spirit and in Truth".

Peter re licensed lay people or vestry members being required to be confirmed. I agree to the essence of what you are wanting, the acknowledgement of people in these roles as having a committed faith, however I am not sure if confirmation will confirm that. Some of the most committed christian's I have encountered who were baptised as adults haven't ever been confirmed. I also have to agree with a previous comment that although I was confirmed in an Anglican Church it was never in my mind that it was to the denomination I was committing only to following Jesus.

Whatever the outcome I believe an opportunity for a public declaration of faith for those Baptised as children has a place.

Cheers
Jean



Jean said...

Oh and re the first part of this - women Deacon's in the Cathollic Church.

It reminded me of the Nun from the NZ documentary/movie Gardening with Soul when she commented on her position as a Nun re the rule of the Priests, that to be given a position of responsibility without the authority to act was detrimental. She was talking specifically about sexual abuse within the church and having the responsibility of protecting children (she worked caring for children) but not having the authority to act or be heard within her church if something was amiss. It is another angle - the aligning of responsibility and authority.

Peter Carrell said...

Hello Jean, Bryden and Brian
You are giving me pause for thought.
I may need to revise my thinking (though I am not going to give way on retaining "Confirmation" rather than "Affirmation").
I am somewhat flattered to be called an Augustinian, Bryden :)
I do like the proposal before ACANZP when it clearly offers a rite for reception into the Anglican church.
At its heart, Confirmation must be about God's action in and upon us, and any "political" considerations re church order should be secondary.
But I still see - accepting various arguments made here as having force and logic - the key role of Confirmation being the rite at which I the previously baptised confirm what my faith is, that is chosen by and not merely inherited from my parents and godparents.
This is not the only way I can confirm that faith (I could get a soapbox and preach on a street corner) but if I ask "the church" what provision it makes for me - a shy person and not keen on soapboxes - to publicly profess my commitment to Christ, the (episcopal, paedo-baptist) church's traditional answer is "Confirmation" and nothing written here persuades me that that answer should not continue to be handed on down the generations.

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter, I have been distracted from potential RC women deacons by Cardinal Sarah and Archbishop Gänswein. Cardinal Sarah (my pick for the next pope and definitely papabile) has given an ad orientem nod to traditionalists. Archbishop Gänswein has come up with a truly novel view of the papacy, where both of his current bosses get a look in; Benedict in a contemplative role. Benedict seems to be Simon leaving Francis to play Peter. As for your confirmation service, we confirm as part of a year long sacramental programme in years 5 or 6. We introduce children to reconciliation, confirmation and eucharist. The earlier the better. We used to leave confirmation until later.


Nick

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Nick
What a boost for women in the priesthood if the next Pope was called Sarah!
The traditionalists of a certain kind will be pleased about the ad orientam nod, though other traditionalists, such as myself, are still searching, like the Holy Grail, I suppose, for Jesus' own position at the table on the night before he died. Initial research suggests he anticipated Vatican 2 :)
Yes, even in the RC church, confirmation has bobbed around like a cork in the chronological ocean, but, I wonder, in Kiwiland, at least, is First Communion of greater importance in the mind of Catholic families than Confirmation? (It certainly seemed that way at a recent First Communion I attended ...)
P

Jean said...

Hi Peter

Yes I agree confirmation for me was about owning my own faith professed on my behalf by others at Baptism. When I mentioned I was not affirming my Baptism I meant I was not merely affirming the words of others (yes, you know it's what they said), I was confirming these words or this committment as my own. Hence, I too see the relevance in retaining the name confirmation. I know at the time other young people got confirmed when I didn't they did so really because it was the thing to be done tradition, family and all that. I also know very few of them still go to church.

While I remain conflicted re at what age Baptism is ideally performed (e.g. I see cases for infant and adult); I acknowledge being Baptised as an infant in some way I can not explain gives God a foothold into your life. Why as a child when teaching in a direct manner about salvation was not the way of the time at my church, and having never owned a bible, did I inherently know that when I prayed to God it went through Jesus?

Re Nick's comment re Confirmation in the Catholic church. I have known children of friends who have gone through the education surrounding admittance to communion/confirmation in the Catholic Church and it is somwhat more comprehensive than appears to be available in the Anglican arena.

Have a warm day!

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter,

I agree; first communion is the service that everyone wants to go to. In my diocese it comes last in the sacramental year of preparation. You'll know already that there are usually special clothes and at least a wider family lunch in most cases. In terms of confirmation, it is taken seriously. You are right that a bishop does not have to confirm, but he usually does in my neck of the woods. Bishops always pull in the crowd, but I agree that first communion with the parish priest is viewed as more important by families.

When you find out which way the Lord was facing at the last supper, would you tell me!

Nick

Brian Dawson said...

In response to Bryden, yes and yes!I agree with your points. However the Affirmation offered as an alternative to confirmation comes out of listening carefully to what is actually being asked for and done. There is a genuine desire out there for a significant, celebratory, liturgical opportunity for people to declare their faith, to commit to the way of Christ, and to own their place and ministries within the Body. Currently that is sometimes done using a confirmation rite that was never designed or intended to provide that opportunity. Far from respecting or preserving confirmation, this abuse of an ancient rite actually twists and subverts it. The Affirmation liturgy offered attempts to provide a liturgical opportunity that fits the stated demands. There is theology behind it, yes, but also a fair dollop of pragmatism.
So why this emotional response to the perceived loss of a name?

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Nick
These exciting first results of research into the direction Jesus faced at the Last Supper reveal that:
- he never turned his back on the disciples;
- once or twice during the meal, he did turn and look a disciple in the eye
- Yes, Judas, I am talking about you :)

Bryden Black said...

Many thanks Brain for this important context to your Liturgy and Rationale and so the Motion before GS. A great help to have the Why as well as the What. But is also helps me to sharpen my own line of argument, even making me sum up: why reinvent the wheel?! I cite the essence as I see it:

“There is a genuine desire out there for a significant, celebratory, liturgical opportunity for people to declare their faith, to commit to the way of Christ, and to own their place and ministries within the Body. [Currently that is sometimes done using a confirmation rite that was never designed or intended to provide that opportunity. Far from respecting or preserving confirmation, this abuse of an ancient rite actually twists and subverts it - my brackets]. The Affirmation liturgy offered attempts to provide a liturgical opportunity that fits the stated demands. There is theology behind it, yes, but also a fair dollop of pragmatism.”

I claim the wheel’s being reinvented because the Church’s tradition already has a well established piece of liturgy that fulfills these “stated demands”. It’s called the renewal of baptismal vows. Though of course, it’s not that well established any more; and our collective loss of memory is the reason (I venture) for this seeming “desire”. In addition, paradoxically, due to that Augustinian synthesis etc (all of which I canvass in my ch.8, as already posted) re the sacramental universe, and which the CoE simply took over along with many other Reformation divines [just so, the catechism’s trad definition of a sacrament!], we’ve lost the key connection between liturgical initiation and ongoing continuation demonstrated precisely in the Holy Week liturgies - and indeed during every Sunday Eucharist! For, lastly, the entire catechumenal process (which saw something of a revival during the last two decades of the last century, and of which confirmation prep might be viewed as a rump vestige) insists upon our bodily incorporation into these dramatic events of our Lord’s life so that we become caught up into Him! I.e. “Formation” is not the passing on of mere ‘information’; it is genuine transformation into the Image of Christ - what the mediaevals termed “manuduction”, his leading us by the hand along his Way, the via salus, the Way of Salvation. And so, theologia is not mere rationalization of our actions or whatever, but is itself genuinely performative.

But alas even here too we are starting from the wrong end. Tinkering with liturgies and their processes will not in and of themselves address our woes, or our desires and/or demands. Such ‘forms of godliness’ without the explicit and direct invocation of the Holy Spirit and all that this implies and assumes [here Rosemary is onto something vital on that other thread] are but the cart before the horse once more ... At least, that’s my suggestion, my claim ...!

Jean said...

Okay I am in need of a bit of education. What was the confirmation 'rite' actually initially intended for or to do? I remember declaring my intentions regarding what I believe as responses to questions asked similar to those in a Baptism service and then receiving the laying on of hands.

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter, canon 882 of the code of canon law provides that the bishop is the ordinary minister of confirmation, though a presbyter with a faculty or through special grant of competent authority is able to confer the sacrament. That's a bit more strict than I remembered, though I have certainly attended a confirmation service where the minister was a presbyter. It looks as though the Bishop is still the appropriate first call for the job.
We have the option of confirmation names, which are an interesting addition. The children choose a saint who inspires them. I don't know whether Anglo-Catholics do that.

Nick

Anonymous said...

A dozen hypotheses on confirmation (aka chrismation) in the East and the premodern West--

(1) Baptism, confirmation, and communion are an integrated sequence of initiation not separated anywhere in the patristic age. In the East, the whole sequence is still administered all at once whether the neophyte is a baby, child, or adult.

(2) At each step, God is the agent, the neophyte, the patient.

(3) Confirmation invites the Holy Spirit to enliven the virtues of the confirmand into spiritual gifts useful to the Body and the world. (Romans 8:9-11 and 2 Peter 1 are worth reading closely. St Thomas Aquinas's discussion of Isaiah 11:2 throughout Summa Theologiae II, 2 somewhat clarifies the traditional distinction between a virtue and a spiritual gift.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_gifts_of_the_Holy_Spirit

(4) In our present theological climate, if the Church had never had a rite invoking the Holy Spirit to strengthen virtues and bestow spiritual gifts on each of her members, she would be trying to invent it.

(5) The means are always supplied by a bishop, either chrism blessed by a patriarch (East) or the hands of a local bishop (West).

(6) In the premodern West confirmation and communion were separated from baptism, not intentionally to make a rite of passage, but accidentally because bishops seldom visited parishes.

(7) In its use of Isaiah 11:2, the received BCP rite recalls the original integrity of (1), improving the decadent practise but not restoring confirmation to its patristic integrity.

(8) The Anglican focus on the two dominical sacraments has caused some to minimise confirmation and other rites for want of a framework in which to understand them.

(9a) Reinterpretation of confirmation as a rite of passage in which the confirmand is the agent affirming his faith and God is the patient passively witnessing this affirmation is a further descent into confusion.

(9b) In some C19 Anglican piety, confirmation was delayed well into the confirmand's adulthood (eg General Robert E Lee, confirmed at about 30) in a way reminiscent of baptism in the ancient world.

(10) Although not confirmation, some pastoral rite enabling a person to confess faith in Christ may be useful in a pluralistic society, and could facilitate clarification of what confirmation actually is and does.

(11) By the end of the century, churches that are *orthodox* (by Malcolm's helpful definition) will have gradually reaffirmed their shared confidence in the *paleoorthodoxy* of the first millennium (Those acquainted with Protestantism only in its more Calvinist varieties may be startled by a comparison of St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia. q.1, art.8 and Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, 1:223-314, esp 1:272-314).

(12) Such churches will have gradually restored the integrity of Christian initiation described in (1). In so doing, they may well have adopted paedocommunion, substituted chrism for hands, and begun to observe a local celebration of *affirmation* like that being proposed by Brian.

Bowman Walton

Father Ron Smith said...

Regarding Nick's input (from a Roman Catholic point of view), I remember being in Cadiz, Spain, in 1961, where we witnessed a great crowd of children and parents coming away from a 'First Communion' service. It was obviously an occasion of some importance - certainly for the children, most of whom were dressed in costumes - from nuns habits to ceremonial dress. One wonders whether, for the children at least, this was seen to be a more important occasion that Confirmation - taking into account the period, just before Vatican II. But then, 'Semana Santa' (Holy Week) in Seville was also a time of great ecclesiastical pageantry. Perhaps these outward signs of vigour in the Spanish Church no longer reflect the religious piety of Spanish Catholics.

Brian Dawson said...

Interesting comments indeed. Jean, your question isn't as easily answered as some would like to make it. 'Confirmation' has been, and continues to be, many things in many contexts. Part of the problem is lots of people use the word to describe a plethora of different, and sometimes mutually exclusive, things.
For Anglicans confirmation was drawn from two very different sources; firstly, the medieval rite heavily influenced by Aquinas and others, which was strongly associated with the gifts of the Spirit, but mostly about a 'strengthening' for the 'fight' of Christian living. Much of this was based on dubious source material and has little relationship to earlier understandings of confirmation which were essentially pragmatic and a 'finishing off' of baptism (although this was NEVER a universal practice, even in the West). Secondly Cranmer drew heavily on the work of the Continental Reformers who rejected any sacramental status for confirmation (and many rejected the rite altogether, but not all) and any attempt to undermine the efficacy of baptism. In those contexts (heavily influenced I believe by the Jednota Bratska of 13-14 century Bohemia) confirmation was a rite of formation and education, signalling the point where a person could claim both their faith and the doctrines of that faith as their own. The traditional Anglican requirements for education leading up to confirmation reflect that Reformed approach, while many of the liturgical elements reflect the medieval one. Thus, for Anglicans at least, confirmation has been about having a bob each way!
All that said, and largely because of the inherent confusion in what Cranmer was trying to do, what confirmation has actually been used for has varied wildly across Anglicanism. It's role as the Gateway to Communion offered a somewhat universal overlay for a long time, but once that was challenged things got really interesting, and often messy.
Brian

Anonymous said...

Fr Ron, I think you are right; for many Catholics (whether parents or children) first eucharist is the most important sacrament. Since we both believe in the holy sacrifice of the mass, you will of course know why.

Nick

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Bowman
Thank you for your helpful classifications of the various theses going on re confirmation.
When you write,
" In our present theological climate, if the Church had never had a rite invoking the Holy Spirit to strengthen virtues and bestow spiritual gifts on each of her members, she would be trying to invent it. "
one thought I have is whether we would be inventing a singular rite (once in a lifetime) or a plural rite (in the ebbs and flows of life, many strengthenings are needed, and a plural (i.e. multiple, as many time as needed) rite would make these strengthenings possible).

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Brian
Two reflections after your latest comment. I do not guarantee that the two reflections are non-contradictory!
First, maybe there is an emerging argument here to abolish confirmation altogether (i.e. no transmutation into "Affirmation" as proposed here in ACANZP), i.e. end the messiness, confusion and lack of clarity about "why" and "what" of Confirmation; while retaining the possibility of repeated occasions on which Christians may formally renew their baptismal vows and (I would like) a formal means of reception into the Anglican church.
Second, picking up on Cranmer's keenness re education, I like the idea that Confirmation might be (might include) a recognition of a Christian disciple formally engaging in learning about what baptism and discipleship means, with Anglican confirmation also coming after learning about what it means to be Anglican (ditto Roman confirmation ... means to be Roman, Presbyterian ...). I then see no intrinsic problem with this being accompanied by the laying on of hands (by bishop or in some circumstances, priest) praying for the Holy Spirit to refill/strengthen/anoint the confirmee (not, of course, as a sign that the Spirit has not previously be present) but as a sign that the Spirit is at work, exemplified by the desire to learn more deeply of the faith and as a prayer that the Spirit's work may continue strongly. Confirmation on such an understanding would be coherent with Jesus' bestowing the Spirit in John 20: after learning from the Word, the Spirit comes to empower their mission as disciples.

Jean said...

Hi Bowman and Brian

Thanks to both of you for explaining the origins of confirmation, it helps in gaining an understanding of its current usage and future implications.

Brain it does not surprise me that the Anglican's decided to put a bob each way; so long as we retain a sense of humour 😏!.

As I integrate it all within the context of my own experience and scripture my observations are thus. Scripturally Baptism by water is a significant initiation into the Christian faith (believe, repent, be Baptised). Subsequently the laying on of hands or annointing are both used in various contexts - including bestowing spiritual gifts (Thomas) or recognising a particular calling (I have annointed you to...) at different times, for differrent people at different ages.

So - I think the need/desire to own and declare ones faith relates more to batism but has been incorporated into Confirmation in the present age, and is seen that way by some of us who have undertaken it simply because we cannot be baptised again. Although I had prior experiences of the Holy Spirit before confirmation still this was a turning point in my spiritual walk. Hence, sacramental or not, infant Baptism or not, I hold there is something spiritually significant/powerful in acknowledging/choosing Jesus as an adult.

Regarding the laying on of hands and bestowing spiritual gifts or strengthening virtues I agree with Peter - accepting there is value in invoking the Holy Spirit to work in the life of the person at Baptism - due to my own experience, that this has been a more than one time happening. However, I do not see how it could ever be a rite of itself simply because it is God's gift not mans to bestow leading through the Holy Spirit the person of his choosing (or it may be done by the Holy Spirit alone) to be undertaken at the time of his choosing. Yet we can always ask, as we are instructed seek the spiritual gifts.

I remember one such time with my previous minister at a training session on healing during a prayer time at the end, what he said when he got to me was "I bestow upon you the gifts of..." - it was a very short prayer and later he couldn't even remember. I did because of what was said - f-o-r r-e-a-l? Mouth open. He had moved on but I wanted to grab him back and say, are you sure!!

Regarding who is the agent, in my rather unscholared approach, I would contend it is both whether Baptism or Confirmatioin. For God leads but we must respond to take the step, we accept what he did and God gifts us with salvatioin.

Interesting too is the receiving the Holy Spirit upon Baptism. Obviously the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus at his Baptism, but did he have it before? I know a guy who first experienced the Holy Spirit after asking God to come into his life in private, this led to Baptism.

Gosh always more questions than answers,

Cheers All,
Jean

Bryden Black said...

Combining your last two comments Peter, re plural, multiple strengthenings plus baptismal renewal rites sounds awfully like my own persistent suggestions 😏
Either ala Easter ceremonies or/and Sunday Eucharists. See figure 9, ch.8.

Father Ron Smith said...

" In our present theological climate, if the Church had never had a rite invoking the Holy Spirit to strengthen virtues and bestow spiritual gifts on each of her members, she would be trying to invent it " - Bowman -

Regarding this remark from Bowman, and yours to follow, Peter; I'm surprised that nobody has brought up the supposition made by some of the early charismatics in our Church (I was a member of the St. Paul's Singers in the 1960's) that the phenomenon of being 'Baptized in The Spirit' had more or less toned down the enthusiasm for the Sacrament of Confirmation. This was not the case at St. Paul's, Auckland, which retained its catholic ethos and sacramental ambience, but it was widely held to be a factor in the decrease of candidates for Laying on of hands by the Bishop in Confirmation in other, more Evangelical, Churches.

It was presumed, by the Pentecostal Churches that the laying on of hands by fully-fledged Christians (Baptized in the Spirit) was sufficient to effect the bestowal of 'Gifts of The Spirit' to those receiving this minsistry. One reason for the strong Pentecostal ministry pioneered at St. Paul's was the fact that its Vicar, Father Ken Prebble - hearing of the new movement and seeking further enlightenment - received the laying on of hands from a Baptist Pastor and spoke in tongues. This was the spark that ignited a new flame of spiritual power in the parish, which then became a centre of renewal for many different people of different Church backgrounds and none.
Sadly at the time, it was thought that receiving the 'Gift of tongues' was the only evidence needed that a person was 'fully Christian'. We later came to realise that, for Saint Paul, this was the least of the gifts, and no guarantee of full discipleship.

It was this charismAtic renewal, I believe, that began the focus of a movement in our Church that wondered about the necessity for Confirmation - when 'Gifts of the Spirit' were being bestowed by another means. At Saint Paul's, however, neophyte Christians were still steered towards Confirmation as a unique opportunity for further spiritual regeneration or renewal

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Bryden
Yes, convergence is emergent!
But there is a deeper problem with what we are doing, and not doing.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Ron
A theology of the Spirit must embrace both Confirmation, Baptism in the Spirit, speaking in tongues, revival, renewal and, of course, fruit of the Spirit.
Funnily enough my Confirmation occurred in the same year as my first encounter with the charismatic renewal.

Anonymous said...

So did mine. Pentecostals know things.

Nick

Brian Dawson said...

It warms my heart (shades of my Methodist background there) to see such a long conversation about things so little regarded for so long!
I too would like to see the renewal of baptismal promises (or equivalent) as a regular and important aspect of our liturgical lives. In my own context that is deliberately done at Easter, Pentecost and All Saints. My experience, however, is that people still want a specific "special" ceremony where they can affirm / own their faith in a public setting, and I think that's good, it just doesn't have to be confirmation.
As far as education / formation goes Peter, I would love to see this as a life-long discipline (perhaps with liturgical celebrations at various points) focused on the whole body of believers. We have a terrible track record with regards to Christian education / formation in this country and I for one would be very keen to see that addressed.
Brian

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Brian
A brief response re education:
- life-long learning, YES (says he for whom education is his day job :) );
- but we say that for both secular life as well as church life; and in secular life, "graduation" (ceremony, cap, certificate, chancellor/chair of Board) is a valued "key moment" and I am all for Confirmation being a similar moment in the lives of Christians.

Jean said...

I think a key difficulty with confirmation being the celebration moment of a course of study being the opportunity for confirmation is, and I say this with some chargrin, that some who are in need or may want such education are likely to have already been confirmed. Mind you another option could be offered for people already confirmed.

The most inspiring yet unusual course of training I took at church was organised in-house by a member of the congregation. It wasn't purely academic although I enjoy that sort of learning too. It was based on different topics, preaching, prophesy... It involved both scriptural teaching and practical practice! For example when doing the preaching our pastor taught about teaching and also gave pointers in terms of public speaking.

Our first practice was being given a bible verse and having to stand up and talk for one minute on it - in a group of all married men I got 'A man who finds a wife finds a good thing!'. This section ended with each of us preparing a 10 minute sermon. The idea behind the training was to allow people the opportunity to learn and experience and to discover their strengths in a safe environment getting feedback from others too. I found it invaluable and entertaining.

Jean said...

Hi Brian

It would make more sense to me if the renewal of Baptismal vows was the opportunity to own one's faith as an adult (or after a significant period of being absent from the church) because of the link in scripture between declaration of faith (belief) and baptism, alternatively as Peter prefers the current alternative confirmation could be continued as practiced today. Perhaps the affirmation of faith could be the more frequently offered opportunity at special times - although acknowledging in the AC the creeds often spoken ever Sunday effectively offer this.... we believe in the one holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins and the life everlasting..

I agree re the conversation, examining origins of what we do alongside people's experiences and the needs of our church community - all good!

Blessings
Jean

Anonymous said...

Sadly one of the regular features of confirmation (ecumenically and internationally) has been that it is indeed a "graduation" - from church!
Moments of celebration and acknowledgement are crucial, but they need to be 'fit for purpose'. Confirmation as we currently have it is not suitable for the kind of event being described - square hole, round peg.
Of course making reaffirmation of baptism this celebratory moment would be great, IF people were happy to see it focused locally, IF people were happy to share the spotlight with all, IF people were happy not to have the bishop rock up in her/his finery - not sure you can sell that to the schools any more than other options seem to be!
Brian

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Brian
The past need not be a guide to the future!
My response to your (appropriate) wish for celebratory reaffirmation of baptism is, Why not make Confirmation the first, formal, "big deal", young adult reaffirmation, preceded by basic instruction in the Catechism, Commandments, Communion and Discipleship.
What's not to like? :)

Brian Dawson said...

Because, as I said, confirmation as we currently have it isn't designed for that. If you look at the liturgy, it's a different focus.
Why the attachment to confirmation? Is it purely sentimental? Or is it just because others use the same name (but for very different things)?
What's not to like is that regular commitments to reviving confirmation have not led to revival! We've been down that track numerous times but the punters simply aren't traveling with us. I say try a different road.
Brian

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Brian
Briefly:
- am happy that the present aspects of Confirmation in NZPB remain, but it could be extended/enhanced along the lines I am talking about;
- no, not sentiment, unless that means "attachment to tradition": it is our tradition, our traditional name, and it is shared ecumenically, I have seen no argument substantive enough to warrant detaching the tradition; I see, instead, arguments for reinvigorating the tradition;
- I do not agree that there have been regular commitments to reviving confirmation that have not led to revival: I suggest this present review and reconsideration is the first serious, substantive, ACANZP wide attempt at reconsidering what we are doing, if not reviving it since we have become used to the embedding of, first, baptism as entry to communion, then establishment of NZPB, then our Three Tikanga structure and ethos;
- what I do see is that much about confirmation rests on the commitment of individual bishops and vicars to it, more, perhaps, than whether or not we have a shared, current, updated understanding;
- finally, for now, I understand and recognise your arguments in recent comments as being for "renewal of baptism" and for "deleting confirmation". I do not find myself reading arguments for (the proposed) Affirmation!

Jean said...

Hi Brian

Well we had in January a youth member who having already been baptised but now wanting to choose her faith (her family despite her being baptised are not church going) renewed her baptismal vows along with two other youth candidates who were being baptised. As you indicate the need for flexibility in her case there were no Bishops, it was public, local and the sharing with the other youth I believe actually helped them all. NB: I see a renewal of batismal vows and an affirmation separately is this correct?

In my mind - gosh I am saying that too often - seeing renewing baptism vows, affirming batismal vows or confirmation only in light of young people is missing the big picture of a number of people desiring to undertake a public committment are adults, some who have returned to church, others who were baptised but never raised in a church community. The same goes with basic education. It needs must now span the generations.

Another idea is separating education from committment, mentally anyway. There will be people for whom the desire for committment comes after they have already walked a christian journey, been discipled and received education - 'having' to do a course for them would be inappropriate. However, an available education course operating like a small group applicable to all age groups for those who wish to know or gain a broader understanding of Christianity and church practices with the opportunity to choose to make their own committment at the end.....

If you are talking about Private Anglican Schools Brian, I think 'selling' them any formational/committment programme would be good. Many but not all I have known, have reduced the special character to a token gesture with better educational opportunities forming the main focus.

Brian Dawson said...

Hiu Peter and Jean

Jean, yes! This isn't just about young people and, yes, the requirement for a (sometimes lengthy, sometimes pointless) educational course is not always helpful. The proposed Affirmation liturgy specifically discourages making that mandatory (which is not to say, as I have argued previously, that we shouldn't be working hard on encouraging a life-long commitment to Christian education and formation).
Peter, I believe the liturgy proposed ticks all the boxes of what we're discussing EXCEPT having the traditional name 'confirmation'. But then I would argue that what is commonly being done in the name of confirmation often has very little connection to our tradition, and I would equally argue that our real tradition is that confirmation has been the gateway to communion and we have, thankfully, abandoned that. As for the connection to other denominations, it is often in name only (confirmation) which simply adds to the confusion.
At a three tikanga level, yes, this is the first attempt to really discuss confirmation since the 1970s. But in tikanga pakeha there have been numerous conversations, none of which have really gone anywhere. Indeed, the major response to the Confirmation Project I was part of for TPMC some years ago was that without having a clear understanding what confirmation is or does, we are simply shooting blind and don't know what we're doing. No wonder there is ambivalence from vicars and bishops!
I am currently in great danger of thinking I didn't actually spend 25 years of my life studying something no one cares about! Excellent!!
Brian

Anonymous said...

"...whether we would be inventing a singular rite (once in a lifetime) or a plural rite (i.e. multiple, as many times as needed). In the ebbs and flows of life, many strengthenings are needed, and a plural rite would make these strengthenings possible."

Both will be restored, Peter-- an initiatory and therefore constitutive and unrepeatable Confirmation (or Chrismation), and a situational and therefore provisional and repeated Reconciliation.

Bowman Walton